Reading Response #7

Most of the articles on chapter 11 of the Environment Anthology as well as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 Biodiversity Report agree on a crucial fact: the rate of change in biodiversity due to human activities has increased more rapidly than at any other time in human history, and it is expected to continue or even accelerate. More pressingly, these changes in biodiversity are “to a significant extent irreversible” (MEA 2). The Biodiversity Report explores some of the most dramatic changes that biodiversity has experienced as a result of human domination of ecosystems, such as the decline in population size and range of a majority of species, a disproportionate increase in rates of extinction, the homogenization of species distribution on Earth, and the global decline in genetic diversity (2-4). In addition, like the Synthesis Report on climate change, the Biodiversity Report makes an appeal to decision-makers to realize the real economic, social, and health costs of biodiversity loss. As a balanced assessment, the Report does point out to the undeniable benefits that humans have obtained from the activities that lead to biodiversity change, such as the elimination of disease-carrying organisms. Nevertheless, the Report is quick to point out that, using an economic perspective, these benefits also imply trade-offs and costs (5). The Biodiversity Report does acknowledge that biodiversity holds intrinsic value for many people across the world (6). The focus, however, is on the economic and social costs of biodiversity loss. I find this very interesting, although not at all surprising. After all, the section of the Report “Summary for Decision-Makers” is aimed at actors whose interests are mostly defined by cost-benefit analyses in political and economic activity. In spite of that, the idea that losses to human well-being are the main argument behind the conservation efforts of the Report makes me wonder about the actual place and role of humans in biodiversity, as well as the value of humans, other living organisms, ecosystems, and life on Earth itself.

It seems to be a widespread assumption that human beings and their societies are in a sense external to natural ecosystems, or to nature itself. William Cronon in “The View from Walden” also ponders about the place of people in ecosystems. The notion of “wild” ecosystems entails the absence of humans, and many conservation initiatives are aimed at preserving or restoring such virginal landscapes (Environment Anthology 372). Cronon’s concludes that humans and their history cannot be separated from ecosystems and their evolution through time (383). At this point I must wonder, are urban landscapes not ecosystems? The Environment Anthology offers a definition of ecosystems as “the dynamic collection of living organisms interacting among themselves and the abiotic (non-living) environment in which they exist” (377). I fail to see how even the most metropolitan (or, maybe, “artificial”?) of cities can fail to fit that definition. If humans are part of nature, why should their creations not also be part of it? What makes a tree more natural than a skyscraper? I would dare to ascertain that this view of humans outside of nature is the fundamental problem underlying the conservation issue.

But the next question is, what should be done? Should we follow the Biodiversity Report’s recommendations? The report, among other things, advises to “strengthen response options that are designed with the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services as the primary goal” (MEA 10). An alternative would be to continue or increase human activity with biodiversity loss effects so as to keep obtaining the benefits of said activity for human societies. Would this be bad? Could it be that humans, as a part of nature, are simply nature’s chosen method of massive extinction, just as the previous mass extinction episodes described by Edward O. Wilson (Environmental Anthology 376)? Wilson narrates the natural dynamic of extinction and observes how biodiversity has a way to restore itself from the survival of a mere 1 in a 2,000 species (377). That might lead some to dismiss all worries about biodiversity loss, but then what of its value? Does it have any? The question is perhaps parallel to the question of the meaning of life, for which there is no satisfactory universal answer. However, like an astonished Darwin observing the amazing “creative force” of biodiversity (374), I find it impossible to deny the ineffable feelings of veneration and contentment that the sight of a beautiful natural landscape or of an impressive animal specimen (sometimes even a human) elicits within me. I do not have the answers to the questions that I have raised here, but I have a strong feeling that such questions must illuminate the discussion of biodiversity issues just as much, if not more, than considerations about benefits and costs to human socioeconomic activity.

Reading Response # 6

Reading the remaining topics (3-6) of the IPCC 2007 Synthesis Report was undoubtedly a challenging assignment. As it happened last week, working my way through the numerous charts, graphs, and sets of data proved to be a serious test to my attention span. (The commitment that the Synthesis Report demands from its readers made wonder about how many decision-makers have actually read through it, but that is not the topic of this response.) For my own sake, I will try to summarize some of the most significant and worrisome points that I was able to discern through the mass of information condensed in the Synthesis Report about the impacts of and the responses to climate change.

