This work does not outline a detailed set of policies for each country around the world to avoid the pending global ecological breakdown. Nor does it outline the global policies needed to create a sustainable Planet. What is attempted here is much more modest. This work outlines the principles of a manifesto for the Earth. It starts by suggesting some of the geophysiological facts of life. Without an understanding of the geophysiological basis of human existence it is impossible either to live by ecologically sound values or to draw up and implement policies for a sustainable Planet. The geophysiological 'subsoil' is then covered by the manifesto's philosophical 'topsoil' because humans need values by which to relate to each other, other species, and the Planet itself. The geophysiological subsoil also provides the essential nutrients for a methodology by which to measure the scale and speed of global ecological destruction; the proximity to a global ecological breakdown; and the human activities which are causing the most ecological damage. It also assesses who is responsible for causing the biggest ecological damage, and pinpoints the biggest ecological threat to the Planet's life support system. This methodological 'tree' provides the branches on which the 'buds' of a political analysis may flower. It is essential for a political party to know just how close humans are to a global ecological disaster since there is no point in campaigning on the basis of a long march into power when the road comes to a dead end just around the corner; it is essential to know which human activities (cars, kids, cattle, capital or carnage) are causing the most ecological damage otherwise it won't be possible to determine which reforms need to be tackled first nor the scale of those reforms; and it is imperative to know who is causing the ecological destruction and which is the biggest ecological disaster if greens are not to waste time campaigning against the wrong people on the wrong issues. This work then draws up a set of political objectives since clearly a political party has got to know what it is fighting for. The nature of a sustainable planet is then outlined. Quite incredibly, given that the green movement has been in existence for nearly a quarter of a century, there are no theories outlining the basic structures of a green world - as opposed to some introverted, xenophobic, decentralized oasis in a desert of global ecological destruction. Even today it is deemed impossible to outline even the structure of a sustainable Planet, "It is not possible to specify the structural features of the steady-state society." (William Ophuls & A Stephen Boyan JR 'Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity Revisited. The Unravelling of the American Dream' WH Freeman and Company, New York 1992 p.285); and some activists even confess that, "It is difficult to see how green economics could function in theory or practice." (Derek Wall 'Steps to a Green Society' p.79). The geophysiological facts of life and the geophysiological methodology produce the 'seeds' of a strategy and tactics which the Green party should adopt if it is not to sink back into that oblivion from which rupert murdoch rescued it in the months prior to the 1989 european elections. Strategy and tactics depend upon a geophysiological analysis. Without such an analysis there can be no effective strategy or tactics.
In conclusion, this work does not provide any answers; what it tries to do is present an understanding of the Earth's life-support system, an Earth based philosophy and a geocentric methodology for working out some of the answers that are needed if humans are to survive in perpetuity on Earth. Greens may not like this globalization and quantification of green politics but one of the advantages of such a theory is that it helps to overcome the all too understandable human proclivity towards humanism, the continual promotion of ever expanding human interests, which, unfortunately, is the fundamental underlying cause of the increasingly dangerous geophysiological breakdown. Humans have got to learn to live with the Earth. The Earth will not reconstitute itself to live with humans. Human societies can grow only within the limitations of the Earth's life support system; the Earth will not grow to accommodate perpetually expanding human societies no matter how just, loving, caring and humane those societies may be. Justice, love, care, and humanity are invaluable virtues but they are not guides to living on a sustainable Planet. Even if all humans were just, loving, caring and humane they would still cause a global ecological collapse. Without the Earth humans are nothing. Without humans the Earth would be teeming with a vast array of Wildlife.
There are now Green parties in many countries around the world. They all formulate policies with little reference to the policies advocated by Green parties in other countries. Despite the fact that greens around the world commend themselves for their holistic approach they continue to draw up policies to green their own tiny part of the Planet in virtual isolation from the rest of the world. Unfortunately, however, no holistic theory has yet been established which could unify the policies of all Green parties around the world. Nevertheless, it is imperative for Green parties to develop a means of not merely harmonizing their own national policies, but of harmonizing these national policies internationally in order to create a sustainable Planet.
