Tag Archives: ecosystem services

“Living Planet Report”

Leave a reply

WWF has released a new edition of their “Living Planet Report”. I like this report, for one thing, because it has kept the idea of ecological footprint alive. Ecological footprint was originally developed, or at least widely publicized, in this book in the 90s:

Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth

Ecological footprint may be the most intuitive way of explaining the idea that humanity is overdrawing the Earth’s resources. The new report puts the ecological footprint at 1.5, meaning 1.5 Earth’s would be required to support our current level of natural resource consumption and waste production indefinitely. To understand how this is possible, imagine you are lucky enough that your parents put a massive trust fund in your name the day you are born. Being born on the Earth is like this. If you are smart, you can live your entire life on the interest, and so can your children and children’s children, as long as they are as smart as you. If you are dumb, you can live an extravagant lifestyle for some period of time, maybe a long time, but eventually it will catch up to you. An ecological footprint of 1.5 suggests that humanity is using up about 1.5 times the amount of natural capital each year that the Earth can support in the long term. Natural capital is the obvious things like fossil fuels and fish, but also less tangible things like fertile soils and the ability of the oceans and atmosphere to absorb our waste products.

The accuracy of Wackernagel’s methods can be endlessly debated, and have been, but the WWF report also has a reader-friendly summary of more recent academic work on “planetary boundaries”. These look at carbon emissions, loads of nitrogen pollution, crop land as a percent of ice-free land, and humanity’s appropriation of primary productivity, among other things. And generally, I think they converge on a pretty similar conclusion that we are living beyond our means and eventually we are going to pay. Normally I try not to shamelessly promote my book, but for my book I made what I think is a pretty cool and useful graphic, which I am sharing below.

planetary_boundaries

Summary of Ecological Footprint and Planetary Boundary Literature

And just in case you think I might be making this stuff up, here are my references:

Rockstrom, J. et al., 2009. Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecology and Society 14, 32.

Running, S.W., 2012. A Measurable Planetary Boundary for the Biosphere. Science 337, 1458–1459. doi:10.1126/science.1227620

Wackernagel, M. and W. Rees, 1996. Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth, New catalyst bioregional series. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC ; Philadelphia, PA.

 

growth, sustainability, and employment

Leave a reply

This article in Ecological Economics looks at economic growth, sustainability, and employment together:

Two empirical correlations are studied: one between economic growth and environmental impacts, and the other between the lack of economic growth and unemployment. It is demonstrated that, at a global level, economic growth is strongly correlated with environmental impacts, and barriers to fast decoupling are large and numerous. On the other hand, low or negative growth is highly correlated with increasing unemployment in most market economies, and strategies to change this lead to difficult questions and tradeoffs. The coexistence of these two correlations – which have rarely been studied together in the literature on “green growth”, “degrowth” and “a-growth” – justifies ambivalence about growth. To make key environmental goals compatible with full employment, the decoupling of environmental impacts from economic output has to be accompanied by a reduction of dependence on growth. In particular, strategies to tackle unemployment without the need for growth, several of which are studied in this article, need much more attention in research and policy.

I get it – growth and employment are often looked at together in the mainstream economic literature, obviously. Employment is pretty important to living standards and social/political stability. Sustainability and growth are often looked at together in the sustainability literature (which is “mainstream” to some, but not really to most economists). There is an obvious tradeoff between the two as long as our economy devours large amounts of natural resources and produces enormous amounts of waste and pollution. The idea of “decoupling” is that each unit of growth gets slightly greener and cleaner over time. But unfortunately, that process does not seem to be nearly fast enough to prevent eventual collapse. Damage to natural ecosystems is increasing and will eventually threaten the ecosystem services that our human civilization depends on. That is the trend we are on. The only two ways out are to slow growth or to accelerate the decoupling process. This article seems to focus on the former. My opinion is that this path is politically impossible unless it is precipitated by some serious crisis, which we can’t just sit around and wait for because it could cause enormous pain and suffering. So the latter option is the only hope. It is hard but entirely possible if enough people understand the situation and dedicate their efforts to make it happen.

