Carbonomics no.1: The Carbon Theory of Value.

Humans, just like any other Animal on Earth, are confronted by a range of environmental limitations to their existence. Firstly, there are local ecological constraints. These local constraints may be so common across the world that they add up to global ecological constraints. Thirdly, there are limitations to the amount of pollution which can be dumped into the atmosphere. Fourthly, climatic constraints since humans and other species can survive only within a certain temperature range; and, finally, there are biodiversity limitations. This section is not meant to be comprehensive but to outline the critical limitations.

Humans are faced with a number of local, ecological constraints. For example, if they cut down a Forest the local weather will change; if they clear too much of a Forest there could be water shortages/soil erosion/landslides; if they dump too much excrement[5] or too many toxic chemicals onto a piece of land or into a waterway it will kill off Plants and Animals and, in the worst cases, sterilize the land; if they mismanage irrigation they may cause salinization; if they overwork or exhaust the soil they will cause desertification; if they dump too much pollution into the atmosphere in most cases it will blow away but in some cases the pollution lingers in the locality for days or even weeks.

Unfortunately, however, humans have learnt to evade most of the Earth’s local ecological constraints. They can do this either by finding another piece of land/waterway or by dumping pollutants over a wider area. Throughout its all too short history (a history which seems to be getting shorter every day) the human species has succeeded in evading most local/regional ecological limitations - even if some humans, and some human groupings, have not.

Although in the past it was possible for humans to evade the consequences of breeching local ecological constraints simply by moving on elsewhere this is no longer the case. All the land has been occupied and there is nowhere else to go. Local ecological constraints have become global ecological constraints. Humans cannot avoid global ecological constraints.

“The human enterprize has passed the point where the energy required to support it in its present form can be obtained entirely through green plants.” (George M Woodwell ‘Forests: What in the World are they For?’ in Kilaparti Ramakrishna & George M Woodwell (eds) ‘World Forests for the Future: Their Use and Conservation’ Yale University Press New Haven 1993 p.8).

In antiquity, the romans conquered the carthaginians, took over their land to grow wheat, and used it to supply rome with cheap food. All the nutrients in the soil covering the entire north of africa were then flushed down the loos in rome and into the seas. It was not long before the soil became exhausted and the whole area turned into desert - a desert which continues to exist. This same process of nutrient extraction is currently taking place around the world. Vast areas of land which have been turned over to cash crops are having nutrients sucked out of the soil only to end up in the sewage systems in the over-industrialized nations. The life-blood of the world’s soils is being vampirized by over-industrialized, factory pharm oomans whose manure is then flushed into the sewage system and then into the seas where it causes algal blooms which deoxygentae the water and poison marine life.

In most places around the world and at most times throughout history there have been no local limitations to the dumping of pollutants into the atmosphere. There comes a time, however, when so many local people are solving their local ecological problems by dumping pollutants into the atmosphere that they cause a global problem which runs up against a global ecological problem.

If humans dump too much dust or aerosols into the atmosphere either through over-industrialization, bad pharming practices leading to wind erosion, or nuclear war, etc., this causes a reduction in sunlight as the sun’s rays are reflected back into space. In the most extreme cases it could cause a nuclear winter which, if it persisted for many years, could lead to continental, or even global, crop failures.

The more that humans destroy the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity the greater the disruption of the Planet’s Carbon spiral, the bigger the the climatic changes. Ultimately if climate changes continue then it could make the Planet inhospitable to humans. There is no scientific certainty, however, about the critical point at which the damage to the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity will cause a geophysiological collapse. It is not known how much of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity can be destroyed before there is a geophysiological breakdown. Nor is it known how much it is possible to reduce the efficiency of the Earth’s Photosynthesis (even if the area involved in Photosynthesis remains the same) before the Planet’s life-support system collapses.[6] However, there is little doubt that the current scale of ecological destruction is moving rapidly towards this critical point.

It has been estimated that humans have already taken over 40% of the Planet’s terrestrial Photosynthesis. In one sense, this is not as serious as it seems since if humans merely take over and thus maintain the same level of Photosynthesis, then the climatic consequences may not be much different. In another sense, however, it is serious than it seems, “Although 40% may technically be less than half, we had better think of it as indicating relative fullness, because it is only one doubling time away from 80% a figure which represents excessive fullness.” (Herman E Daly ‘From Empty World Economics to Full World Economics: A Historical Turning Point’ in Kilaparti Ramakrishna & George M Woodwell (eds) ‘World Forests for the Future: Their Use and Conservation’ Yale University Press New Haven 1993 p.80). Daly does not estimate how long it will take to achieve the next doubling nor what the ecological consequences may be. The next doubling of the human population or the next doubling of economic growth (either of which could take place over the next fifty years) could lead to a doubling in the expropriation of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity. However, if economic growth, population growth, the growth in the cattle industry, and the gorwth in carnage continue at their present exponential rates then the expropriation of the Earth’s Photosynthesis could take place within the next three decades.

