Week 10: Planetary Boundaries and Global Equity - Post 2
Planetary Boundaries and Global Equity
Planetary boundaries are important because they create the ceiling, or the maximum resilience, of Earth system processes. However, none of the planetary boundaries would ever be reached if not for human action. It is time to put humanity back into the equation, and find solutions for a sustainable future within the limitations and opportunities of modern society.
It is time to couple biophysical analysis of Earth system science with human dimensions. While it is necessary to think in terms of a safe ecological operating space, it is just as important to think within a just and fair operating space for people. When moving along this new pathway of thinking it is vital to recognize that no boundary operates independent of itself. Each of the nine Earth systems are interlinked with each other through feedbacks. If humanity pushes one boundary towards it's tipping point, that increases the pressure on the ecosystem as a whole. Complex feedbacks are the link that connects these different components of the Earth system. There are two types of feedbacks: positive and negative. An example of a positive feedback loop is ice and albedo. As the climate gets warmer more ice melts. Ice is white and shiny so it reflects sunlight back to space. However, as the ice volume decreases, the overall reflection amount, or albedo also decreases. With less sunlight reflected, the climate gets warmer, and so the cycle starts over again; this time amplifying the effects of the original warming. In a positive feedback loop more pressure is put on the Earth's stable state. This has the opposite effect as negative feedback loops. These loops are known to dampen the initial pressures on the system. An example of that has to do with vegetation and carbon dioxide. Vegetation photosynthesizes, but when deforestation happens the living organisms lose the ability to take up CO2 as they are dead. When less CO2 is absorbed by land, that leaves larger amounts in the atmosphere which contributes to warming. Fortunately, most vegetation responds positively to warmer temperatures by increasing growth. By reducing vegetation in the first place, ecosystems tend to increase biomass production. This is an important negative feedback process that helps regulate and balance anthropogenic environmental changes. In this way negative feedbacks are helpful, but they too have limited resilience. Now scientists can study the Earth system all they want, but ultimately all of these processes have human drivers. These problems that modern society face are very complex, and they will require communication between science and wider society.
In the Anthropocene the issue of Earth system resilience is at the forefront, but what about resource constraints and resource distribution? There is a finite amount of non-renewable resources on Earth, and many believe humanity has already crossed the peak of availability for several of these resources. Resource use over the last century has grown exponentially, and it can be mapped using what is called the IPAT equation. This equation puts population equal with technology and then multiplies by affluence to show the overall impact on the Earth system by humanity. Society very often blames human impact on population growth, but it is critical here to recognize that the largest influence is actually affluence. Affluence is characterized by the number of people, or drivers, of increased resource use. From the 1950's to now there was this enormous shift from a majority of underdeveloped contries to a majority of developed countries. That shift caused the exponential increase in resource use over the last 30 years. When looking at price trends of resources like oil, the worry is that human use has transgressed eras of cheap prices for valuable resources. That is why it is important to consider resource constraints as a fundamental part of navigating a sustainable future. The next question is what to do about distribution among nations and individuals globally.
To use global nitrogen and phosphorous as an example, scientists created a map of nitrogen and phosphorous use around the world. The map shows clearly that rich nations like the United States and China have transgressed boundaries of use while poorer nations within South America and Africa have not contributed to use at all. Poor developing nations have a right to use these fertilizers to increase agricultural growth, while the rich nations need to drastically reduce their use. There is a way to stay within a safe operating space of this boundary while fairly distributing the resources. Analysis shows that humanity must proceed with caution. In some cases, like oil, resource constrictions have come at the right time, but most boundaries will cross their tipping points well before resource constrictions step in. Moving forward it is vital that resources are distributed fairly among nations within the safe operating space of the boundaries.
Now in order to find a sustainable future within the environment and a just future for humanity, environmental process and social process have to work together. A few years ago several of the worlds nations held the Rio+20 Conference where global sustainability was the main topic of discussion. At first the nine planetary boundaries and their ceiling for a safe operating space was at the forefront. Then, Kate Raworth from an organization called Oxfam pointed out that "Any framework or vision of sustainable development for the world that we now live in needs to recognize that eradicating poverty and increasing justice all around the world is intimately tied to the biophysical process of ecological sustainability". Oxfam proposed a modification to the planetary boundaries framework: adding a floor beneath for all the important social issues that cannot go beneath. Meaning that, for example, the safe operating space for humanity lies underneath the boundary for nitrogen and phosphorous, but above the foundation for global nutrition. The recognition that humans, and human issues are actually imbedded in the biosphere is critical in moving forward with sustainability.
Humanity cannot be independent of the planet it lives on. Going back a hundred years, economics has centered on the idea that land is not a limiting factor for economic and social development. However, as is evidently clear now, that is not the case. In the late 80's there was a movement to reconnect land, or natural capital into the model of economic development. Today, there are a lot of efforts to value nature and ecosystem services. Ultimately, in the interest of global sustainability, it is time to change the economic model from economic, social, and environmental development being three different circles, to joining them in three concentric circles; placing the economy within the bounds of people, and people within the bounds of the environment. Professor Carl Folke said it well "The real challenge is really to use our innovate capacities, our fantastic gift that we have of thinking, and reflecting, and developing innovations, in line with the biosphere that we're part of and depend on". Lets reconnect economic and social development to the environment it is part of.