The Green party's manifesto for a sustainable society (mfss) has expanded over the years as old policies have been rewritten and updated, and new policies inserted. Policy development has depended on a whole range of factors - the enthusiasm of the individuals initiating new policies, the number of people consulted through the policy community, the number of people who could afford to attend working group meetings or get to a Green party conference, and who happened to be the most persuasive speaker at conference. The last thing policy changes have depended on, however, is an understanding of the Earth's life-sustaining processes. Its policies have been formulated in an almost entirely haphazard manner without geophysiological rhyme or reason almost as if the Earth does not exist. The Green party has no holistic theory to assess the geophysiological viability of its policy proposals.
The Green party hasn't outlined the nature of a sustainable Planet. It has not specified the structure, functions and purposes of the institutions needed to protect the Earth's life support system and its biodiversity. It does not know whether the basis of a sustainable Planet is solar power, alternative energy, biomass, bacterial, or phytomass. While there are lots of lovely, nice sounding, green concepts in the mfss - 'living in harmony with nature', 'sustainability', 'renewability', 'biodegradability' etc., there isn't much meaning behind them. How is it possible for the Green party save the Planet when it doesn't even know what a sustainable Planet is?
Even worse is that greens say they want to protect the Earth and yet they still advocate a wide range of policies which would inflict colossal levels of ecological destruction. The Green party blithely sanctions ecological destruction as if it is permissible to destroy any part of the Earth as long as its done for good green reasons, as if only the Green party has the right to destroy the Earth. If these excuses for greens' ecological destruction sound like the greenspeak of multinational corporations who now build green cars, and of governments which construct environmentally friendly roads, then this is exactly what it is. If a Green government implemented the Green party's (often contradictory) policies it would cause a massive level of ecological destruction. The Green party's transport policies in 'Roads to the Future' have been formulated in terms of the ipcc's recommendation for 60-80% reductions in Carbon emissions in order to combat global warming and yet these policies promote large scale ecological devastation WHOSE IMPACT ON GLOBAL WARMING HAS BEEN TOTALLY IGNORED BUT WHICH WOULD EXACERBATE GLOBAL WARMING. Sandy irvine is quite correct, "Taking the world as a whole, the point of overdevelopment has long been surpassed. Yet most people, including many 'greens' are prepared to sacrifice more environments .. by consenting to a bit more development - one more motorway, one more housing estate, one more hotel, one more factory, one more plantation, one more quarry." ('Towards a Politics of Ecology' 1993 p.3-4).
The Green party's current ignorance about the Earth's physiology, and the scale of the ecological collapse which is taking place around the Earth, would not be of much concern if there was a widespread acceptance within the party of the need to overcome such deficiencies but there seems to be little interest in such issues. What exacerbates the situation is that for the last three years the Green party has been imploding because of disputes between protagonists whose only common point of reference seems to be their determination to ignore the Planet's ecology and the damage inflicted upon it. The decentralists (eco-socialists, social ecologists, green anarchists, etc.) regard green issues merely as a means of promoting social interests - and as a result one member of this faction has even gone so far as to suggest that because the public aren't interested in the environment then the party should drop green issues altogether and concentrate on those issues which voters are interested in.
Green 2000, or its latest manifestation, green realignment, seems to be much more concerned with ecology since it criticizes the Green party for drifting away from ecological issues - indeed one green realignment supporter has gone so far as to suggest it should drop all social issues. However, whilst green realignment may be more oriented toward ecology than the decentralists, its electoral, mainstream, reformist outlook makes it almost impossible for its members to talk about the causes of ecological devastation. Realigned greens will not talk about the ecological destruction caused by capitalism, the car, and car related, industries or the animal exploitation industry. Many are petrified about campaigns to promote the interests of Animals for fear of being labelled Animal rights terrorists; they see nothing morally wrong with eating meat; they look upon animal exploiters as potential new members; and they refuse to acknowledge that the animal exploitation industry is the biggest cause of ecological destruction. Representing the more middle class wing of the Green party, they often drive around in cars made from Amazonian iron ore in order to attend meetings where they virtuously demand something is done to stop Rainforest destruction. Their timidity in discussing ecological issues is frightening.