Bill Gross on the new normal

Leave a reply

In this 2009 essay, after an incomprehensible and irrelevant introduction involving golf, Bill Gross from PIMCO gives us his reasons why we may be in a “new normal” of lower economic growth:

  1. American-style capitalism and the making of paper instead of things. Inherent in the “great moderation” of the past 25 years was the acceptance of a sort of reverse mercantilism. America would consume, then print paper assets and debt in order to pay for it. Developing (and many developed) countries would make things, and accept America’s securities in return. This game is over, and unless developing countries (China, Brazil) step up and generate a consumer ethic of their own, the world will grow at a slower pace.
  2. Private vs. public-driven growth. The invisible hand of free enterprise is being replaced by the visible fist of government, a temporarily necessary, but (if permanent) damnable condition itself in terms of future growth and profits. The once successful “shadow banking system” is being regulated and delevered. Perhaps a fabled “110-pound weakling” may be an exaggeration of where our financial system is headed, but rest assured it will not be looking like Charles Atlas anytime soon. Prepare to have sand kicked in your face, if you believe you are a “child of the bull market!”
  3. Global economic leadership. It’s premature to award the 21st century to the Chinese as opposed to the United States, but if the last six months have been any example, China is sort of lookin’ like Muhammad Ali standing over Sonny Liston in 1964 yelling, “Get up, you big ugly bear!” Not only has China spent three times the amount of money (relative to GDP) to revive its economy, but it has managed to grow at a “near normal” 8% pace vs. our “big R” recessionary numbers. Its equity market, while volatile and lightly regulated, has almost doubled in twelve months, making ours look like that ugly bear instead of a raging bull.
  4. United States housing and employment. Old normal housing models in the U.S. encouraged home ownership, eventually peaking at 69% of households as shown in Chart 1. Subsidized and tax-deductible mortgage interest rates as well as a “see no evil – speak no evil” regulatory response to government Agencies FNMA and FHLMC promoted a long-term housing boom and now a significant housing bust. Housing cannot lead us out of this big R recession no matter what the recent Case-Shiller home price numbers may suggest. The model has been broken if only because homeownership is declining, not rising, sinking to perhaps a New Normal level of 65% as opposed to 69% of American households.

As usual, no acknowledgment that ecological limits could play a role. If they are playing a role, my thought is that the boom times leading up to 2007 could easily have masked a weaker, but more permanent, signal being sent to us by our planet. Then following the bust, that signal could make a recovery harder than it should have been if we were simply reverting to a long-term mean. So during each boom, we forget about the underlying signal, then after each bust it gets harder and harder to recover to the previous trend, and we scratch our heads as to why. If my hypothesis is correct, eventually there will come a bust that we don’t recover from. Maybe this is even it – there is essentially no growth in Europe or Japan, and we are celebrating a very low growth rate in the U.S. It will be difficult to discern the long-term signal from the noise in real time. In hindsight, it may be obvious.

green infrastructure reminder

Leave a reply

The American Society of Landscape Architects reminds us that green infrastructure is more than what we used to call stormwater management practices. It’s a network of designed and natural ecosystems linked together to perform critical functions cheaper and better than purely manmade systems could:

Green infrastructure includes park systems, urban forests, wildlife habitat and corridors, and green roofs and green walls. These infrastructure systems protect communities against flooding or excessive heat, or help to improve air and water quality, which underpin human and environmental health…

Here are just some of the many benefits that these systems provide all at once: green infrastructure absorbs and sequesters atmospheric carbon dioxide (C02); filters air and water pollutants; stabilizes soil to prevent or reduce erosion; provides wildlife habitat; decreases solar heat gain; lowers the public cost of stormwater management infrastructure and provides flood control; and reduces energy usage through passive heating and cooling. In contrast, grey infrastructure usually provides just a single benefit.

“All at once” and “single benefit” are key phrases. You have entities like wastewater authorities, transportation authorities, parks and wildlife agencies that are each trying to maximize the single benefit they have been tasked within the limited budget each has given. Each is trying to be efficient, but together they are inefficient, redundant, and even working at cross purposes. There is nothing responsible or ethical about sitting inside your bubble making “cost-effective” decisions that ignore everything happening outside your bubble.

This article drills down to a fantastic wealth of references that we should all take a year off and read.

(By the way, this article also contains some questionable numbers about at least one program I happen to be familiar with. But never mind, the concepts are right even if the numbers are questionable.)

Herman Daly

Leave a reply

Herman Daly has a graph explaining his concept of “uneconomic growth”.

From the graph it is evident that increasing production and consumption is rightly called economic growth only up to the economic limit. Beyond that point it becomes uneconomic growth because it increases costs by more than benefits, making us poorer, not richer. Unfortunately it seems that we perversely continue to call it economic growth! Indeed, you will not find the term “uneconomic growth” in any textbook in macroeconomics. Any increase in real GDP is called “economic growth” even if it increases costs faster than benefits.

 

genuine progress indicator

Leave a reply

Vermont is going to have a go at the Genuine Progress Indicator, a GDP alternative:

Estimating the GPI begins with household consumption, the major component of Gross Domestic (or State) Product (GDP), followed by twenty-four separate adjustments including:

  • Additions for benefits not included in GDP, for example the values of volunteer and household work, and non-market benefits from the services of forests (e.g. water purification) and wetlands (e.g. buffer storm events);
  • Deductions for depletion of our environmental assets, harm to human health, costs of underemployment, and loss of leisure time; and
  • Adjustment for the distribution of income received by citizens, more accurately measuring the ability of the economy to provide for all.

The website explains in detail how the calculations are done.

computer algorithm can identify dogs

Leave a reply

Microsoft has posted this video on Youtube of new software that can identify a dog breed from a photo of a dog.

Why does this matter? Well, it looks like computers are getting better and better at doing things that human beings have always been better at. It’s easy to think of all sorts of disturbing intelligence and military applications, but also great scientific applications like sending a drone to inventory all the trees in a forest or fish in a lake.

functional urban streams

Leave a reply

If you want a functional urban aquatic ecosystem, you don’t get it just through half-hearted management measures in the area draining to the stream. You have to get in there and make a functional ecosystem, and then you might be able to protect and sustain it by managing the watershed better. The article in Restoration Ecology looks at a range of numbers from the literature that make the case pretty well:

Urban development is a leading cause of stream impairment that reduces biodiversity and negatively affects ecosystem processes and habitat. Out-of-stream restoration practices, such as stormwater ponds, created wetlands, and restored riparian vegetation, are increasingly implemented as management strategies to mitigate impacts. However, uncertainty exists regarding how effectively they improve downstream ecosystems because monitoring is uncommon and results are typically reported on a case-by-case basis. We conducted a meta-analysis of literature and used response ratios to quantify how downstream ecosystems change in response to watershed development and to out-of-stream restoration. Biodiversity in unrestored urban streams was 47% less than that in reference streams, and ecological communities, habitat, and rates of nutrient cycling were negatively affected as well. Mean measures of ecosystem attributes in restored streams were significantly greater than, and 156% of, those in unrestored urban streams. Measures of biodiversity in restored streams were 132% of those in unrestored urban streams, and indices of biotic condition, community structure, and nutrient cycling significantly improved. However, ecosystem attributes and biodiversity at restored sites were significantly less than, and only 60% and 45% of, those in reference streams, respectively. Out-of-stream management practices improved ecological conditions in urban streams but still failed to restore reference stream conditions. Despite statistically significant improvements, assessing restoration success remains difficult due to few comparisons to reference sites or to clearly defined targets. These findings can inform future monitoring, management, and development strategies and highlight the need for preventative actions in a watershed context.

So let’s focus more on function and worry less about structure in our urban ecosystems. Let’s not settle for making them less bad. Let’s make them good!

Biophilic Cities

Leave a reply

Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature into Urban Design and Planning

Yesterday I mentioned Blue Urbanism by Timothy Beatley. An earlier book of his was called Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature into Urban Design and Planning. This echoes some of my personal ideas about building a civilization that is truly in harmony with nature. Here’s the description on Amazon:

Tim Beatley has long been a leader in advocating for the “greening” of cities. But too often, he notes, urban greening efforts focus on everything except nature, emphasizing such elements as public transit, renewable energy production, and energy efficient building systems. While these are important aspects of reimagining urban living, they are not enough, says Beatley. We must remember that human beings have an innate need to connect with the natural world (the biophilia hypothesis). And any vision of a sustainable urban future must place its focus squarely on nature, on the presence, conservation, and celebration of the actual green features and natural life forms.

A biophilic city is more than simply a biodiverse city, says Beatley. It is a place that learns from nature and emulates natural systems, incorporates natural forms and images into its buildings and cityscapes, and designs and plans in conjunction with nature. A biophilic city cherishes the natural features that already exist but also works to restore and repair what has been lost or degraded.
In Biophilic Cities Beatley not only outlines the essential elements of a biophilic city, but provides examples and stories about cities that have successfully integrated biophilic elements–from the building to the regional level–around the world.
From urban ecological networks and connected systems of urban greenspace, to green rooftops and green walls and sidewalk gardens, Beatley reviews the emerging practice of biophilic urban design and planning, and tells many compelling stories of individuals and groups working hard to transform cities from grey and lifeless to green and biodiverse.

“blue urbanism”

Leave a reply

Blue Urbanism: Exploring Connections Between Cities and Oceans

Blue Urbanism by Timothy Beatley is about building awareness among people in cities about their impacts on the oceans. Here’s the description on Amazon.com:

What would it mean to live in cities designed to foster feelings of connectedness to the ocean? As coastal cities begin planning for climate change and rising sea levels, author Timothy Beatley sees opportunities for rethinking the relationship between urban development and the ocean. Modern society is more dependent upon ocean resources than people are commonly aware of—from oil and gas extraction to wind energy, to the vast amounts of fish harvested globally, to medicinal compounds derived from sea creatures, and more. In Blue Urbanism, Beatley argues that, given all we’ve gained from the sea, city policies, plans, and daily urban life should acknowledge and support a healthy ocean environment.

The book explores issues ranging from urban design and land use, to resource extraction and renewable energy, to educating urbanites about the wonders of marine life. Beatley looks at how emerging practices like “community supported fisheries” and aquaponics can provide a sustainable alternative to industrial fishing practices. Other chapters delve into incentives for increasing use of wind and tidal energy as renewable options to oil and gas extraction that damages ocean life, and how the shipping industry is becoming more “green.” Additionally, urban citizens, he explains, have many opportunities to interact meaningfully with the ocean, from beach cleanups to helping scientists gather data.

While no one city “has it all figured out,” Beatley finds evidence of a changing ethic in cities around the world: a marine biodiversity census in Singapore, decreasing support for shark-finning in Hong Kong, “water plazas” in Rotterdam, a new protected area along the rocky shore of Wellington, New Zealand, “bluebelt” planning in Staten Island, and more. Ultimately he explains we must create a culture of “ocean literacy” using a variety of approaches, from building design and art installations that draw inspiration from marine forms, to encouraging citizen volunteerism related to oceans, to city-sponsored research, and support for new laws that protect marine health.

Equal parts inspiration and practical advice for urban planners, ocean activists, and policymakers, Blue Urbanism offers a comprehensive look at the challenges and great potential for urban areas to integrate ocean health into their policy and planning goals.