DOCSLIB.ORG

Planetary Boundaries for Biodiversity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Planetary Boundaries for Biodiversity Forum 10-fold background. Despite widespread To address concerns that extinction rates Planetary Boundaries criticisms, the tipping-point claim per- are an inappropriate metric, the biodiver- for Biodiversity: sists, with recent reproduction of the orig- sity boundary is renamed as ‘biosphere ii inal claim [1] and statements that the integrity’ [3]. Two static measures of bio- Implausible Science, threshold is ‘not arbitrary’, emerges from diversity replace rates: phylogenetic vari- Pernicious Policies ‘massive amounts of data’ from many ability and functional diversity. Problems 1, fields, and that ‘no one is saying that of definition apart, reliable estimates for José M. Montoya, * ’ ‘ 2 the idea is wrong , despite massive anything resembling these are impossible Ian Donohue, and ’ 3 breakthroughs in counting extinctions . to obtain at regional to global scales. Stuart L. Pimm As we explain in Box 1, none of these statements are justified. Confronted with the inappropriateness of The notion of a ‘safe operating their measures, we are urged to keep space for biodiversity’ is vague Drawing attention to global environmen- using ‘in the interim’ extinction rates – and encourages harmful policies. tal issues is certainly essential, therefore already shown to be flawed – and a ‘bio- fi Attempts to x it strip it of all mean- what harm is there in another approach, diversity intactness index’ [3]. The latter is fi ingful content. Ecology is rapidly super cially attractive, even if it has the average abundance of a broad range gaining insights into the connec- limitations? We show that notions of of species relative to their abundance in planetary boundaries add no insight into an undisturbed habitat. The boundary is tions between biodiversity and eco- our understanding of the threats to set at >90%, assessed geographically system stability. We have no option biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, across biomes or other large areas. This but to understand ecological com- have no evidence to support them, are proliferation of indices adds no useful plexity and act accordingly. too vague for use by those who manage insight. Even if we were able to estimate biodiversity, and promote pernicious the necessary numbers, their limits are How Should We Manage Human policies. Attempts to fix these problems arbitrary. Actions That Harm Biodiversity? strip the original idea of all meaningful Human actions obviously harm the natu- content, but still plead for the notion Finally, the purported threshold occurs for ral world and, as we reduce the popula- of a safe operating space. Why is this the response variable of ‘biosphere func- tions of species and drive some to deeply flawed idea so seductive, tioning’. Neither theory nor empirical data extinction, we change ecosystems. and what problems arise from its support any threshold of biodiversity How best should environmental science embrace? below which ecosystem function is articulate its concerns, set research agen- das, and advise policies? One solution Box 1. Why Tipping Points for Biodiversity Are Fatally Flawed embraces the notion of planetary bound- The critical global extinction rate is operationally undefined: when the heart of the last individual of a species aries [1] arguing that global environmental stops beating, global extinction rate spikes momentarily. Why should this lead to planetary collapse? ‘ processes very generally have tipping Suppose we define the rate ourselves – for example in terms of extinctions per million species [2] averaged per year or decade. Following the discovery of the Hawaiian Islands by the Polynesians 1500 years ago, they points’. These are catastrophes involving eliminated so many species that even the decadal global extinction rate would have been exceptional. thresholds beyond which there will be However, why would these extinctions of island endemics cause a collapse that putatively is both global and rapid transitions to new states that are only now visible? There would certainly be local consequences of species loss, but why a precipitous local very much less favorable to human exis- collapse in ecosystems and why would it be global in extent? Furthermore, how might the rate of loss (versus its size) be responsible? tence than current states. The associated notion is that humanity’s ‘business as Certainly, there are regional physical processes for which empirical data suggests thresholds. Globally their usual’ can only continue so long as it existence