The Environment, Carrying Capacity and Economic Growth

age extraction and consumption of resources. Such subsidies are used to hide the very signals of scarcity that Arrow et al. wish to identify and amplify. Agricultural subsidies are an obvious example, but perhaps not the most costly. There are countless subsidies to encourage mining of minerals and mining of forests. There are other subsidies to encourage use of the automobile, including road construction and externalized costs due to the destruction of amenities for communities. The foreign policies of all the great powers have been founded upon the perceived necessity of securing access to resources, yet the costs of securing this access are not borne directly by the consumers: instead they are labelled as "national security" costs. The Gulf War was largely fought by the United States and paid for by the countries that consume petroleum, yet there is no "Gulf War" tax on petroleum consumption. Another class of subsidies are those available to the wealthy. The wealthy are subsidized by the tax collection system: a host of special provisions often result in no taxes for the wealthy. As Leona Helmsley said, "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes" (Time, 1989). International armaments is a heavily subsidized industry that makes no contribution to human welfare. Among the biggest traders and subsidizers are the United States, Canada, England, France, and Russia. This industry, with the accompanying destruction of lives and resources, is not affordable. Governments all over the world are in difficulty because of budget deficits. Deficits would disappear if some of these subsidies were eliminated. The problem is not ability to pay, it is not an environmental problem, nor a lack of knowledge, but a political problem. Political institutions can be changed in response to changing circumstances, but our dependence upon the environmental resource base cannot be changed. There is no technological fix that will enable the present pattern of consumption to continue indefinitely: that is the message of Arrow et al. (1995). What can and will be changed is ourselves. How will that change be made? Will it be the result of a conscious choice and a weighing of alternatives, or will it be a result of our inability to adapt?