It has also been estimated, however, that, there has been a reduction in the Earth’s land-based Photosynthesis - a massive reduction of 13% since the second world war. This could well be much more serious than the mere expropriation of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity. In addition, the significance of the 13% reduction is much greater than it seems because, as Lovelock points out, it is not necessary for an entire ecosystem to be destroyed before it collapses of its own accord, “The effects of forest clearance will probably be the first gigantic disaster to greet us within the next decade or two. Numerical models based on Gaia theory, and the experience of past civilizations, both predict that once more than this proportion of a self regulating ecosystem dies (65%) then it can no longer sustain its climate and total collapse takes place.” ('Gaia' p.158). Clearly 13% is a lot closer to 65% than it is to 100%. If humans have destroyed 13% in the last 50 years they could destroy another 13% in the next 50 years, another 26% over the following 100 years, thereby bringing total destruction within sight of Lovelock’s 65% limit. This rate of Photosynthetic destruction, however, is linear. If it was to accelerate because of the exponential growth in the numbers of cars, kids, cattle, capital and cattle then humans could reach Lovelock’s limit not within 150 years but 50 years or even less.

Humans are far closer to a global ecological calamity than is suggested by the expropriation of 40% of the Earth’s Photosynthesis and the 13% reduction in terrestrial Photosynthesis. Given that over the next thirty years there could be a doubling of the human population and perhaps a gatt inspired tenfold increase in industrial production, then clearly humans are going to breech the Earth’s climatic limitations and THE HUMAN RACE IS USHING THE EARTH TOWARD AN ECOLOGICAL CATASTROPHE.

Killing one wild Animal will not cause an ecological disaster;[7] killing a local species of animal (usually defined, by humans, as a ‘pest’) may cause a local ecological disaster;[8] killing vast numbers of wild Animals may cause a national ecological disaster[9]; but killing large numbers of Wildlife species would breech biodiversity constraints which could lead to the destruction of the human race. If humans killed all wildlife, this would entail the destruction of the Earth’s topsoil which would mean that humans would no longer be able to grow food. There would also be significant changes in the Earth’s services which would make the Planet increasingly inhospitable for humans. It is possible that humans could exterminate Animals species at the top of the food chain without transgressing ecological constraints if they took over the ecological functions of these species but, as humans begin to exterminate species further down the food chain, it would become more difficult to take over their ecological functions and ecological problems would then begin to proliferate. Humans may not be able to exterminate Wildlife species very far down the food chain - in Turtle island (north america) the near extermination of the Buffalo which were eventually replaced by cattle has been a regional ecological disaster whose repercussions will continue to be felt for hundreds of years. The same applies to spread of cattle in africa.

It has been concluded that the consequences of destroying Wildlife would be the destruction of Topsoil whilst the destruction of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity leads to changes in the Earth’s climate. Of the two consequences, the loss of topsoil provides a more immediate, and a bigger, threat to the survival of the human race than climate change.[10]

Humans cannot evade the global ecological consequences of dumping too much pollution into the atmosphere, or of eradicating a significant proportion of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity,[11] or of exterminating Wildlife species. The geophysiological limitations of the climate cannot be evaded. If humans transgress these limits, as they are in the process of doing so, then eventually they will suffer the consequences. It is only a question of time before the transgression of biodiversity and climatic limitations has a significant and growing impact on humans.

There are ways of working out the Earth’s various thresholds:-

The threshold destruction of Photosynthesis cannot be calculated independently of the greenhouse effect since the concentration of atmospheric Carbon has an influence on, and is influenced by, the scale of Photosynthesis. Extending Lovelock’s argument then it may be that destroying more than 65% of the Earth’s ecology will cause the rest of the Earth’s life support to collapse of its own accord.