As regards ecological destruction, one side blames over-population and ignores capitalism whilst the other blames capitalism and ignores over-population. Whilst capitalism and over-consumption are currently vastly more ecologically destructive than over-population, the exponential growth in human numbers has nearly reached the start of its last doubling which will culminate in the suffocation of the Earth's life-sustaining processes. There is no doubt that in the next few decades it will overtake the destruction wreaked by capitalism. What is so annoying about the protagonists in this dispute is that they seem to prefer slagging each other off rather than attempting to work out a common methodology by which their respective claims could be measured. They have no common language by which they could reconcile their differences.
Another manifestation of the Green party's haphazard policy development is that its global warming policies have just been tacked onto the mfss without any change in its other policies. As a consequence, the party's policies are not in the least bit integrated with its policies on global warming. It seems to believe that the policies it recommends to combat this ecological disaster would have no effect on its other policies.
In the 1980s, conservative governments in both Britain and America pushed through what was called a supply side revolution ending the dominance of demand-side economics. Ever since the end of the second world war politicians had followed keynesian ideas about the role of governments in stimulating demand to maintain economic growth. This led governments to engage in spending sprees without worrying about where the money was coming from and who was going to pay for it. Eventually even the callaghan government realized that never-ending demand stimulation was causing economic problems and introduced cash limits - the first step in the direction of monetarism. The 1979 thatcher government sought to end demand-side irresponsibility by concentrating upon supply side economics - increased labour productivity through trade union reforms; increased industrial efficiency through deregulation and less bureaucracy; increased competition through privatization and the phasing out of subsidies to industry; fiscal reforms to give consumers more spending power, etc..
However, demand side madness rapidly gave way to supply side madness. Supply side reforms overcame the stop-go problems of the 1960s and 1970s only to replace them with the even bigger oscillations of boom and bust. The nearest that tory governments came to an economic miracle was the economic mirage produced by North Sea oil.
In many ways the greens have yoked themselves to their own green version of supply side madness. When considering the dangers posed by global warming they concentrate almost entirely on Carbon emissions (the greenhouse effect or the supply side of the carbon cycle) and totally ignore, like 'Roads to the Future', the contribution made by the destruction of the Planet's Photosynthetic capacity (the demand side of the Carbon cycle). Whilst greens make endless noises about reducing atmospheric pollution the world's remaining Forests are quietly being ripped to shreds and this can lead only to a global ecological calamity. Greens are not merely ignorant about ecological issues they are becoming increasingly dangerous because the fuss they are creating over atmospheric pollution is not merely diverting attention away from the wholesale ecological devastation which is taking place around the world, it is blinding them to the damage they themselves are promising to inflict on the Earth if they ever get into power.
The Green party's manifesto is irrelevant because its policies are not rooted in an understanding of the Planet's life support system. It is time to develop a manifesto for a sustainable Planet in which policies are derived from basic geophysiological realities and thus take into account the needs and interests of the Earth. It is imperative that green policies are harmonized not merely with each other at the local, national and global, levels but with the needs of the Earth.
This chapter highlights some of the most important geophysiological facts about the Earth. It is neither comprehensive nor detailed.
The evolution of the Earth has been the process of extracting Carbon from the atmosphere through the Photosynthesis carried out by Plants and Micro-organisms. Photosynthesis has produced not merely many of the Planet's abundant minerals (limestone, dolomite, diamonds, fossil fuels, etc.) but is the foundation of the Earth's chain of life.
Micro-organisms, Plants and Animals created the Earth's habitability.
Animals created humans.
Wildlife continue to play an essential part in protecting and maintaining the Planet's life support system. Although no Animal species is indispensable, including humans, it is impossible for humans to take over all the ecological roles played by Wildlife.
The Earth's geophysiology is indivisible. The Earth's climate is a unitary entity, "the atmosphere is a single coherent system, and to understand the weather in any one place you have to take the whole world into account." (Nigel Calder 'Spaceship Earth' Viking, London 1991 p.18).
There are three types of Earthly beings; the producers (i.e. the Photosynthesizers); the consumers (Animals which consume the products of Photosynthesis); and the decomposers (Micro-organisms and Animals which break down nutrients so that they can be used in Photosynthesis).
Every Creature on Earth affects the Planet's geophysiology and anything that happens to the Planet's life support system affects every Creature.
Four billion years ago, after the Earth had coalesced out of the debris of the 'big bang', the Planet's atmosphere consisted almost entirely of Carbon dioxide. Today it consists primarily of oxygen and nitrogen and a number of other gases which exist only in trace quantities - one of which is Carbon dioxide. The amount of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has fallen over this period from 98% to 0.04%. In effect the history of the Earth is the way in which this vast quantity of Carbon has been removed from the atmosphere and transformed into a number of minerals and a prolific array of different life-forms from the smallest of organisms to humans and the charismatic Mega-fauna. The process was started when Plants and Micro-organisms somehow acquired the ability to carry out Photosynthesis. The amount of Carbon they have extracted from the atmosphere has been prodigious, "10,000,000,000,000,000 tons of organic carbon has been stored in the Earth's crust since photosynthesis began." (Tim Radford 'The Crisis of Life on Earth. Our Legacy from the Second Millenium' Thorsons Publishing Group 1990 p.147).
Carbon is the basis of all life on Earth whether Micro-organisms, Plants or Animals, "All life on Earth is based on carbon, a very versatile element. Chains or rings of carbon atoms provide the central framework of organic molecules in plants, animals and their derivative fossil fuels." (A J McMichael 'Planetary Overload: Global Environmental Change and the Health of the Human Species' Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1993 p.135). The chain of life on Earth is made of Carbon. Humans, as that well known Vulcan once described them, "are a carbon based life form".
The Earth's life support system contains a number of 'cyclical' processes . One of the most important is the global Carbon cycle, "This most ubiquitous and massive of biogeochemical cycles (carbon) has countless subcycles turning at vastly different rates through the ages." (Stephen H Schneider 'Introduction in Stephen H Schneider & Penelope J Boston 'Scientists on Gaia' The MIT Press Cambridge Massachusetts 1991. p.xix). One of the most important features of the global Carbon cycle is the Photosynthesis carried out by Plants - Plants are eaten by Animals which expel Carbon back into the atmosphere where it is extracted again by Plants through Photosynthesis.
The Earth's climate is influenced by a number of factors.
the Sun's radiation; this varies over time and changes according to sunspots/sunflares.
various other influences from the Sun such as the inter-reaction between the magnetic fields surrounding the Sun and the Earth.
the Earth's orbit around the Sun.
the Earth's tilt as it orbits the Sun. The Earth's climate is not determined solely by the Planet's proximity to the Sun, "The Earth's tilt gives us our seasons. The bigger the tilt the stronger the contrast between summer and winter." ('Living in the Greenhouse' p.46).
the speed of the Earth's spin; this is gradually slowing down.
the shifting of the Earth's tectonic plates.
the albedo effect, the sunlight reflected by the land, (including ice sheets, Forests, and even human artefacts etc.), oceans, clouds, and seismic/volcanic activity (both of which throw dust into the atmosphere).
geothermal energy emanating from the Earth's interior.
There is a degree of regularity about some of these factors but others, such as the shifting of the Earth's land masses and volcanic activity, are unique. The precise contribution made to the Planet's average temperature by external factors such as the Earth's orbit, wobble, etc., and by terrestrial factors such as volcanoes, the shifting of the tectonic plates, etc. is not known.
Although the Sun bathes the Earth in heat it is global warming which keeps the Earth warm not the Sun. Global warming, a natural phenomena, retains the Sun's heat delaying, and preventing, it from making an immediate escape back into space. Global warming keeps the Earth 33C warmer than it would otherwise be. Without global warming the Earth's average temperature would be -19C. This is the difference between a Planet which would be totally inhospitable for life and one which is teeming with a vast variety of Plant and Animal life.
Global warming is created by three different factors. Firstly, the greenhouse effect. This is a blanket of gases around the Earth which allows the Sun's ultra-violet radiation to pass through the Earth's atmosphere but blocks the escape back into space of infra-red radiation. This causes a build up of heat around the Earth. The most important of the greenhouse gases is water vapour. Other greenhouse gases include Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and about 40 other minor contributors. The biggest anthropogenic contributor to the greenhouse effect is Carbon whether in the form of Carbon dioxide, Methane, Carbon monoxide or chlorofluorocarbons.
Secondly, the Photosynthetic effect. The level of atmospheric Carbon is determined not merely by global Carbon emissions (what is called here the supply side of the Carbon cycle) but by the Earth's terrestrial and aquatic Plants which extract Carbon from the atmosphere (the demand side of the Carbon cycle). It is not possible to reduce the level of atmospheric Carbon by relying solely on limiting Carbon emissions. Even if Carbon emissions were curbed dramatically, the greenhouse effect could get worse if there was a continuous reduction in the demand side of the Carbon cycle.
Thirdly, the heat effect. The heat effect consists of the Earth's nuclear energy, geothermal energy; thermal pollution created by humans and human activities; the albedo effect; and evapotranspiration by which Plants release huge quantities of latent heat in the form of water vapour into the atmosphere. The contribution made by geothermal energy seeping into the atmosphere is minimal. The thermal pollution by humans is increasing but is also minimal. The quantity of heat absorbed by the world's oceans, however, is colossal, "The oceans heat the atmosphere more than the sun's rays do and the top 3 metres of the oceans contain as much heat as the 100 kilometres or so over which the atmosphere extends." (Daniel Clary, New Scientist 27.4.91. p.41-43). Evapotranspiration is also responsible for huge quantities of heat being released into the atmosphere. It is not known, however, how much heat is involved in any of these categories so it is not possible to order them according to their relative contributions.
By far the biggest contributor to global warming is water. Water contributes to global warming in all three categories; water vapour is a greenhouse gas; water plays a vital role in Photosynthesis; and, it contributes to the heat effect through evapotranspiration and the albedo effect of clouds and oceans. The second main contributor to global warming is Carbon. Carbon also contributes via all three categories; it creates a number of greenhouse gases; it is involved in Photosynthesis; and through Plants/Forests it is involved in both evapotranspiration and the albedo effect.
Although global warming is caused primarily by the water cycle it is variations in the Carbon cycle which seem to determine changes in global average temperatures. Water seems to provide the 'base load' which generates the bulk of the Planet's warmth whilst Carbon seems to determine the small, marginal, variations in temperatures which have such a considerable impact on the Earth's climate.
The Earth's global temperature has been fairly consistent over the last 4 billion years, "The earth's climate has changed very little over 3,500 million years." (JE Lovelock 'Gaia. A New look at Life on Earth' Oxford University Press 1979 p.9). This is remarkable given the large number of factors which influence global temperatures and the dramatic extent to which some of these factors have changed over time. During the Earth's lifetime, there has been a 25% increase in the Sun's solar radiation; the Earth's terrain has changed from a lifeless, barren state to one covered in a thick blanket of forests; the Earth's continental landmasses, once huddled together as a supercontinent, have moved thousands of miles apart; and there has been an almost total extraction of Carbon from the atmosphere. It seems unquestionable that there is some relationship between these changes in the Earth's geophysiology and the stability of the Earth's average temperature. The consistency of global average temperatures is even more remarkable given the dramatic changes in the Earth's climate which can be caused by even the smallest change in global temperature. A drop of a mere 4C from present global temperatures i.e. a mere one-seventh of the increase in temperature produced by global warming, would produce massive ice sheets over much of the north american and euro-asian continents.
Over the last couple of million years, however, the Earth's climate has been oscillating between ice ages and inter-glacials, "Ice ages tend to last for 100,000 years. The spell between them, usually, lasts for 10,000 years." (Tim Radford 'The Crisis of Life on Earth. Our Legacy from the Second Millenium. Thorsons Publishing Group 1990. p.135). In terms of the Earth's climatic history, these oscillations are rather strange. It is not known why they are happening nor what it is that is pulling the climate back from these extremes instead of veering off into a runaway ice age or runaway global warming. At the moment the Earth is at the end of its current inter-glacial and, if it was evolving according to its own tendencies, would be heading towards the next ice age, "The present interglacial warm period could be regarded as a fever for Gaia and that left to herself she would be relaxing into her normal, comfortable for her, ice age." (Lovelock 'Stand Up for Gaia' Resurgence no.132 January/February 1989 p.10)
Since the start of the industrial revolution the over-industrialized nations have been dumping so much pollution into the atmosphere and deforesting such vast areas of the Earth, they have started to boost global warming, "Global mean surface air temperature has increased 0.3C to 0.6C over the last 100 years, with the five global average warmest years being in the 1980s." (JT Houghton: GJ Jenkins and JJ Ephraums 'Climate Change. The IPCC Scientific Assessment' Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1990 p.xii). More recent evidence shows that, "The eight hottest years (globally averaged) in the past century were, in increasing order: 1980, 1989, 1981, 1983, 1987, 1988, 1991, 1990." (D.H. Meadows, D.L. Meadows & Jorgen Randers 'Beyond the Limits. Global Collapse or a Sustainable Future' Earthscan, London 1992 p.92).
The reason for such a slight increase in global temperatures over the last hundred years is that global warming could be offsetting the return of the next ice age, .. "global mean surface temperature has increased by 0.3 to 0.6C over the last 100 years. Thus the observed increase could be largely due to this variability; alternatively this variability and other human factors could have offset a still larger human-induced greenhouse warming." (IPCC 'Climate Change 1992. The Supplementary Report to the IPCC Scientific Assessment' Ed by J T Houghton, B A Callander & S K Varney World Meteorological Organization/United Nations Environment Programme Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1992 p.5). The impact of the over-industrialized world on the Planet's global temperature is becoming so overwhelming it is threatening not merely to delay the next ice age but to create the conditions for a runaway global warming which could devastate the Planet's geophysiology.
In conclusion, humans have always influenced the Earth's average temperature and thus the climate so what is happening today is no different - except in scale and rapidity. Whether humans had evolved or not the Earth's climate would still be in a process of constant change. If, at the moment, humans 'lived in harmony with nature' and minimized their interference of the Planet's geophysiology then huge ice sheets would soon be starting to spread across the northern continents. It is clear that if the human race wants to survive in perpetuity on Earth then it must prevent the return of an ice age and, far more pertinently, prevent it from generating a climate like that found on Venus. Humans should aim to maintain climatic stability.
It has been pointed out above that the main determinant of global average temperature is the Planet's water cycle. Although humans' impact on the water cycle is becoming more pervasive it is still minuscule given the vast abundance of water on Earth. Humans' impact on the Carbon cycle is altogether of a different order. It is easier for humans to regulate the climate through the Carbon cycle than through the water cycle because although the global Carbon cycle has a much smaller influence on global average temperatures than the water cycle, humans are able to exert a far greater influence over it than the water cycle.
It should be possible to regulate the Planet's climate by varying the Carbon component of the three major contributors to global warming outlined above i.e. the amount of Carbon pollution dumped into the atmosphere; the amount of Carbon extracted from the atmosphere through Photosynthesis; and the amount of heat reflected into space by the Earth's Forest cover. The single most important means for achieving changes in all three factors is by varying the scale of the Earth's Forest cover. The regulation of the climate will be achieved not so much through control of atmospheric emissions, as the ipcc suggests, but primarily through varying the scale of the Earth's Forest cover. Perhaps plato was right after all; politicians need to be astronomers because the Earth's climate is affected by its position in the solar system. Green politics must be based on geophysiology, the science of the Earth's climate.
In effect, Carbon can be regarded as the Planet's thermostat. It will never be possible for humans to regulate the Earth's temperature like an indoor central heating system because there are many factors beyond human influence. (However, this is not an argument against the attempt to regulate the climate but, on the contrary, an argument in favour of doing so in order to counter the damaging impact of changes on the Earth's climate). Nor will it be possible to provide specific climates for specific areas at specific times. But it should be possible to stabilize the climate to prevent it from veering off towards the extremes of another ice age or increasing global warming. Over the long term it should be possible to turn up the Planet's heat to avoid an ice age, or to decrease the heat to avoid a heat age. If this is not done then there will inevitably be a collapse of human civilization when the climate changes significantly in the future. The prospect of billions of people living in the tropics being pushed into temperate zones by global warming is frightening but not as hideous as the prospect of canadians, north americans, russians, europeans and north asians being pushed into the tropics by huge ice sheets.
Humans, just like any other Animal on Earth, are confronted by a multitude of ecological limitations. For example, if they cut down a forest the local weather will change; if they cut down too many trees in a forest there could be water shortages/soil erosion/landslides; if they dump too much excrement 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, it may even prevent their reappearance. Humans would no longer be able to use the land to grow food. Unfortunately, however, humans have learnt to evade a great many of the Earth's local ecological constraints. They can avoid the destruction of a particular environment by dumping pollutants over a wider area and they can evade the consequences of breaching local ecological limitations simply by finding another piece of land or another waterway. Throughout its all too short history (a history which seems to be getting shorter every day) the human species has been able to overcome most local/regional ecological limitations or the lethal consequences of ignoring these limitations - even if some humans, and some human groupings, have not.
There are global ecological constraints, however, which humans cannot avoid. Firstly, the dumping of pollutants into the atmosphere. If humans dump too much pollution into the atmosphere either through industrialization, bad pharming practices leading to wind erosion, or nuclear war this could cause either a nuclear winter which, if it persisted for many years could lead to crop failures, or climatic changes which would make the Earth less hospitable for humans.
Secondly, there are limitations imposed by the fact that the Earth was created, and is still maintained, by Plants and Animals. The Earth is a living entity created by living entities on which humans depend for their survival. The ecological constraints entailed by Plants and Animals, however, are different and need to be explored separately.
Killing one wild Animal will not cause an ecological disaster; killing a number of wild Animals may cause a local ecological disaster ; but killing large numbers of Wildlife species could lead to the destruction of the human race. If humans killed all wildlife, they would destroy the Earth's topsoil and 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 at the top of the food and take over their ecological functions without transgressing ecological constraints but, as humans begin to exterminate species further down the food chain, it becomes more difficult to take over their ecological functions and ecological problems begin to occur. Humans may not be able to exterminate Wildlife species very far down the food chain at all - in turtle island (north america) the near extermination of buffalo for the sake of cattle grazing has been an utter ecological disaster whose repercussions will continue to be felt for hundreds of years. And the same applies to spread of cattle in Africa.
As regards Plants. Killing one Plant makes no ecological difference whilst killing all the Plants in one area could cause local ecological problems. The greater the destruction of the Earth's photosynthetic capacity the greater the disruption of the planet's Carbon cycle and the bigger the climatic changes making the Planet less hospitable for humans. If humans destroyed all Plants they may even 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 terrain can be suffocated under tarmac and cement before there is a geophysiological breakdown. Nor is it known how much of a reduction in terrestrial Photosynthesis the Earth can tolerate before the Planet's life-support system collapses. However, there is little doubt that the 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 and that, since the second world war, there has been a 13% reduction in Photosynthesis. In one sense, the significance of the expropriation of 40% of the Earth's Photosynthesis is much more 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). In other words, the next doubling of the human population, which will take place over the next couple of decades, will double the expropriation of the Earth's photosynthetic capacity. In another sense, however, this is not as serious as it seems since if humans merely take over a constant level of Photosynthesis then the climatic consequences may not be different at all.
What is much more serious than this expropriation process is the reduction of the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity. The significance of the 13% reduction in global Photosynthesis is much greater than it seems because, as Lovelock points out, it is not necessary for all of an ecosystem to be destroyed before it starts to collapse 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 50 years since the second world war then they could destroy 26% in the next 20 years, and perhaps 52% in the next 40 years time.
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 THE WORLD IS HEADING TOWARD AN ECOLOGICAL CATASTROPHE.
It has been concluded that the consequences of destroying Wildlife would be the destruction of Topsoil whilst the destruction of Plants leads to changes in the Earth's climate. Of these two consequences, the loss of topsoil provides a more immediate, and a bigger, threat to the survival of the human race than climate change.
Humans cannot evade the global ecological consequences of dumping too much pollution into the atmosphere, or of exterminating Wildlife species, or of eradicating a significant proportion of the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity. The geophysiological limitations of the climate cannot be evaded. If humans transgress this limit, as they are doing at the moment, then eventually they will suffer the consequences. It is only a question of time before the transgression of this climatic limitation has a significant and growing impact on humans.
| THE MUNDIMENTALIST - Issue 1 - Issue 2 - Issue 3 - - Issue 4 - Issue 5 - Issue 6 - Issue 7 - Issue 8 - Issue 9 |
| MUNDI CLUB HOME AND INTRO PAGES - Mundi Home - - Mundi Intro |
| JOURNALS - Terra / Terra Firm / Mappa Mundi / Mundimentalist / Doom Doom Doom & Doom / Special Pubs / Carbonomics |
| TOPICS - Zionism / Earth / Who's Who / FAQs / Planetary News / Bse Epidemic |
| ABOUT THE MUNDI CLUB - Phil & Pol / List of Pubs / Index of Website / Terminology / Contact Us |
| 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/ |
|