is far from certain; they do not exist within the terrestrial biosphere in isolation [12]. Models of single remains within some ‘safe operating populations and local communities can show thresholds, but these neither deal with extinction rates nor i,ii space’ . global processes. ii Indeed, in publications [3], though not in presentations , planetary boundary arguments have moved away The rate of human-caused extinctions – from catastrophes, first to rapid transitions, where small changes lead to large effects, then to more gradual now 100–1000-fold the natural back- ones. The concession is ‘not all Earth system processes included in the planetary boundary have singular – ground rate [2] is one of two of the nine thresholds at the global/continental/ocean basin level’ [3]. Exactly so. This statement admits their arbitrary global processes deemed to have nature. If anything can happen, then there is no insight gained: gradual change is embraced by entirely arbitrary and indefinable values where the ‘safe operating space’ is transgressed. exceeded a purported tipping point of Trends in Ecology & Evolution, February 2018, Vol. 33, No. 2 71 compromised [4]. Defining a safe operat- species and the many species that hard, we will not need to understand its ing space for ecosystem function makes depend on them. details. We need not define measures, even less sense as the spatial scale and terms, processes, responses in opera- the number of functions analyzed Irrespective of spatial scale, the bound- tional ways. In short, ecological ignorance increases [5]. aries framework is ill-founded, inoperable, is bliss, if human actions remain within and can have unexpected detrimental limits. If Not Global Processes, Then effects on ecosystems. Local Ones? Reality is different. Nothing changed glob- ‘Nevertheless’, continue the arguments, The Dangers of a Flawed ally in 1989, and this local experience has ‘it is important that boundaries be estab- Worldview many precedents elsewhere, before and i lished for these processes’. Why? Per- In an informative example, Rockström after. This cod collapse was unfortunate, haps, although the planetary boundary reinforces his initial claims arguing that but overfishing is global, as appreciated framework might add no insights into the collapse of the Newfoundland cod since the 18th century, and the term was what we know about global human fishery in 1989 represents ‘a very precise first used (for cod) in 1855. Humans overf- impacts, then its practical utility to envi- tipping point’ of human actions trans- ished, overharvested, overgrazed, defor- ronmental managers might justify it. gressing global planetary boundaries. ested, polluted, and caused many other Fatally, the boundaries framework lacks Human actions were apparently within environmental ills long before 1989 and in clear definitions, or it has too many con- bounds before 1989. The year 1989 many other places. They have extermi- flicting definitions, does not specify units, was apparently ‘the boundary between nated substantial numbers of species and fails to define terms operationally, the Holocene and Anthropocene’ – a globally, and especially top predators, thus prohibiting application by those notion we find particularly specious. The across vast swaths of land and sea, who set policy or manage natural resour- facts are entirely prosaic: cod landings and have done so for tens of thousands ces. Moreover, recent reviews indicate averaged about 300 000 tons from the of years. that tipping points occur only rarely in late 1880s until the late 1950s, spiked at natural systems [6], while policies related over threefold higher in the 1960s, and Ways Forward to boundaries are unlikely to be evidence- the stock declined precipitously thereafter How then can environmental science sen- based. A need for operational definitions [9]. sibly inform those who manage and set to aid managers is self-evident [7]. policies for the complexity that is nature? First, there is an acute moral hazard. Elsewhere, we review 42 large organiza- At regional and local scales, managers Because there is no operational definition tions devoted to global environment man- and conservation bodies are starting to of ‘safe operating space’, this not only agement and their various aspirational abandon the boundaries framework. encourages arguments that ‘growth targets [7]. We applaud the Convention i Many claim that the adoption of bound- within limits’ is acceptable but also the on Biological Diversity (CBD) and others aries and associated tipping points as a belief that human actions were once when they define rigorous and operational policy goal risks biodiversity conservation. environmentally either benign or allowed targets. Good examples are 17% of land In the case of European forests, it pro- recovery. Worse still, if the planet is not area and 10% of the ocean protected moted interventions that harmed biodi- obviously collapsing around us, then (CBD Aichi target 11), with the areas versity [8]. Planting of ‘resilient tree surely we can continue to deplete it. being
