PLANETARY BOUNDARIES: Can planetary boundaries help humanity manage its environmental impacts?
Image: Courtesy of NASA
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Is preserving the general environmental conditions that allowed civilization to flourish—a moderate climate, a rich array of species, rivers that reach the sea—necessary to ensure humanity endures? Or is minimizing alterations to the global environment introduced by human activity—rising levels of CO2 from fossil-fuel burning, widespread extinction, dams that impound water—more important to our success? Choosing the right approach is vital as the scale of human impact on the planet becomes so large that scientists are calling this new epoch in Earth's history the Anthropocene (when human activity alters global climate and ecosystems).
One bid for preservation initiated in 2009 by 29 scientists from around the world focused on the concept of planetary boundaries. They identified 10 environmental limits we might not want to transgress in the Anthropocene: aerosol pollution; biodiversity loss; chemical pollution; climate change; freshwater use; changes in land use (forests to fields, for example); nitrogen and phosphorus cycles; ocean acidity; and the ozone hole. That meme has now spread to the United Nations, and is driving ongoing global talks to address environmental problems, including the much-anticipated Rio+20 summit meeting that begins next week in Rio de Janeiro.
But a new analysis from environmental policy think tank the Breakthrough Institute released June 12 argues that such a focus on environmental restoration is actually counterproductive when it comes to overall human welfare. "The planetary boundaries framework is not a useful guide for policy or environmental management in any concrete sense, as it does not capture the challenges involved in most of the environmental problems it lists," argues geographer Linus Blomqvist, policy associate at the institute's Conservation Program and co-author of the review. "They should be discarded."
Specifically, Blomqvist and his colleagues argue that six of the 10 boundaries—land use, biodiversity, nitrogen cycle, freshwater use, aerosol and chemical pollution—do not have a hard limit at planet-scale physical thresholds that, if transgressed, would tip them into functioning differently. For example, managing a given watershed may make more sense than managing the amount of global freshwater consumption to stay below an arbitrary, sustainable "limit" of 4,000 cubic kilometers per year.
Further, breaking any of these boundaries might not have any negative impact on humanity. Indeed, cutting back on, say, nitrogen fertilizer could significantly set back human welfare given that more than half of the people on the planet are fed by food grown with synthetic fertilizer. A pristine rainforest, after all, provides less direct benefit to humanity than additional food production. Instead, society should focus on environmental trade-offs, the review argues. "The real limitations for sustainability are rather our ability to grow enough food, maintain a healthy climate and so on," Blomqvist says, although the analysis fails to offer its own limits or policy suggestions other than focusing more on climate change.
Reducing the emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming makes the most sense in the context of planetary boundaries, and many of the other thresholds collapse into it, Blomqvist and his colleagues note. That makes climate change the defining boundary of the Anthropocene. "Arguably, the single most important measure to ensure climate stability is reform of our energy and transport systems," Blomqvist says. "There is every reason to regard the Holocene climate as desirable." (The Holocene epoch extends from about 12,000 years ago to the present.)
See what we're tweeting about
31 Comments
Add CommentYes, Mr Dwyer, great idea. Might I suggest that you go first? Perhaps WE could start the first great self- imposed human extinction with those collectivists who begin and end their ideas with "WE". As in "WE need to put an end to the internal combustion engine", or: "WE need to distribute the wealth more evenly",or "WE need to force more people into electric cars" or, as above: WE Should reduce the human population to one billion people".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho's WE? and why do YOU get to determine who WE is?
As to the article; As messy as it looks in its nascent forms, the truth is that free market Capitalism works, and is working. As annual per capita income rises to the level of around 5 to 10 thousand dollars, all kinds of amazing things start to happen; life expectancy rises longevity increases and the birth rate drops to or below replacement levels.
People have more leisure time and begin to take better care of their health and their environment. As an exmple, American prosperity has produced one of the cleanest countries in the world, with more environmental laws and regulations thatn any two other countries on the planet.
World population is expected to level off at around nine billion people by 2050, and by then, most of the environmental chicken littles will have been proved wrong. If individual states will only eschew the moribund notions of one world government, and endeavor to protect the God-given rights of its peoples, statism and collectivism will go the way of the DODO.
It is, admittedly, a big ugly meatgrinder of an economic system and will never be without its problems, but, to paraphrase some really smart guy, "All the others are so much worse". The much greater threat comes from that relatively small group of do-gooders who think that they "know what's best for us".
Couldn't of said it better.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCapitalism is great, except for when it ain't. Those environmental laws and regulations that make this a clean place (compared to 40 years ago when rivers would occasionally catch on fire) ... those are collectivist-- not free market mechanisms. That's 'we' saying 'you' can't just dump whatever you want wherever you want. The free market gives us superfund sites... collectivism pays to clean them up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we can get the first billion to volunteer, I'll join. But that's realtively easy for me, since I've lived a fairly long life, have faced death before and will likely die a difficult death soon enough.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy point, of course, is that the 7-fold human population increase over the past ~200 years IS the problem. That we can project another 2 billion increase in population by 2050 means that we may have 9 billion dancers on the bridge. Changing their dance style will not likely change the result...
