In the last thirty years of the Holocene humankind has consumed a third of the resources on the planet. In the four first years of the Bush II regime we used 10% of the fossil fuels on the planet. The rate of consumption is enormous, but it is only the application of geometric increase - what a banker would call "compound interest".

Bankers and mortgage lenders sometimes talk of the "Rule of 72": how long does something take to double in size at some rate of interest. At 7% it is approximately 10 years (72/7); at 2% it is a bit over 30 years. If the economy grows at 2%, it doubles in size 30 years.

Leaving aside whether or not growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is always good for people or society, GDP remains the standard measure of economic activity. So and so many trees are turned into so and so many matchsticks. So and so many barrels of petroleum are burned to travel so and so many times back and forth to a job making more and more matchsticks every day. Matchsticks, crops, or munitions - GDP measures economic activity - throughput - no matter whether good or bad.

More sick people using more health care increase GDP. More toxics and construction debris incinerated at MERC/PERC/Old Town increase GDP. Doubly so if resulting long term sicknesses like cancers and asthmas, drive the need for more health care.

Before we invented industrial warfare, before we invented industrialized agriculture, before we had the ability to consume resources on a planetary scale and toxify entire oceans, an increase in GDP might have translated to an improvement in well being. Simon Kuznets, who invented the term "GDP" in 1934 understood the distinction; he noted "the welfare of a nation [can] scarcely be inferred from a measure of national income." Regardless, leaving aside what are the specific activities measured by GDP, whether they are good or bad, GDP remains the well-defined measure of economic activity and system throughput.

More throughput, more throughput at a higher price, more throughput per person increases GDP - our standard measure of economic growth. Politicians and their economist high priests speak of GDP as the measure of societies well being. More is better.

Resources spent on
                   building bombs and dropping them increases GDP.
                 Rebuilding a bombed out factory or school increases GDP.
   Rebombing and rebuilding increases GDP even more.

The Last Thirty Years Of The Holocene

In the last thirty years of the Holocene humankind has consumed a third of the resources on the planet. Every year we use more. Our economic and social culture - our technology - requires growth. To "More" is human. Think about how many times we Mainers hear how at

     1%,
     2% or
     3% Maine's growth lags that of New England.

About how we must catch up! About how we need incentives for business, incentives to develop, incentives to catch up. At

     1%,
     2% or
     3% growth, doubling the size of Maine's economy in
     72,
     36 or
     24 years is not fast enough. At
     1%,
     2% or
     3% growth, we will use another third of planetary resources in less than
     72,
     36 or
     24 years.

No surprise that Thursday night's meeting of the Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation Committee (PACTS) was so well attended by the membership of Portland's League of Young Voters.

  1% growth - 72 years
  2% growth - 36 years
  3% growth - 24 years

The observation I made that night at PACTS was that every scenario under consideration in their regional plan assumes continued growth. They admit there are insufficient resources to maintain what we have now but they focus on growth. What are they thinking

    to add a lane to RT 295 through Portland
    to add new interchanges to the Maine Turnpike
        1 in Saco
        2 in Biddeford
    to complete Phase I and
                Phase II of the Gorham Connector
    to start - like the Gorham Connector -
        Sanford
        Sebago
        Points West

What are they thinking when they think of growth?

Not of shrinking our capital infrastructure to what we can manage. Not of an arctic ice free perhaps in 2010 - before the next round of capital funding for which PACTS plans. Not of the end of the Holocene and the start of the Anthrocen e- the new geological epoch shaped by the activities of mankind.

The Last Thirty Years Of The Holocene

We Anthros don't have the resources.

We Anthros don't have the resources to maintain the infrastructure we have now.

How can we Anthros think of building more?

No matter there may be a gazillion trillion dollars floating around in our information economy, those virtual trillions marshal only a finite pool of physical resources.

No matter the convergence of information war, network-centric war, Command Control Communication (C3) and the Revolution in Military Affairs, the United States paved the road to Baghdad with overwhelming physical resources - hard steel, munitions and fuel.

We cannot rebuild the Veteran's Bridge with information and fiber optic Internet services. [While many trips over the Veteran's Bridge can be replaced with fiber optics, we still cannot transmit a fish.] To build the Veteran's Bridge we consume sand, steel, Portland cement and epoxy - a chunk of high-quality, physical resources. To maintain the Veteran's Bridge we consume more sand, steel, Portland cement and epoxy.

An engineer or scientist might see our economy as a vast engine consuming ordered natural resources: King's Pines, codfish shoals and barrels of petroleum. It produces waste: carbon dioxide to dissolve spiny sea creatures, plastic shopping bags, burnt PCBs and dioxins. The bigger the engine - the bigger the GDP - the more and louder the politicians and developers cheer. The more and faster we chew up the natural resources - our green forests, silver fish and clear blue water - the more and faster we melt the Arctic ice and toxify our soils, water and bodies - the more and louder the politicians and developers cheer.

How do the PACTS planners think about growth, I asked and they did not answer. How do they think about growth when the summer arctic will be ice free by 2010. How do they think about growth when we've used a third of the planet's resources in the last thirty years?

Why isn't the removal of 295 through Portland on the list of options?