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Powering a Sustainable and Circular Economy— an Engineering Approach to Estimating Renewable Energy Potentials Within Earth System Boundaries
    energies Article Powering a Sustainable and Circular Economy— An Engineering Approach to Estimating Renewable Energy Potentials within Earth System Boundaries Harald Desing * , Rolf Widmer , Didier Beloin-Saint-Pierre and Roland Hischier and Patrick Wäger Empa – Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology, Lerchenfeldstrasse 5, CH-9014 St.Gallen, Switzerland; [email protected] (R.W.); [email protected] (D.B.-S.-P.); [email protected] (R.H.); [email protected] (P.W.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 30 October 2019; Accepted: 4 December 2019; Published: 11 December 2019 Abstract: This study proposes a method to estimate the appropriability of renewable energy resources at the global scale, when Earth system boundaries/needs and the human demand for chemical energy are respected. The method is based on an engineering approach, i.e., uncertainties of parameters and models are considered and potentials calculated with 99% confidence. We used literature data to test our method and provide initial results for global appropriable technical potentials (ATP) that sum up to 71 TW, which is significantly larger than the current global energy demand. Consequently, there is sufficient renewable energy potentially available to increase energy access for a growing world population as well as for a development towards increasingly closed material cycles within the technosphere. Solar energy collected on the built environment (29%) and in desert areas (69%) represent the dominant part of this potential, followed in great distance by hydro (0.6%), terrestrial heat (0.4%), wind (0.35%), and biomass (0.2%). Furthermore, we propose indicators to evaluate an energy mix on different levels, from an energy mix in single products to the mix used by the global economy, against the estimated RE potentials, which allow an evaluation and consideration in the design of sustainable–circular products and systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Four of Nine 'Planetary Boundaries' Exceeded
    Four of nine ‘planetary boundaries’ exceeded Civilisation has crossed four of nine ‘planetary boundaries’, increasing the risk of irreversibly driving the Earth in to a less hospitable state, concludes new research. These are: extinction rate, deforestation, atmospheric CO2 and the flow of nitrogen and phosphorus. 16 April 2015 Issue 410 Planetary boundaries are scientifically based levels of human pressure on critical global Subscribe to free processes that could create irreversible and abrupt change to the ‘Earth System’ — the weekly News Alert complex interaction of atmosphere, ice caps, sea, land and biota. These boundaries were first identified and put forward by scientists in 2009. They help decision makers by defining Source: Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, a safe operating space for humanity. J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Crossing planetary boundaries increases the risk of moving the Earth System to a state Bennett, E.M., Biggs, R., much less hospitable for human civilisation than the one in which we have flourished in over Carpenter, S.R., de Vries, the past 11 000 years (the ‘Holocene epoch’). W., de Wit, C.A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Planetary boundaries represent a precautionary approach, based on maintaining a Holocene- Mace, G.M., Persson, L.M., like state of the Earth System. Beyond each boundary is a ‘zone of uncertainty’, where there Ramanathan, V., Reyers, is an increased risk of outcomes that are damaging to human wellbeing. Taken together the B., & Sörlin, S. (2015). boundaries define a safe operating space for humanity. Approaching a boundary provides a Planetary boundaries: warning signal to decision makers, indicating that we are approaching a problem while Guiding human allowing time for corrective action before it is too late.
    [Show full text]
  • Governing Planetary Boundaries: Limiting Or Enabling Conditions for Transitions Towards Sustainability?