xi) The Earth’s Geophysiological Limitations. There’s no Escaping the Climate.
		Humans, just like any other Animal on Earth, are confronted by a range of environmental limitations to their existence. Firstly, there are local ecological constraints. These local constraints may be so common across the world that they add up to global ecological constraints. Thirdly, there are limitations to the amount of pollution which can be dumped into the atmosphere. Fourthly, climatic constraints since humans and other species can survive only within a certain temperature range; and, finally, there are biodiversity limitations. This section is not meant to be comprehensive but to outline the critical limitations. I: Ecological Limitations. Humans are faced with a number of local, ecological constraints. For example, if they cut down a Forest the local weather will change; if they clear too much of a Forest there could be water shortages/soil erosion/landslides; if they dump too much excrement[5] or too many toxic chemicals onto a piece of land or into a waterway it will kill off Plants and Animals and, in the worst cases, sterilize the land; if they mismanage irrigation they may cause salinization; if they overwork or exhaust the soil they will cause desertification; if they dump too much pollution into the atmosphere in most cases it will blow away but in some cases the pollution lingers in the locality for days or even weeks. Unfortunately, however, humans have learnt to evade most of the Earth’s local ecological constraints. They can do this either by finding another piece of land/waterway or by dumping pollutants over a wider area. Throughout its all too short history (a history which seems to be getting shorter every day) the human species has succeeded in evading most local/regional ecological limitations - even if some humans, and some human groupings, have not. II: Global Ecological Limitations. Although in the past it was possible for humans to evade the consequences of breeching local ecological constraints simply by moving on elsewhere this is no longer the case. All the land has been occupied and there is nowhere else to go. Local ecological constraints have become global ecological constraints. Humans cannot avoid global ecological constraints. A: Energy. “The human enterprize has passed the point where the energy required to support it in its present form can be obtained entirely through green plants.” (George M Woodwell ‘Forests: What in the World are they For?’ in Kilaparti Ramakrishna & George M Woodwell (eds) ‘World Forests for the Future: Their Use and Conservation’ Yale University Press New Haven 1993 p.8). B: The Extraction of Nutrients. In antiquity, the romans conquered the carthaginians, took over their land to grow wheat, and used it to supply rome with cheap food. All the nutrients in the soil covering the entire north of africa were then flushed down the loos in rome and into the seas. It was not long before the soil became exhausted and the whole area turned into desert - a desert which continues to exist. This same process of nutrient extraction is currently taking place around the world. Vast areas of land which have been turned over to cash crops are having nutrients sucked out of the soil only to end up in the sewage systems in the over-industrialized nations. The life-blood of the world’s soils is being vampirized by over-industrialized, factory pharm oomans whose manure is then flushed into the sewage system and then into the seas where it causes algal blooms which deoxygentae the water and poison marine life. III: The Limitations of Atmospheric Pollution. In most places around the world and at most times throughout history there have been no local limitations to the dumping of pollutants into the atmosphere. There comes a time, however, when so many local people are solving their local ecological problems by dumping pollutants into the atmosphere that they cause a global problem which runs up against a global ecological problem. A: Nuclear Winter. If humans dump too much dust or aerosols into the atmosphere either through over-industrialization, bad pharming practices leading to wind erosion, or nuclear war, etc., this causes a reduction in sunlight as the sun’s rays are reflected back into space. In the most extreme cases it could cause a nuclear winter which, if it persisted for many years, could lead to continental, or even global, crop failures. IV: Climatic Limitations. Humans are also confronted by climatic limitations and if breeched this could lead to dramatic changes in the Earth’s climate. A: The Greenhouse Effect. If humans dump too many greenhouse gases into the atmosphere it could increase global temperatures and make the Earth less hospitable for humans. B: Phytomass. The more that humans destroy the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity the greater the disruption of the Planet’s Carbon spiral, the bigger the the climatic changes. Ultimately if climate changes continue then it could make the Planet inhospitable to humans. There is no scientific certainty, however, about the critical point at which the damage to the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity will cause a geophysiological collapse. It is not known how much of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity can be destroyed before there is a geophysiological breakdown. Nor is it known how much it is possible to reduce the efficiency of the Earth’s Photosynthesis (even if the area involved in Photosynthesis remains the same) before the Planet’s life-support system collapses.