Someone revisits Limits to Growth every now and then. This author says the world is tracking the most pessimistic scenarios examined in the original model, and that stagnation or collapse in the next decade is a real possibility. The attempt at a silver lining – there is a chance that it might not be too late to do something.
Doughnut Economics is a new attempt to communicate the goal of an economy that works for humans while not exceeding the natural limits of the planetary system it is embedded in. You want to be in the dough part. If you are in the hole, you are within planetary boundaries but you are poor, starving, unwell, or otherwise not benefiting from the economy that is working for at least some other people. If you are outside the doughnut entirely, you are outside planetary boundaries and the planetary system will not be able to continue supporting the economic system (including you, and everyone else) indefinitely.
The majority of intelligent and educated people on the planet do not understand these concepts. We need a critical mass of people, certainly leaders and decision makers, to understand the problem before we have much hope of solving it. I support new and novel attempts to communicate these ideas. This one doesn’t quite seem fully coherent to me in terms of stocks and flows, and I think if we taught children about stocks and flows from a young age they would grow up better able to understand systems in terms that aren’t so dumbed down.
This sprawling article in Ecological Economics talks about human civilization as a “superorganism” that exists only to dissipate energy, fouling its environment in the process. What I found somewhat interesting was the links it tries to make between natural capital depletion and financial debt.
Simultaneously, we get daily reminders the global economy isn’t working as it used to (Stokes, 2017) such as rising wealth and income inequality, heavy reliance on debt and government guarantees, populist political movements, increasing apathy, tension and violence, and ecological decay. To avoid facing the consequences of our biophysical reality, we’re now obtaining growth in increasingly unsustainable ways. The developed world is using finance to enable the extraction of things we couldn’t otherwise afford to extract to produce things we otherwise couldn’t afford to consume.
Economics for the future – Beyond the superorganism
I’m not sure this article has a coherent story to tell, but I find it interesting to think what kind of indicators we might be able to look at to tell if an ecological reckoning might be around the corner. The prices of food and energy certainly come to mind. Financial debt, if it is indeed a measure of how much our expectations of the future are out of line with our capacity to innovate and to produce the energy and other materials and find the waste sinks we need to keep going. But there is clearly a lot of noise and short-term fluctuations in all these signals that might make it difficult or impossible to come up with any kind of useful predictive index.
This study attempted to map the human footprint on the earth on a fine scale back in 2002.
The Human Footprint and the Last of the Wild
There is little debate in scientific circles about the importance of human influence on ecosystems. According to scientists’ reports, we appropriate over 40% of the net primary productivity (the green material) produced on Earth each year (Vitousek et al. 1986, Rojstaczer et al. 2001). We consume 35% of the productivity of the oceanic shelf (Pauly and Christensen 1995), and we use 60% of freshwater run-off (Postel et al. 1996). The unprecedented escalation in both human population and consumption in the 20th century has resulted in environmental crises never before encountered in the history of humankind and the world (McNeill 2000). E. O. Wilson (2002) claims it would now take four Earths to meet the consumption demands of the current human population, if every human consumed at the level of the average US inhabitant. The influence of human beings on the planet has become so pervasive that it is hard to find adults in any country who have not seen the environment around them reduced in natural values during their lifetimes—woodlots converted to agriculture, agricultural lands converted to suburban development, suburban development converted to urban areas. The cumulative effect of these many local changes is the global phenomenon of human influence on nature, a new geological epoch some call the “anthropocene” (Steffen and Tyson 2001). Human influence is arguably the most important factor affecting life of all kinds in today’s world (Lande 1998, Terborgh 1999, Pimm 2001, UNEP 2001).
Yet despite the broad consensus among biologists about the importance of human influence on nature, this phenomenon and its implications are not fully appreciated by the larger human community, which does not recognize them in its economic systems (Hall et al. 2001) or in most of its political decisions (Soulé and Terborgh 1999, Chapin et al. 2000). In part, this lack of appreciation may be due to scientists’ propensity to express themselves in terms like “appropriation of net primary productivity” or “exponential population growth,” abstractions that require some training to understand. It may be due to historical assumptions about and habits inherited from times when human beings, as a group, had dramatically less influence on the biosphere. Now the individual decisions of 6 billion people add up to a global phenomenon in a way unique to our time. What we need is a way to understand this influence that is global in extent and yet easy to grasp—what we need is a map.