It is time to couple biophysical analysis of Earth system science with human dimensions. While it is necessary to think in terms of a safe ecological operating space, it is just as important to think within a just and fair operating space for people. When moving along this new pathway of thinking it is vital to recognize that no boundary operates independent of itself. Each of the nine Earth systems are interlinked with each other through feedbacks. If humanity pushes one boundary towards it's tipping point, that increases the pressure on the ecosystem as a whole. Complex feedbacks are the link that connects these different components of the Earth system. There are two types of feedbacks: positive and negative. An example of a positive feedback loop is ice and albedo. As the climate gets warmer more ice melts. Ice is white and shiny so it reflects sunlight back to space. However, as the ice volume decreases, the overall reflection amount, or albedo also decreases. With less sunlight reflected, the climate gets warmer, and so the cycle starts over again; this time amplifying the effects of the original warming. In a positive feedback loop more pressure is put on the Earth's stable state. This has the opposite effect as negative feedback loops. These loops are known to dampen the initial pressures on the system. An example of that has to do with vegetation and carbon dioxide. Vegetation photosynthesizes, but when deforestation happens the living organisms lose the ability to take up CO2 as they are dead. When less CO2 is absorbed by land, that leaves larger amounts in the atmosphere which contributes to warming. Fortunately, most vegetation responds positively to warmer temperatures by increasing growth. By reducing vegetation in the first place, ecosystems tend to increase biomass production. This is an important negative feedback process that helps regulate and balance anthropogenic environmental changes. In this way negative feedbacks are helpful, but they too have limited resilience. Now scientists can study the Earth system all they want, but ultimately all of these processes have human drivers. These problems that modern society face are very complex, and they will require communication between science and wider society.
In the Anthropocene the issue of Earth system resilience is at the forefront, but what about resource constraints and resource distribution? There is a finite amount of non-renewable resources on Earth, and many believe humanity has already crossed the peak of availability for several of these resources. Resource use over the last century has grown exponentially, and it can be mapped using what is called the IPAT equation. This equation puts population equal with technology and then multiplies by affluence to show the overall impact on the Earth system by humanity. Society very often blames human impact on population growth, but it is critical here to recognize that the largest influence is actually affluence. Affluence is characterized by the number of people, or drivers, of increased resource use. From the 1950's to now there was this enormous shift from a majority of underdeveloped contries to a majority of developed countries. That shift caused the exponential increase in resource use over the last 30 years. When looking at price trends of resources like oil, the worry is that human use has transgressed eras of cheap prices for valuable resources. That is why it is important to consider resource constraints as a fundamental part of navigating a sustainable future. The next question is what to do about distribution among nations and individuals globally.
To use global nitrogen and phosphorous as an example, scientists created a map of nitrogen and phosphorous use around the world. The map shows clearly that rich nations like the United States and China have transgressed boundaries of use while poorer nations within South America and Africa have not contributed to use at all. Poor developing nations have a right to use these fertilizers to increase agricultural growth, while the rich nations need to drastically reduce their use. There is a way to stay within a safe operating space of this boundary while fairly distributing the resources. Analysis shows that humanity must proceed with caution. In some cases, like oil, resource constrictions have come at the right time, but most boundaries will cross their tipping points well before resource constrictions step in. Moving forward it is vital that resources are distributed fairly among nations within the safe operating space of the boundaries.
Now in order to find a sustainable future within the environment and a just future for humanity, environmental process and social process have to work together. A few years ago several of the worlds nations held the Rio+20 Conference where global sustainability was the main topic of discussion. At first the nine planetary boundaries and their ceiling for a safe operating space was at the forefront. Then, Kate Raworth from an organization called Oxfam pointed out that "Any framework or vision of sustainable development for the world that we now live in needs to recognize that eradicating poverty and increasing justice all around the world is intimately tied to the biophysical process of ecological sustainability". Oxfam proposed a modification to the planetary boundaries framework: adding a floor beneath for all the important social issues that cannot go beneath. Meaning that, for example, the safe operating space for humanity lies underneath the boundary for nitrogen and phosphorous, but above the foundation for global nutrition. The recognition that humans, and human issues are actually imbedded in the biosphere is critical in moving forward with sustainability.
Humanity cannot be independent of the planet it lives on. Going back a hundred years, economics has centered on the idea that land is not a limiting factor for economic and social development. However, as is evidently clear now, that is not the case. In the late 80's there was a movement to reconnect land, or natural capital into the model of economic development. Today, there are a lot of efforts to value nature and ecosystem services. Ultimately, in the interest of global sustainability, it is time to change the economic model from economic, social, and environmental development being three different circles, to joining them in three concentric circles; placing the economy within the bounds of people, and people within the bounds of the environment. Professor Carl Folke said it well "The real challenge is really to use our innovate capacities, our fantastic gift that we have of thinking, and reflecting, and developing innovations, in line with the biosphere that we're part of and depend on". Lets reconnect economic and social development to the environment it is part of.
How can we help people to understand our connections to the planet are important and like you said that we cannot be independent from it?
ReplyDelete