[6] However, there is little doubt that the current scale of ecological destruction is moving rapidly towards this critical point. It has been estimated that humans have already taken over 40% of the Planet’s terrestrial Photosynthesis. In one sense, this is not as serious as it seems since if humans merely take over and thus maintain the same level of Photosynthesis, then the climatic consequences may not be much different. In another sense, however, it is serious than it seems, “Although 40% may technically be less than half, we had better think of it as indicating relative fullness, because it is only one doubling time away from 80% a figure which represents excessive fullness.” (Herman E Daly ‘From Empty World Economics to Full World Economics: A Historical Turning Point’ in Kilaparti Ramakrishna & George M Woodwell (eds) ‘World Forests for the Future: Their Use and Conservation’ Yale University Press New Haven 1993 p.80). Daly does not estimate how long it will take to achieve the next doubling nor what the ecological consequences may be. The next doubling of the human population or the next doubling of economic growth (either of which could take place over the next fifty years) could lead to a doubling in the expropriation of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity. However, if economic growth, population growth, the growth in the cattle industry, and the gorwth in carnage continue at their present exponential rates then the expropriation of the Earth’s Photosynthesis could take place within the next three decades. It has also been estimated, however, that, there has been a reduction in the Earth’s land-based Photosynthesis - a massive reduction of 13% since the second world war. This could well be much more serious than the mere expropriation of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity. In addition, the significance of the 13% reduction is much greater than it seems because, as Lovelock points out, it is not necessary for an entire ecosystem to be destroyed before it collapses of its own accord, “The effects of forest clearance will probably be the first gigantic disaster to greet us within the next decade or two. Numerical models based on Gaia theory, and the experience of past civilizations, both predict that once more than this proportion of a self regulating ecosystem dies (65%) then it can no longer sustain its climate and total collapse takes place.” ('Gaia' p.158). Clearly 13% is a lot closer to 65% than it is to 100%. If humans have destroyed 13% in the last 50 years they could destroy another 13% in the next 50 years, another 26% over the following 100 years, thereby bringing total destruction within sight of Lovelock’s 65% limit. This rate of Photosynthetic destruction, however, is linear. If it was to accelerate because of the exponential growth in the numbers of cars, kids, cattle, capital and cattle then humans could reach Lovelock’s limit not within 150 years but 50 years or even less. Humans are far closer to a global ecological calamity than is suggested by the expropriation of 40% of the Earth’s Photosynthesis and the 13% reduction in terrestrial Photosynthesis. Given that over the next thirty years there could be a doubling of the human population and perhaps a gatt inspired tenfold increase in industrial production, then clearly humans are going to breech the Earth’s climatic limitations and THE HUMAN RACE IS USHING THE EARTH TOWARD AN ECOLOGICAL CATASTROPHE. V: Biodiversity Limitations. There are limitations imposed by the fact that the Earth was partly created, and is still partly maintained, by Animals. Humans depend for their survival on the Earth - a living entity created by living entities. Killing one wild Animal will not cause an ecological disaster;[7] killing a local species of animal (usually defined, by humans, as a ‘pest’) may cause a local ecological disaster;[8] killing vast numbers of wild Animals may cause a national ecological disaster[9]; but killing large numbers of Wildlife species would breech biodiversity constraints which could lead to the destruction of the human race. If humans killed all wildlife, this would entail the destruction of the Earth’s topsoil which would mean that humans would no longer be able to grow food. There would also be significant changes in the Earth’s services which would make the Planet increasingly inhospitable for humans. It is possible that humans could exterminate Animals species at the top of the food chain without transgressing ecological constraints if they took over the ecological functions of these species but, as humans begin to exterminate species further down the food chain, it would become more difficult to take over their ecological functions and ecological problems would then begin to proliferate. Humans may not be able to exterminate Wildlife species very far down the food chain - in Turtle island (north america) the near extermination of the Buffalo which were eventually replaced by cattle has been a regional ecological disaster whose repercussions will continue to be felt for hundreds of years. The same applies to spread of cattle in africa. VI: The Earth’s Thresholds. It has been concluded that the consequences of destroying Wildlife would be the destruction of Topsoil whilst the destruction of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity leads to changes in the Earth’s climate. Of the two consequences, the loss of topsoil provides a more immediate, and a bigger, threat to the survival of the human race than climate change.[10] Humans cannot evade the global ecological consequences of dumping too much pollution into the atmosphere, or of eradicating a significant proportion of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity,[11] or of exterminating Wildlife species. The geophysiological limitations of the climate cannot be evaded. If humans transgress these limits, as they are in the process of doing so, then eventually they will suffer the consequences. It is only a question of time before the transgression of biodiversity and climatic limitations has a significant and growing impact on humans. There are ways of working out the Earth’s various thresholds:- A: Soil Nutrients. When desertification is growing or is greater than land reclamation. B: Nuclear Winter. This can be determined easily through a few calculations. C: The Greenhouse Effect. It has been estimated that the Earth’s limit is somewhere in the region of 200 parts per million by volume of Carbon. D: Phytomass. The threshold destruction of Photosynthesis cannot be calculated independently of the greenhouse effect since the concentration of atmospheric Carbon has an influence on, and is influenced by, the scale of Photosynthesis. Extending Lovelock’s argument then it may be that destroying more than 65% of the Earth’s ecology will cause the rest of the Earth’s life support to collapse of its own accord. E: Biodiversity. This point can be determined using Earth values mentioned above.

All publications are copyrighted mundi club © You are welcome to quote from these publications as long as you acknowledge the source - and we'd be grateful if you sent us a copy.	We welcome additional information, comments, or criticisms. Email: carbonomics@yahoo.co.uk The Mundi Club Website: http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/
To respond to points made on this website visit our blog at http://mundiclub.blogspot.com/