Until recently, designing such a map was not possible, because detailed data on human activities at the global scale were unavailable. The fortunate confluence of several factors during the 1990s changed this situation. Rapid advances in earth observation, using satellite technology pioneered by NASA and other space agencies, meant that, for the first time, verifiable global maps of land use and land cover were available (Loveland et al. 2000). The thawing of the cold war and calls for efficiency in government meant that other sources of global geographic data, for example, on roads and railways, were released to the public by the US National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA 1997). Improved reporting of population statistics at subnational levels enabled geographers to create global digital maps of human population density (CIESIN et al. 2000). Finally, advances in geographic information systems (GIS) have provided the integration technology necessary to combine these data in an efficient and reproducible manner. Although the datasets now available are imperfect instruments, they are of sufficient detail and completeness that scientists can map the influence of humans on the entire land’s surface.
This article in Ecological Economics tries to link the concepts of planetary boundaries and ecological footprint.
While in recent years both environmental footprints and planetary boundaries have gained tremendous popularity throughout the ecological and environmental sciences, their relationship remains largely unexplored. By investigating the roots and developments of environmental footprints and planetary boundaries, this paper challenges the isolation of the two research fields and provides novel insights into the complementary use of them. Our analysis demonstrates that knowledge of planetary boundaries improves the policy relevance of environmental footprints by providing a set of consensus-based estimates of the regenerative and absorptive capacity at the global scale and, in reverse, that the planetary boundaries framework benefits from well-grounded footprint models which allow for more accurate and reliable estimates of human pressure on the planet’s environment. A framework for integration of environmental footprints and planetary boundaries is thus proposed. The so-called footprint–boundary environmental sustainability assessment framework lays the foundation for evolving environmental impact assessment to environmental sustainability assessment aimed at measuring the sustainability gap between current magnitudes of human activities and associated capacity thresholds. As a first attempt to take advantage of environmental footprints and planetary boundaries in a complementary way, there remain many gaps in our knowledge. We have therefore formulated a research agenda for further scientific discussions, mainly including the development of measurable boundaries in relation to footprints at multiple scales and their trade-offs, and the harmonization of the footprint and boundary metrics in terms of environmental coverage and methodological choices. All these points raised, in our view, will play an important role in setting practical and tangible policy targets for adaptation and mitigation of worldwide environmental unsustainability.
I like ecological footprint because there is no ambiguity between stocks and flows. Natural capital is the underlying stock. The ecological footprint is a proxy for natural capital, the equivalent land area required to produce the annual flow of ecosystem services. It is very intuitive that if the ecological footprint is greater than the size of the Earth, you are digging yourself a deeper hole each year, and if it is less, you are digging yourself out of the hole. Natural capital is like a huge trust fund or endowment that we can live off of for a long time. But if we are consuming more than the interest produced each year, there will eventually come a day when the trust fund is depleted.
Planetary boundaries, on the other hand, try to measure a mish-mash of stocks and flows. Fertile farmland, for example, is clearly a stock of natural capital. But the amount of fresh water consumed each year is an annual flow of ecosystem services. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is a stock – a sort of anti-ecosystem service, because it represents the opposite of the atmosphere’s ability to absorb further emissions (which are an annual flow). So it all sounds very scholarly, but it needs some cleanup before it will be a clear framework for figuring out what course of action we should be taking.
Johan Rockstrom and company have published a sequel to their original “planetary boundaries” work. Here’s a summary from the Stockholm Resilience Center:
Four of nine planetary boundaries have now been crossed as a result of human activity, says an international team of 18 researchers in the journal Science (16 January 2015). The four are: climate change, loss of biosphere integrity, land-system change, altered biogeochemical cycles (phosphorus and nitrogen).
Two of these, climate change and biosphere integrity, are what the scientists call “core boundaries”. Significantly altering either of these “core boundaries” would “drive the Earth System into a new state”.
“Transgressing a boundary increases the risk that human activities could inadvertently drive the Earth System into a much less hospitable state, damaging efforts to reduce poverty and leading to a deterioration of human wellbeing in many parts of the world, including wealthy countries,” …
Nine planetary boundaries
1. Climate change
2. Change in biosphere integrity (biodiversity loss and species extinction)
3. Stratospheric ozone depletion
4. Ocean acidification
5. Biogeochemical flows (phosphorus and nitrogen cycles)
6. Land-system change (for example deforestation)
7. Freshwater use
8. Atmospheric aerosol loading (microscopic particles in the atmosphere that affect climate and living organisms)
9. Introduction of novel entities (e.g. organic pollutants, radioactive materials, nanomaterials, and micro-plastics).
And for the video watchers, here is Mr. Rockstrom himself on Youtube: