Tag Archives: ecological footprint

Costanza!

1 Reply

Last year Robert Costanza published an update to his seminal 1997 paper The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital.  Here’s what I had to say about that in 2014:

The paradox is that because nature has so far provided many services in abundance, they are not “scarce” in an economic sense and our human markets place little or no monetary value on them. This would change in the event our human civilization caused the services to be reduced or interrupted in any way. While it may seem strange to value ecosystem services in monetary terms, it can be instructive to ask what we would be willing to pay if we had no choice but to pay for these services. There are many conceptual and practical challenges with this sort of monetary valuation, but there have been some brave attempts to do it, such as those led by Robert Costanza at the Australian National University.[9] By comparing the magnitude of what we would be willing to pay for these services to the magnitude of the human economy, we can get a sense of the importance of ecosystem services in underpinning our human economy. Costanza’s estimate of the annual value of global ecosystem services ($33 trillion in 1997 U.S. dollars) is the same order of magnitude as the world output of goods and services in that year (approximately $29 trillion[10])! While the estimated value of ecosystem services is certainly less precisely measured than the monetary value of goods and services produced, the order of magnitude suggests that humanity could not afford to substitute its own technology and efforts in place of the services provided by ecosystems, at least not with the wealth and knowledge available to us now.

The new paper is called Changes in the Global Value of Ecosystem Services. Here’s the abstract:

In 1997, the global value of ecosystem services was estimated to average $33 trillion/yr in 1995 $US ($46 trillion/yr in 2007 $US). In this paper, we provide an updated estimate based on updated unit ecosystem service values and land use change estimates between 1997 and 2011. We also address some of the critiques of the 1997 paper. Using the same methods as in the 1997 paper but with updated data, the estimate for the total global ecosystem services in 2011 is $125 trillion/yr (assuming updated unit values and changes to biome areas) and $145 trillion/yr (assuming only unit values changed), both in 2007 $US. From this we estimated the loss of eco-services from 1997 to 2011 due to land use change at $4.3–20.2 trillion/yr, depending on which unit values are used. Global estimates expressed in monetary accounting units, such as this, are useful to highlight the magnitude of eco-services, but have no specific decision-making context. However, the underlying data and models can be applied at multiple scales to assess changes resulting from various scenarios and policies. We emphasize that valuation of ecoservices (in whatever units) is not the same as commodification or privatization. Many eco-services are best considered public goods or common pool resources, so conventional markets are often not the best institutional frameworks to manage them. However, these services must be (and are being) valued, and we need new, common asset institutions to better take these values into account.

So $125 trillion dollars per year in value, and last year the IMF says the world economy was about $77 trillion. This is important for a few reasons. First, it strengthens the argument even further that ecosystem services are not just something happening on the fringe of our economy that give us a helping hand. They are absolutely essential and we could not afford to do without them. Second, if I understand correctly, the annual value we can derive is lower per unit area of land because of degradation of the land since 1997. Every year we are using up $4-20 trillion that the Earth is not able to replenish. That value is hard to put in context, because we don’t know what the total stock is, or how low that stock could fall before it would start to constrain our economy.

There’s another implication – if we could develop a precise accounting of the natural capital being used up each year, we could orient our economy to shift more of those costs to the people, governments, and business entities choosing to impose those costs on the rest of us. Carbon taxes are a fairly obvious first step.

 

the yeast vats are here

Leave a reply

Asimov’s 1953 novel Caves of Steel featured food grown in vats by genetically modified yeast. It took awhile, but that’s here.

Cargill’s new product is an example of synthetic biology, a form of genetic engineering that uses modified organisms to manufacture compounds that would never be produced naturally. What makes EverSweet taste sweet is not stevia; it is a compound produced by a bioengineered yeast…

Ingredients that are being replaced or are likely to be exchanged for products made through synthetic biology include vanilla, saffron, coconut oil, patchouli, olive squalene, and rose oil. Indeed, the world’s largest cosmetics, flavor, and fragrance companies are hoping that synthetic biology will help them replace more than 200 natural botanical extracts.

This particular article is most worried about large food and chemical corporations replacing products formerly produced by small farmers. That’s a shame. It also talks about the growing backlash from the anti-GMO crowd. But the fact is, the backlash is probably growing because the technology has reached commercial viability. There may be a silver lining – if we are worried about ultimately hitting photosynthetic limits on food production, this may be a way around it. I think yeast will eat pretty much anything organic – mine like barley and honey, but I suspect you could feed them garbage, sewage, etc. in a severely resource constrained world. The dark cloud to the silver lining is always that if you remove one constraint, your ecological footprint will tend to keep growing until you encounter another one. The people in the caves of steel weren’t doing all that well as I recall.

August 2015 in Review

Leave a reply

Negative stories (-12):

  • About 7-19% of cancers are caused by chemicals in the environment. (-1)
  • Steven Hawking is worried about an artificial intelligence arms race starting “within years, not decades”. (-2)
  • The anti-urban attack continues, based on the false idea that crowded, stressful living conditions are the only type of urban living conditions available, and people are being forced into them against their will. This is naked, obvious propaganda that must be rejected. (-1)
  • The more ignorant our species is, the more confident we tend to feel. (-3)
  • According to Naomi Klein, “Our economic system and our planetary system are now at war.”  In related news, July was the warmest month ever recorded by humans, and carbon dioxide concentrations are the highest seen for millions of years. (-3)
  • The media buzz about a worldwide recession seems to be increasing. (-2)

Positive stories (+12):

  • The suburban vs. urban culture wars continue. Suburban office parks are tanking as young people prefer more urban job settings. Entrepreneurs are working on the problems of being car-less with children. (+1)
  • Steven Hawking has a plan to figure out if there is any intelligent life out there. (+1)
  • There are straightforward, practical ideas for dealing with the issues of loading, deliveries, and temporary contractor parking in dense urban areas. (+1)
  • Economists have concluded that preventing human extinction may be economical after all, because “reducing an infinite loss is infinitely profitable”. Is this kind of thinking really useful? (+0)
  • “gene drive” technology helps make sure that genetically engineered traits are passed along to offspring. (+0)
  • Technology marches on – quantum computing is in early emergence, the “internet of things” is arriving at the “peak of inflated expectations”, big data is crashing into the “trough of disillusionment”, virtual reality is beginning its assent to the “plateau of productivity”, and speech recognition is arriving on the plateau. And super-intelligent rodents may be on the way. (+1)
  • Honeybees may be in trouble, but they are not the only bees. (+0)
  • Robotics may be on the verge of a Cambrian explosion, which will almost certainly be bad for some types of jobs, but will also bring us things like cars that avoid pedestrians and computer chips powered by sweat. I for one am excited to be alive at this moment in history. (+2)
  • Dogs can be trained to smell cancer. (+1)
  •  There’s promise of a vaccine for MERS. (+1)
  • It may be possible to capture atmospheric carbon and turn it into high-strength, valuable carbon fiber. This sounds like a potential game-changer to me, because if carbon fiber were cheap it could be substituted for a lot of heavy, toxic and energy-intensive materials we use now, and open up possibilities for entirely new types of structures and vehicles. (+3)
  • Robot deliveries and reusable containers could be a match. (+1)

You might think I rigged that to come out even, but I didn’t.

the Environmental Kuznets Curve

1 Reply

Here’s a journal article with some discussion of the Environmental Kuznets Curve, which is the idea that a developing country’s environment will slowly degrade, then improve again. Having breathed and drank in a variety of countries, it is pretty clear to me that the concept applies to air and water pollution, but not to overall ecological footprint, wildlife habitat, or long-term stability of our atmosphere and oceans. I suspect that this is because air and water pollution are things people can understand – they affect health, safety, and property values in pretty obvious ways. Over time, economic development starts giving people some money, education, and leisure time, and they become more politically active, generating pressure to clean up the immediate human environment. But people don’t understand or don’t care about the long-term ecological issues as much, so the political pressure does not develop.

The main purpose of this paper is to present a theoretical model incorporating the concept of circular economic activities. We construct a circular economy model with two types of economic resources, namely, a polluting input and a recyclable input. Overall, our results indicate that the factors affecting economic growth include the marginal product of the recyclable input, the recycling ratio, the cost of using the environmentally polluting input and the level of pollution arising from the employment of the polluting input. Our analysis also shows that, contrary to the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC), environmental quality cannot be maintained or improved via economic growth. Instead, the improvement in environmental quality, as measured by a reduction in pollution, can only be achieved by an increase in the environmental self-renewal rate or the recycling ratio.

July 2015 in Review

Leave a reply

I’m experimenting with my +3/-3 rating system again this month, just to convey the idea that not all stories are equal in importance. The result is that July was a pretty negative month! Whether that reflects more the state of the world or the state of my mind, or some combination, you can decide.

Negative stories (-21):

  • In The Dead Hand, I learned that the risk of nuclear annihilation in the 1980s was greater than I thought, and the true story of Soviet biological weapons production was much worse than I thought. (-3)
  • Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking, among others, are concerned about a real-life Terminator scenario. (-2)
  • I playfully pointed out that the Pope’s encyclical contains some themes that sound like the more lucid paragraphs in the Unabomber Manifesto, namely that the amoral pursuit of technology has improved our level of material comfort and physical health while devastating the natural world, creating new risks, and leaving us feeling empty somehow. (-1)
  • Bumblebees are getting squeezed by climate change. (-1)
  • The Cold War seems to be rearing its ugly head. (-2)
  • There may be a “global renaissance of coal”. (-3)
  • Joel Kotkin and other anti-urban voices like him want to make sure you don’t have the choice of living in a walkable community. (-2)
  • I think Obama may be remembered as an effective, conservative president, in the dictionary sense of playing it safe and avoiding major mistakes. Navigating the financial crisis, achieving some financial and health care reforms, and defusing several wars and conflicts are probably his greatest achievements. However, if a major war or financial crisis erupts in the near future that can be traced back to decisions he made, his legacy will suffer whether it is fair or not. (-0)
  • We can think of natural capital as a battery that took a long time to charge and has now been discharged almost instantly. (-3)
  • James Hansen is warning of much faster and greater sea level rise than current mainstream expectations. (-3)
  • Lloyd’s of London has spun a scenario of how a food crisis could play out. (-1)

Positive stories (+7):

Canada’s Eco-Fiscal Commission

Leave a reply

Canada has something called an eco-fiscal commission, and it has a blog.

Technological change has transformed the quality of our lives. It has removed terrible diseases that maimed, crippled, and killed — plague, tuberculosis, cholera, dysentery, smallpox, and leprosy, to mention only the most common. In 1900, death from botulism and ptomaine poisoning from contaminated food was common. Chemical additives virtually eliminated these killers and allow us to live long enough to worry about the long run cancer causing effects of some of these additives. Now they are being replaced by safer preservatives.

Technological change has also transformed how we make both existing and new commodities. Most new technologies useless of all inputs per unit of output than do the older technologies that they replace thus moving us towards an increasingly economical use of the world’s resources. Furthermore, many newer technologies are much less polluting than many older technologies.

In summary, economic growth driven by new technologies not only increases our incomes; it transforms our lives through the invention of new, hitherto undreamed of products that are made in new, hitherto undreamed of and more economical ways. We can indeed be thankful that no anti-growth advocate persuaded governments in 1950, let alone in 1900, to stop all growth on the grounds that resources were limited and that we did not need more of what we already had too much of, thereby denying us of all the products and processes just mentioned and the new resource saving and less polluting production methods ̶ and others too many to list here.

This thinking is logical on its face. But of course, the logical flaw is when it is not paired with the idea that the absolute physical footprint can’t grow forever. Put another way, you can’t just keep producing each unit of output more efficiently, and producing ever more output, unless the growth in efficiency is faster than the growth in output. It could theoretically be done, but we’re not close to turning that corner.

June 2015 in Review

1 Reply

Negative stories:

Positive stories:

Collapse

Leave a reply

A 2012 article in Scientific American quotes Dennis Meadows and Jorgen Randers (it’s a little unclear which is speaking when) on how they think a collapse will play out:

For the coming few decades, Randers predicts, life on Earth will carry on more or less as before. Wealthy economies will continue to grow, albeit more slowly as investment will need to be diverted to deal with resource constraints and environmental problems, which thereby will leave less capital for creating goods for consumption. Food production will improve: increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause plants to grow faster, and warming will open up new areas such as Siberia to cultivation. Population will increase, albeit slowly, to a maximum of about eight billion near 2040. Eventually, however, floods and desertification will start reducing farmland and therefore the availability of grain. Despite humanity’s efforts to ameliorate climate change, Randers predicts that its effects will become devastating sometime after mid-century, when global warming will reinforce itself by, for instance, igniting fires that turn forests into net emitters rather than absorbers of carbon. “Very likely, we will have war long before we get there,” Randers adds grimly. He expects that mass migration from lands rendered unlivable will lead to localized armed conflicts…

Meadows holds that collapse is now all but inevitable, but that its actual form will be too complex for any model to predict. “Collapse will not be driven by a single, identifiable cause simultaneously acting in all countries,” he observes. “It will come through a self-reinforcing complex of issues”—including climate change, resource constraints and socioeconomic inequality. When economies slow down, Meadows explains, fewer products are created relative to demand, and “when the rich can’t get more by producing real wealth they start to use their power to take from lower segments.” As scarcities mount and inequality increases, revolutions and socioeconomic movements like the Arab Spring or Occupy Wall Street will become more widespread—as will their repression.

meeting future food demand

Leave a reply

This article in Water Resources Research says we have a shot at meeting future food demand.

Sustainable options for decreasing food demand and for increasing production include reduction of food losses on both the producer and consumer ends, elimination of unsustainable practices such as prolonged groundwater overdraft, closing of yield gaps with controlled expansions of nutrient application and irrigation, increases in crop yield and pest resistance through advances in biotechnology, and moderate expansion of rain fed cropland. Calculations based on reasonable assumptions suggest that such measures could meet the food needs of an increasing global population while protecting the environment.

doubling of El Nino

1 Reply

Nature Climate Change says El Nino frequency could double due to climate change. The result: “severely disrupted global weather patterns, affecting ecosystems4, 5, agriculture6, tropical cyclones, drought, bushfires, floods and other extreme weather events worldwide3, 7, 8, 9”

El Niño events are a prominent feature of climate variability with global climatic impacts. The 1997/98 episode, often referred to as ‘the climate event of the twentieth century’1, 2, and the 1982/83 extreme El Niño3, featured a pronounced eastward extension of the west Pacific warm pool and development of atmospheric convection, and hence a huge rainfall increase, in the usually cold and dry equatorial eastern Pacific. Such a massive reorganization of atmospheric convection, which we define as an extreme El Niño, severely disrupted global weather patterns, affecting ecosystems4, 5, agriculture6, tropical cyclones, drought, bushfires, floods and other extreme weather events worldwide3, 7, 8, 9. Potential future changes in such extreme El Niño occurrences could have profound socio-economic consequences. Here we present climate modelling evidence for a doubling in the occurrences in the future in response to greenhouse warming. We estimate the change by aggregating results from climate models in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phases 3 (CMIP3; ref. 10) and 5 (CMIP5; ref. 11) multi-model databases, and a perturbed physics ensemble12. The increased frequency arises from a projected surface warming over the eastern equatorial Pacific that occurs faster than in the surrounding ocean waters13, 14, facilitating more occurrences of atmospheric convection in the eastern equatorial region.