    Chapter 5 Governing Planetary Boundaries: Limiting or Enabling Conditions for Transitions Towards Sustainability? Falk Schmidt Abstract It seems intuitive to identify boundaries of an earth system which is increasingly threatened by human activities. Being aware of and hence studying boundaries may be necessary for effective governance of sustainable development. Can the planetary boundaries function as useful ‘warning signs’ in this respect? The answer presented in the article is: yes; but. It is argued that these boundaries cannot be described exclusively by scientific knowledge-claims. They have to be identified by science-society or transdisciplinary deliberations. The discussion of governance challenges related to the concept concludes with two main recommendations: to better institutionalise integrative transdisciplinary assessment processes along the lines of the interconnected nature of the planetary boundaries, and to foster cross- sectoral linkages in order to institutionalise more integrative and yet context sensitive governance arrangements. These insights are briefly confronted with options for institutional reform in the context of the Rio + 20 process. If humankind will not manage a transition towards sustainability, its ‘safe operating space’ continues shrinking. Governance arrangements for such ‘systems at risk’ may then be, first, more ‘forceful’ and, second, may run counter to our understanding of ‘open societies’. It is not very realistic that the world is prepared to achieve the first, and it is not desirable to get the effects of the latter. Scholars and practitioners of sustainability may find this a convincing argument to act now. 5.1 Targets The two-degree target concerning climate change has been vigorously debated during the run-up to and the aftermath of the Copenhagen Climate Conference COP 15 (WBGU 2009; Berkhout 2010; Geden 2010; Hulme 2010a; Jaeger and F.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Modernisation and Its Discontents Project Associate Professor, Graduate School of Public Policy, the University of Tokyo Roberto Orsi
    IFI-SDGs Unit Working Paper No.1 Roberto Orsi, March 2021 UTokyo, Institute for Future Initiatives (IFI), SDGs Collaborative Research Unit JSPS Grant Research Project “The nexus of international politics in climate change and water resource, from the perspective of security studies and SDGs” FY2020 Working Paper Series No. 1 Ecological Modernisation and its Discontents Project Associate Professor, Graduate School of Public Policy, The University of Tokyo Roberto Orsi This working paper sketches the relations between Ecological Modernisation and the main lines of critique which have been moved against it. The paper offers a summary of Ecological Modernisation, its origin and overall trajectory, while touching upon the various counterarguments which ecological sociologists and other scholars have formulated in the past decades, from three different directions: political ecology, eco-Marxism (or post-Marxism), and constructivism/post-modernism. 1. What is Ecological Modernisation and Why Does It Matter? Defining Ecological Modernisation (henceforth: EM) is not an entirely straightforward task. Over the course of the past three decades, different authors have provided slightly but significantly different definitions. One of EM’s most prominent exponents, Arthur P.J. Mol, explicitly refers to EM as a “theory”, defining “[t]he notion of ecological modernization […] as the social scientific interpretation of environmental reform processes at multiple scales in the contemporary world. [...] ecological modernization studies reflect on how various institutions and social actors attempt to integrate environmental concerns into their everyday functioning, development, and relations with others and the natural world”. (Mol et al. 2014:15). The term “theory” is deployed by other authors, but it does not go uncontested.
    [Show full text]
  • Carrying Capacity a Discussion Paper for the Year of RIO+20
    UNEP Global Environmental Alert Service (GEAS) Taking the pulse of the planet; connecting science with policy Website: www.unep.org/geas E-mail: [email protected] June 2012 Home Subscribe Archive Contact “Earthrise” taken on 24 December 1968 by Apollo astronauts. NASA Thematic Focus: Environmental Governance, Resource Efficiency One Planet, How Many People? A Review of Earth’s Carrying Capacity A discussion paper for the year of RIO+20 We travel together, passengers on a little The size of Earth is enormous from the perspective spaceship, dependent on its vulnerable reserves of a single individual. Standing at the edge of an ocean of air and soil; all committed, for our safety, to its or the top of a mountain, looking across the vast security and peace; preserved from annihilation expanse of Earth’s water, forests, grasslands, lakes or only by the care, the work and the love we give our deserts, it is hard to conceive of limits to the planet’s fragile craft. We cannot maintain it half fortunate, natural resources. But we are not a single person; we half miserable, half confident, half despairing, half are now seven billion people and we are adding one slave — to the ancient enemies of man — half free million more people roughly every 4.8 days (2). Before in a liberation of resources undreamed of until this 1950 no one on Earth had lived through a doubling day. No craft, no crew can travel safely with such of the human population but now some people have vast contradictions. On their resolution depends experienced a tripling in their lifetime (3).
    [Show full text]
  • “Living Well, Within the Limits of Our Planet”? Measuring Europe's
    SEI - Africa Institute of Resource Assessment University of Dar es Salaam P. O. Box 35097, Dar es Salaam Tanzania Tel: +255-(0)766079061 SEI - Asia 15th Floor, Witthyakit Building 254 Chulalongkorn University Chulalongkorn Soi 64 Phyathai Road, Pathumwan Bangkok 10330 Thailand Tel+(66) 22514415 Stockholm Environment Institute, Working Paper 2014-05 SEI - Oxford Suite 193 266 Banbury Road, Oxford, OX2 7DL UK Tel+44 1865 426316 SEI - Stockholm Kräftriket 2B SE -106 91 Stockholm Sweden Tel+46 8 674 7070 SEI - Tallinn Lai 34, Box 160 EE-10502, Tallinn Estonia Tel+372 6 276 100 SEI - U.S. 11 Curtis Avenue Somerville, MA 02144 USA Tel+1 617 627-3786 SEI - York University of York Heslington York YO10 5DD UK Tel+44 1904 43 2897 The Stockholm Environment Institute “Living well, within the limits of our planet”? SEI is an independent, international research institute. It has been Measuring Europe’s growing external footprint engaged in environment and development issues at local, national, regional and global policy levels for more than a quarter of a century. SEI supports decision making for sustainable development by Holger Hoff, Björn Nykvist and Marcus Carson bridging science and policy. sei-international.org Stockholm Environment Institute Linnégatan 87D, Box 24218 104 51 Stockholm Sweden Tel: +46 8 674 7070 Fax: +46 8 674 7020 Web: www.sei-international.org Author contact: Holger Hoff, [email protected] Director of Communications: Robert Watt Editor: Caspar Trimmer Cover photos (clockwise from top): Normandy countryside © Hetx/flickr; Soy harvest- ing, Brazil © Reuters/Paulo Whitaker; Container port © Robert Pratt/flickr; Ship break- ing, Bangladesh © Naquib Hossain/flickr The title of this report refers to the title of the new EU Environment Action Pro- gramme, adopted in 2013: “Living Well within the Limits of Our Planet”.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Use of the Environment, Planetary Boundaries and Market Power
    sustainability Article Sustainable Use of the Environment, Planetary Boundaries and Market Power Edward B. Barbier * and Joanne C. Burgess Department of Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-970-491-6324 Abstract: Many of the environment and natural resources that constitute key “safe operating spaces”, as designated by planetary boundaries, are being exploited by a handful of large firms with con- siderable market share. In this paper, we discuss how the environment and natural resources that occur within a safe operating space can be treated as an exploitable finite stock. We use an optimal depletion model to show how the extraction of these exhaustible assets can be managed optimally, and allow for adjustment in price paths due to technological innovation and environmental externali- ties. Given the growing market concentration and monopoly power in the key economic sectors that exploit the environment and resources that constitute many safe operating spaces, we then explore how monopoly conditions can alter the extraction and price path of the environmental assets over time compared to that under competitive market conditions. We show that the monopoly may be compatible with more sustainable use, by extending the life of the exploitable, depletable stock, at the expense of firms capturing excessive resource rents from exploitation. This tradeoff means that any policies implemented to tax the excessive monopoly rents need to be designed without compromising the sustainable use of the environment. The tax revenue raised can be channeled into protecting or regenerating natural assets that are essential for global environmental sustainability.
    [Show full text]
  • Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity
    Copyright © 2009 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance. Rockström, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, Å. Persson, F. S. Chapin, III, E. Lambin, T. M. Lenton, M. Scheffer, C. Folke, H. Schellnhuber, B. Nykvist, C. A. De Wit, T. Hughes, S. van der Leeuw, H. Rodhe, S. Sörlin, P. K. Snyder, R. Costanza, U. Svedin, M. Falkenmark, L. Karlberg, R. W. Corell, V. J. Fabry, J. Hansen, B. Walker, D. Liverman, K. Richardson, P. Crutzen, and J. Foley. 2009. Planetary boundaries:exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society 14(2): 32. [online] URL: http://www. ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/ Research Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity Johan Rockström 1,2, Will Steffen 1,3, Kevin Noone 1,4, Åsa Persson 1,2, F. Stuart III Chapin 5, Eric Lambin 6, Timothy M. Lenton 7, Marten Scheffer 8, Carl Folke 1,9, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber 10,11, Björn Nykvist 1,2, Cynthia A. de Wit 4, Terry Hughes 12, Sander van der Leeuw 13, Henning Rodhe 14, Sverker Sörlin 1,15, Peter K. Snyder 16, Robert Costanza 1,17, Uno Svedin 1, Malin Falkenmark 1,18, Louise Karlberg 1,2, Robert W. Corell 19, Victoria J. Fabry 20, James Hansen 21, Brian Walker 1,22, Diana Liverman 23,24, Katherine Richardson 25, Paul Crutzen 26, and Jonathan Foley 27 ABSTRACT. Anthropogenic pressures on the Earth System have reached a scale where abrupt global environmental change can no longer be excluded. We propose a new approach to global sustainability in which we define planetary boundaries within which we expect that humanity can operate safely.
    [Show full text]
  • Planetary Boundaries – Some Questions and Answers
    Planetary Boundaries – Some Questions and Answers Responses written by [email protected] The answers given do not necessarily reflect the personal or institutional positions of all the authors. New article: Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Will Steffen, Katherine Richardson, Johan Rockström, Sarah E. Cornell, Ingo Fetzer, Elena M. Bennett, R. Biggs, Stephen R. Carpenter, Wim de Vries, Cynthia A. de Wit, Carl Folke, Dieter Gerten, Jens Heinke, Georgina M. Mace, Linn M. Persson, Veerabhadran Ramanathan, B. Reyers, Sverker Sörlin. Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1259855. 1. Will the PB framework restrict development? Developing countries want to be able to develop without constraints. Will they not argue that wealthy nations have not been required to develop within constraints like PB, so why should developing nations face such constraints? The planetary boundaries framework aims to specify precautionary biophysical boundaries within which humanity can thrive, but it does not indicate specific societal pathways for remaining and thriving within that safe space. There are likely to be many possible pathways that can deliver inclusive and sustainable development in that space. These pathways will be contested: different cultures, with their own needs, visions and values will view the costs, risks and benefits differently. And power is not evenly distributed among the world’s social groups. The political challenges of future development and social justice will be great, because Earth’s biophysical constraints are real, and not subject to political negotiation. The clear message from the new article is that continued inaction and policy implementation gaps on the planetary boundaries that are being transgressed now will reduce the options for fair and just pathways in future.
    [Show full text]
  • Planetary Boundaries
    Human Development within the Safe Operating Space of the Planetary Boundaries Världens Eko 14e Prof. Johan Rockström Sept 2010 Stockholm Resilience Centre Stockholm Environment Institute ”The Quadruple Human growth Squeeze” 20/80 dilemma Climate Ecosystems 550/450/350 60 % loss dilemma dilemma Surprise 99/1 dilemma ”the great acceleration of the humanCO2 , entreprise”,N2O, CH4 2020 Professorconcentrations Will Steffen - Overfishing 2010 TheLand Planetary degradation ResponseLoss Biodiversity to the drivers….. of the Anthropocene 1900 1950 2000 From: Steffen et al. 2004 Tipping elements in the Earth system – PNAS Special Feature released December 2009 PNAS Special Feature: Tipping elements in the Earth System, Jan 2010, vol 106 (49) Valuable Ecosystem Services Loss of ecosystem services (Desirable) (Undesirable) 1 4 coral dominance state shift algal dominance 2 3 • overfishing, coastal • disease, eutrophication hurricane clear water turbid water • phosphorous accum- • flooding, warming, ulation in soil and mud overexploitation grassland of predators shrub-bushland • fire prevention • good rains, continu- ous heavy grazing Bothnian Bay (BB) Gulf of Finland (GF) Regime shifts BB Bothnian Bay (BS) in all systems BS GF The Sound (TS) A. Sorteberg, University of Bergen, GR Norway", data from Snow & Ice Data Center, Boulder CBSCO, USAGulf of Riga (GR) • Sub-system specific TS indices of ecosystem Central Baltic (CBS) development (PC1 from PCA) Torsten Bleckner et al., 2009 • Regimes identified using STARS on PC1s (red lines) • Almost synchronous regime shifts in all sub- systems The Resilience of the Earth System Our precarious predicament ”We have our foot on the accelerator driving towards the Abyss...” Ban Ki-moon Secretary General of the UN Sept 2009 Humanity’s period of grace – the last 10000 years Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity in the Anthropocene (Nature, 461 : 472 – 475, Sept 24 - 2009) Two different types of planetary boundary processes 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Modernization Theory 1 [Draft Paper, 2017-08-14] J
    Sociological theorizing as meaning making: the case of ecological modernization theory 1 [Draft paper, 2017-08-14] J. P. Sapinski Department of Sociology University of Victoria Email: [email protected] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jean_Philippe_Sapinski Abstract In this paper, I propose a novel way to consider sociological theorizing. I argue that the structural analysis method first developed by French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss provides a powerful tool to deconstruct and critique sociological theories. I propose that this method can be used to redefine certain theories not as sets of proposals from which testable hypotheses are to be derived, but rather as different versions of foundational narratives of Western society. Viewed in this way, sociological theorizing contributes to construct the Western cosmology – the body of tales and narratives that explain the creation of the social world, its relationship with nature, and its future direction. As a case in point, I argue that the narrative of ecological modernization can thus be analyzed and deconstructed using the same tools Lévi-Strauss uses to make sense of native American cosmologies. Doing so, I find that the narrative of ecological modernization developed as a mirror image of older tales of modernization, closely associated with the myth of progress – according to which Western society emerged from a state of nature in which no rational division of labour and no private property existed. This inversion transforms the myth of creation at the heart of the modern Western cosmology into a utopian narrative that finds considerable political traction with a certain part of the business elite and associated organic intellectuals, interested in maintaining existing relations of production and power.
    [Show full text]
  • Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity
    Copyright © 2009 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance. Rockström, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, Å. Persson, F. S. Chapin, III, E. Lambin, T. M. Lenton, M. Scheffer, C. Folke, H. Schellnhuber, B. Nykvist, C. A. De Wit, T. Hughes, S. van der Leeuw, H. Rodhe, S. Sörlin, P. K. Snyder, R. Costanza, U. Svedin, M. Falkenmark, L. Karlberg, R. W. Corell, V. J. Fabry, J. Hansen, B. Walker, D. Liverman, K. Richardson, P. Crutzen, and J. Foley. 2009. Planetary boundaries:exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society 14(2): 32. [online] URL: http://www. ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/ Research Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity Johan Rockström 1,2, Will Steffen 1,3, Kevin Noone 1,4, Åsa Persson 1,2, F. Stuart III Chapin 5, Eric Lambin 6, Timothy M. Lenton 7, Marten Scheffer 8, Carl Folke 1,9, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber 10,11, Björn Nykvist 1,2, Cynthia A. de Wit 4, Terry Hughes 12, Sander van der Leeuw 13, Henning Rodhe 14, Sverker Sörlin 1,15, Peter K. Snyder 16, Robert Costanza 1,17, Uno Svedin 1, Malin Falkenmark 1,18, Louise Karlberg 1,2, Robert W. Corell 19, Victoria J. Fabry 20, James Hansen 21, Brian Walker 1,22, Diana Liverman 23,24, Katherine Richardson 25, Paul Crutzen 26, and Jonathan Foley 27 ABSTRACT. Anthropogenic pressures on the Earth System have reached a scale where abrupt global environmental change can no longer be excluded. We propose a new approach to global sustainability in which we define planetary boundaries within which we expect that humanity can operate safely.
    [Show full text]