Citation: Hooke, R.L., Martin-Duque, J.F., and Pedraza, J., 2012, Land transformation by humans: A review: GSA Today, v. 22, no. 12, p. 4-10
This is the html link to the article: http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/12/article/i1052-5173-22-12-4.htm
Synopsis: This is a somewhat odd first choice for my blogging efforts, because it does not address climate change at all, but rather land-use change. However, it's not that odd when you consider the role that changing land-use has on the climate system (e.g. cutting/burning of rain forests takes carbon stored in biota and transfers it to the atmosphere). Perhaps more importantly, the direct impacts of current [unsustainable] land use practices put pressure on us as a species to maintain the necessities of life (high agricultural production rates, access to clean water resources, etc.). With added pressure from rapidly changing climate, our ability to support ourselves (in the biological sense) becomes even less certain. Anyway, this paper draws heavily from previous more quantitative research, and its results depend in some ways on how the authors define terms and what assumptions they make. Importantly, they make conservative estimates and despite this conservatism, determine that "~70 Mkm^2, or >50% of Earth’s ice-free land area, has been directly modified by human action involving moving earth or changing sediment fluxes. Many of these activities have indirect consequences well beyond the area directly affected." Implicit in this statement is that much of this modification by human action has negatively affected the land. That aside, the authors look at the rates at which we modify land and determine that, given our current population and land-use patterns, we are almost certainly operating beyond our biological carrying capacity. If we are not currently in overshoot, then the current rate of population growth will certainly bring us to that point within the next century or two. Like any other species, we will adapt to this condition of overshoot by first experiencing a decline in the standard of living, and then, secondly, by reducing the population (read: more people die of starvation and disease and less children are born).
The authors go on to offer solutions to the problem, for which I commend them because straight up doomsday science is discouraging. They propose three broad categories for bringing us back to sustainable rates of land-use. 1) Reduce demand. I think it's great that this is their first solution because it acknowledges the need for a cultural change, where we simply consume less. In addition to improving the efficiency of processes so we use less resources, the authors suggest the following "Tempering our impulse to buy things that we don’t really need or of which we will soon tire also reduces demand." I love it. Sounds like something my 93 year old grandmother (who lived through the depression) would say, but it's true! 2.) Technological innovations to improve energy efficiency (energy in the broadest sense, food, fuel, etc.), both in the consumption and production. Also the development of new energy technologies, but the authors are conscious and don't assume that cold fusion will be developed in 2030 or anything like that. 3.) Reduce population. For them this is the biggest issue, and accomplishing it starts with improved health care and education for women. Reducing demand and improved technology will help the problem, but the authors believe that reducing the population is absolutely necessary to bring our global consumption back to sustainable levels.
Commentary: It's all very interesting when you watch NOVA or Planet Earth and see the struggles of a species, where the weak and the old die, and often herds or flocks of some animal perish due to a drought or an exceptionally cold winter. For me its fascinating because we are bound by the same basic biological laws that these animals are, we just have more of an ability to combat it. For a herd of buffalo, if there isn't water or food within a reachable distance, they die. So for them it's a local phenomenon. In our modern society, food shortages in one area are ameliorated due to food stocks traded across the world (assuming of course those people can afford to buy that food, but I'm not getting into politics or economics - let's stick to basic biology). So, if we are getting to the point when we are in biological overshoot, and we can't feed ourselves, we are not experiencing a local or regional problem, but a global one! In the late stages of overshoot (i.e. when we are biologically forced to adjust), there simply wouldn't be enough food or water ON THE ENTIRE EARTH, to feed us all. So, someone is getting the stick in this situation. And here I'm assuming that countries in surplus would be altruistic and would share their extra necessities without question, and there wouldn't be any problems with getting access to these necessities (which are ridiculously optimistic assumptions). So in all likelihood the "great overshoot famine" would likely affect some more than others and lead to wars and just awful awful things. We are approaching this point in the next few centuries UNLESS we change our land-use patterns and our rates of population growth.
For me the fact that the authors provide solutions is important. The first one, reduce demand, is most important to me (perhaps because having children is like the most terrifying idea ever to me at this point in my life). It's seems so simple! Initially I wrote "But seriously, don't go out and buy an IPad mini in addition to the IPhone and IPad that you already own! Don't eat quite as much." But at this moment I'm sitting here on a computer and my professor just brought a free bag of chips, so being a grad-student I'm happily munching away. So, getting off my high horse, let me just say that I think it's important that we really have the conservation about how much we should be changing our lifestyles. What's the limit to which we should sacrifice personal convenience for greater environmental good or philanthropy? Of the activities that we engage in, which are the most energy consumptive? Can a significantly smaller footprint be achieved with essentially the same lifestyle or would it be completely different? How much do we all need to change (5% reduction? 50% reduction?) our energy consumption (again in the broadest sense) to put us back in the realm of sustainability? The answers to these questions are probably out there in both journal form and popular nonfiction, and hopefully I read them soon enough. But even without direct answers, I think this conversation is worth having with friends, family, and colleague. At the least it's a good thought exercise! Suggestions for future readings are welcome. -James
No comments:
Post a Comment