The Report describes six possible scenarios that take for granted the mitigation policies and sustainable development practices currently employed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It is important to underline, as the Report does, that GHG emissions will continue to grow as long as the mitigation policies represented in all scenarios remain the same (44). The Report goes as far as to include this assertion into its list of “robust findings”, where it reaffirms that what is currently being done is simply not enough (72). What is more worrisome is that the Report has robustly found that “unmitigated climate change [is] likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt” (73).

This remark leads us to the issue of adaptation and mitigation. The former refers to measures aimed at diminishing the impact of climate change under current levels of GHG emissions and concentration, while the latter is focused on reducing GHG emissions (56). Vulnerability to the impacts of climate change is “a function of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity” (64). Mitigating policies are geared towards reducing exposure; adaptive policies seek to reduce sensitivity to the impacts of climate change. The Report stresses that neither mitigation nor adaptation alone are enough to avoid all the possible impacts of climate change (65). The list of policy options that the Report presents is too long summarize here, but it is important to note that the Report bases these policies on the deployment of technology that is already available or will be commercialized by 2030 (60), meaning that it is actually possible to plan and implement a good part of them right now.

The impacts of climate change target different systems, sectors, and regions. The Report contains a long list of impacts, both adverse and beneficial, that affect ecosystems, food supply, coastal areas, industry, human health, and water supply (48). It is necessary to note, however, that the effects of climate change are expected by the Report to be overall adverse. There is not enough space in this response to list all the impacts the Report explains, but an important point to underline is that there are certain groups and regions that are more vulnerable to climate change impacts. Certain groups like the poor, the elderly and young children are at greater risk, even in developed areas of the world (52). Regions like Africa, Asia, and insular areas are at a higher risk to suffer from important climate change-caused effects such as drought, hunger, and flood. To make matters worse, these areas often times have lower adaptive capabilities that make them even more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change (51-52). To be sure, the Report paints a grim picture, but it also underscores the availability of a wide array of adaptive and mitigating measures that can be employed to reduce and stabilize GHG emissions.

Reading Response #5

The Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change contains a daunting amount of data and technical terms in which it is easy to get lost. Among this overwhelming amount of information, however, a single and crucial idea stands out: climate change—more specifically, regional and global warming—and its observed effects on natural and human systems are for the most part a result of human activity. Evidence of climate change has been observed in raising air and ocean temperatures, increased melting of snow and ice surfaces, and higher average sea levels (30). There is strong evidence that climate change has also affected the incidence of extreme weather events, precipitation, and may even have had an impact on tropical cyclone activity (30, 40). The impact of climate change on natural systems is related to snow, ice, and frozen ground, hydrological systems, and coastal processes (31). Impact on hydrological systems, for instance, produces effects on the thermal structure and quality of water (32), which can in turn affect human life. But climate change can also have more direct effects on managed and human systems such as agriculture and forestry, human health, and human activities in the Arctic region. In the case of human health, for instance, climate change can cause changes in infectious disease vectors, and it can also increase allergenic pollen during altered allergy seasons (33). For these and several other reasons, and especially after realizing that human activity bears the main responsibility for climate change, it is important to understand its causes.

The causes of climate change are natural drivers, such as solar radiation and natural aerosols, and anthropogenic drivers, such as atmospheric concentrations of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses and aerosols, all of which can act as either cooling or warming drivers (36-37). The Synthesis Report acknowledges that the overall result of climate change, measured by the change in energy balance of the climate system—radiative forcing—, has been of warming, and that warming is chiefly the result of anthropogenic drivers (37-39). Moreover, the concentration of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and halocarbons has played the biggest role in causing the warming of global climate (37).

What is interesting to note is that these greenhouse gasses are obviously byproducts of industrial activity, as evidenced by the dramatic increase of emissions since 1750 (coinciding with the beginning stages of the Industrial Revolution) and also by higher rates of change in physical and biological systems and surface temperatures in the Northern hemisphere, where the most industrialized regions of the world are concentrated (32). Energy supply, transport, and industry are the main rubrics of human activity that produce greenhouse gasses, but increasing global income and population also play an important role (36-37). Evidently, industrialization is strongly tied to the processes of climate change. Nevertheless, the potentially adverse effects of climate change impact both industrialized and nonindustrialized areas of the world. This underscores the importance of attaining a profound understanding of the causes and effects of climate change, but also the need to formulate and implement measures to manage the anthropogenic drivers of climate change.