"six of the 10 boundaries—land use, biodiversity, nitrogen cycle, freshwater use, aerosol and chemical pollution—do not have a hard limit at planet-scale...... breaking any of these boundaries might not have any negative impact on humanity." How is it possible to have such dangerous and ridiculous ideas? I guess these are sponsored by people/companies who have some sort of predator minds, they think themselves and their children smart enough to avoid the troubles, they will always have enough power/money to clean their water, food, air etc. And even better the others rich enough people will pay for that straight into their $$$$$$$$$$$$ pockets $$$$$$$$$$$$ (the others billions not rich enough will just have miserable life and die quickly, then again they probably see that as a Darwinism application where the fittest survive, improving at the same time the gene-pool of humankind). But their way of thinking is absolutely wrong, ethically (obvious) and logically because such a magnitude of change could destroy the whole civilization with nobody able to escape the global suffering.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only solution is to POLLUTE AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE AND CONTRACEPT AS WELL AS POSSIBLE. So the absolute necessity for a world global help (to whoever does not disagree to get it) for environmental and contraceptive solution.
"six of the 10 boundaries—land use, biodiversity, nitrogen cycle, freshwater use, aerosol and chemical pollution—do not have a hard limit at planet-scale...... breaking any of these boundaries might not have any negative impact on humanity." How is it possible to have such dangerous and ridiculous ideas? I guess these are sponsored by people/companies who have some sort of predator minds, they think themselves and their children smart enough to avoid the troubles, they will always have enough power/money to clean their water, food, air etc. And even better the others rich enough people will pay for that straight into their $$$$$$$$$$$$ pockets $$$$$$$$$$$$ (the others billions not rich enough will just have miserable life and die quickly, then again they probably see that as a Darwinism application where the fittest survive, improving at the same time the gene-pool of humankind). But their way of thinking is absolutely wrong, ethically (obvious) and logically because such a magnitude of change could destroy the whole civilization with nobody able to escape the global suffering.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only solution is to POLLUTE AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE AND CONTRACEPT AS WELL AS POSSIBLE. So the absolute necessity for a world global help (to whoever does not disagree to get it) for environmental and contraceptive solution.
Very well stated. WHO IS THE WE? I really like that question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLeroy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo the pollution problems were from the collective government and most occurred during the war - produce the products of war and we will clean up the mess latter. so, it was the free market that cleaned up the land and the waters - I never saw one single government employee clean up a single pollution event and I am 68 years old.
However I saw a lot of private companies coming in and cleaning up government collective pollution from bomb and ammo making to fuel dumps that leaked into the water table. No, the EPA and the rest did not even exist until the late 70s if I recall correctly. Most of the clean up had been completed by local people getting it done.
I seem to recall quite a few post war commercial industrial waste issues like Love Canal in New York and the pollution of urban rivers that actually caught fire in, I think, the 1970s. I don't think that the principal pollution superfund sites were produced by WWII munitions factories, although military bases were certainly represented. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites_in_the_United_States
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would be more useful if people in first world countries had no children at all. I do not have the figures in front of me, but how many times more resources will a child in a wealthy nation consume than a child in a poor nation? The poor child will probably never drive a car, will probably use very little electricity, and will probably die much earlier than their rich counterparts. Many developing nations are still primarily agricultural, where having children is a clear benefit. Every person is not equal: if we had 7 billion people consuming at third world levels, our global climate would be in far less danger of catastrophic change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat article. Points out the challenges we are going to face in the close future. Controlling population, capitalism and greed may be the tipping point that has already been breeched! If you live in a world of finite resources you cannot base your economic system on continious growth, well you can, but you will end up where we are rapidly approaching. Humans greatest successes may end up being our greatest failures. Will we be smart enough to recognise it before its too late?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ timbo555 - I don't think anyone is suggesting that we start executing people! Population control, to avoid depleting all of our resources, is all that is needed. The idea that we should round people up and kill them or advocate mass suicide is ridiculous! First we need to stop promoting the idea that we can have endless growth, a stupid idea in the first place, and then (once people begin to understand why) advocate the idea of limiting the number of children couples can have. Pretty simple really. Continuing to sell "you can have whatever you want and as much of it as we can sell to you to make more wealth is completely out of touch with the reality of a finite Earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell written, kid. geo's comments regardind most of the articles about natural resource depletion and climate change reference free rubbers for all in the "Third World". Although there are sometimes simple answers to complex questions, it may not be the case in this instance. I'll go out on a limb here and just say, geo, you are flat-out wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about we just obey what Thomas Jefferson said about DEBT - the population would adjust downward rather quickly if all nations followed these rules - very simple -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence. - Letter to James Madison (6 September 1789) Thomas Jefferson
Careful, if you start talking about overpopulation as a real problem the overpopulation deniers will label you a racist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCareful, if you start talking about overpopulation as a real problem the overpopulation deniers will label you a racist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTimbo....excellent response!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiskidprofessor,"It would be more useful if people in first world countries had no children at all."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA very profound and radical answer. Question...who's gonna pay for your social security, Medicare, and other government subsidies when you retire? China's finding out its "unintended consequences" via its one child policy, the hard way.
It is true that wealth is correlated with decreased birth rate, but per capita income as a measure of wealth is misleading since it is an average and can include countries with gross inequality and high poverty levels and high birth rates. A better explanation for lower birth rates is better education and better access to health care for women and children. Neither of these can be provided effectively by the free market. That is why most developing countries that have a record of achieving reduced birth rates have a public education system and a basic national health care system. And of course having a free market system that provides a healthy economy that provides for the taxes to pay for these public systems is necessary.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe argument between "collectivism" and "free enterprise" is stupid. There is no country in the world that operates exclusively one way or the other. All of use both systems every day when we drive on public roads to a private grocery store to buy food produced by private farmers who irrigate their land using public water systems. Contrary to some of the commenters, some things are done better publicly and others privately.
I think people have the capacity, most of them, but there is a great reluctance to learn. The result is ignorance, and it is ignorance which has put us on this irreversible path of extinction. Not to worry, it will probably not happen for 100 or 200 years. As it gets warmer, pathogens migrate northward. As animals are driven to extinction, the parasites and pathogens which occupied them will now occupy humans. As drought spreads, more and more people will starve. And as the seas rise, more and more people will be displaced. So many people, in fact, that governments will have great difficulty in addressing the crisis. Ultimately, they will fail; most governments will fail. Then it will be the rule of marauders and tough guys. The last 100 years will not be pleasant for most who survive to then. Capitalism and collectivism are irrelevant to this evolving reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, my! I now see that after many days, someone must have reported my original comment, suggesting simply that we reduce population, as 'Abuse', because the SA editors apparently agreed and removed it! So, I guess reducing the population is not a valid option, after all... We must be doomed!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMoreover, to be brutally frank, the reason I originally suggested that we (humanity, collectively) begin by finding some way to reduce our population back to preindustrial levels is that that's the most reliable way we have to reduce our environmental 'footprint' on planet Earth. Population is, after all, the single most critical factor in all of the problems we face.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUsing past performance as the best predictor of future results, I am highly skeptical than any of the attempts to individually manage the secondary factors producing our most critical problems will fail, and that the industrial infrastructure upon which we are so dependent will critically destabilize, leading to catastrophic population collapse.
Without bothering to reduce our collective human population I am compelled to predict that, in the next 100 years, it's most likely that our population will be reduced to preindustrial levels with absolutely no effort on our part.
There is already a way to reduce population that works. Education and empowerment of women, combined with access to birth control.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat approach does seem to be working for some prosperous countries, but not so much in India, whose population has increased by 30% in the past 18-20 years and is expected to increase from 1.2 billion today to 1.66 billion in 2050, overtaking China as the highest populated country in the world. I doubt this approach would be effective even if feasible for much less prosperous countries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegional Population growth 1990-2008
55% - Africa
51% - Middle East
35% - Asia
30% - Latin America
The reproductive empowerment of women does not seem to be feasible in many countries for cultural and/or religious if not economic reasons.
Any approach that is implemented must be globally effective, or it will be ineffective.
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth
In San Francisco bay, you should not eat the fish more than once or twice per week, and nothing from the Richmond or Inner Harbour. The air of LA is visibly bad. The Cuyahoga was so polluted with industrial effluent that it caught fire numerous times. That started the clean water act. And now of course, fracking is exempt from this law.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCapitalism does not seem to make any difference to pollution.
If all the world consumed the way the 1st world does, it would take 2 to 3 earths to provide the materials to do it. Capitalism cannot create food, clothing and shelter by magic.
If you poison somebody directly or indirectly via pollution you are still causing gievous bodily harm and should be punished on the same basis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI like the idea of no generational debt but we must balance it with no generational inheritance. When you die all of your money and property reverts to the govt. or is outright destroyed so your kids have to start over. That is the best kind of free market economy. Each person prospers only on their own merit. None of this welfare for the rich garbage. The USA discarded hereditary nobles and royalty. Inheritance is what created nobles and royalty in the first place. It is evil and un-American.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRiiiightt, China has greater prosperity than ever at the same time as their population has stabilized and is set to drop. Poor example Skippy. Do you say the same about Norway?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@TractorThoughts; That is one of the most intelligent things I've seen posted. A truly free market economy means everyone is for sale as well. In other words, slavery. A truly collectivist economy destroys motivation and puts great pressure on leadership to reward themselves unfairly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@JacobSilver; Shall we sing the Doom song? That tired refrain goes back to biblical times and has been wrong every time so far. Or are we living in a valley of blood, rampant assassination, the black plague and a radioactive wasteland all at the same time but nobody noticed?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@EcoSteve - That works for me. I just read about how industries outside of certain cities are driving up healthcare costs in a major way but paying no fines or taxes to help with those costs. If the majority stockholders and executive staff were to be charged with thousands of counts of child abuse I'd imagine the pollution would greatly reduce. The tobacco companies could then be put through several hundred thousand counts of second degree murder each year too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this