Transcript Biospheric Changes Are Threat Multipliers

BIOSPHERIC CHANGES ARE
THREAT MULTIPLIERS
John Cairns, Jr.
University Distinguished Professor of Environmental Biology Emeritus
Department of Biological Sciences
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061, U.S.A.
April 2010
A THREAT MULTIPLIER IS ANOTHER AGENT
IMPACTING A CURRENT SITUATION. IT OFTEN
CREATES A COMPLETELY NEW SET OF PROBLEMS, BUT
ALSO MAKES EXISTING PROBLEMS WORSE.
 Changes in biospheric conditions may heighten pre-existing ecological stress on Earth,
especially when resources become scarce.
 Changes in the biospheric life support system may affect such entities as agricultural
productivity, the hydrologic cycle, ecosystem services, and the regeneration of natural
resources.
 The 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment found that nearly two-thirds of ecosystem
services were in decline globally.1
 Irreversible change in the biosphere’s health and integrity will introduce a significant
disequilibrium in both ecological and social systems.
A SEEMINGLY INNOCENT CHANGE IN A PART OF
THE BIOSPHERE CAN CAUSE IMPORTANT
ALTERATIONS AND BECOME A THREAT MULTIPLIER.
 Climate change is exacerbated by global warming, which damages the biosphere.
 Synthetic nitrogen increases corn crop production, and corn removes carbon dioxide from
the air. However, synthetic nitrogen can reduce soil’s organic matter content because it
stimulates soil microbes that feed on organic matter.2
 The introduced “cane toad” in Australia is a major continuing threat to the indigenous biota
because it preys on a variety of native species.
 Dams and levees (e.g., to prevent flood damage) substantially alter the hydrologic cycle.
 The freshwater Asian clam has colonized the cooling system in steam-electric power plants,
interfering with the cooling process. It may have entered North America in a freshwater
aquarium whose contents were later dumped into North American freshwater.
THE BIOSPHERE IS A HIGHLY INTERACTIVE SYSTEM,
AND DAMAGE TO A SINGLE, MAJOR COMPONENT
(E.G., THE OCEANS) WILL LIKELY PRODUCE A RIPPLE
EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE SYSTEM.
 A major biospheric change is the shift of marine waters from slightly alkaline to slightly
acidic.
 This change affects calcium utilization by marine organisms for shells and other structures.
 Loss of protective calcium shells will increase predation and affect the entire food web.
 More acidic oceanic water will reduce carbon dioxide absorption from the atmosphere,
thus increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.
 Oceanic water changes will affect the rate of climate change, which will then affect
agricultural productivity and the spread of tropical pests and diseases.
THREAT MULTIPLIERS CAN HAVE MANY EFFECTS,
SUCH AS SPEEDING UP THE RATE OF GLOBAL
WARMING.
 Arctic ice melting is clearly not good for polar bears, but this biospheric change “could cost
global agriculture, real estate and insurance anywhere from $2.4 trillion to $24 trillion by
2050 in damage from rising sea levels, floods and heat waves . . .”3
 “Everybody around the world is going to bear these costs. . . . The Arctic is the planet’s air
conditioner, and it’s starting to break down.”4
 A worst case scenario is that warmer temperatures could cause massive releases of frozen,
hydrated methane in the ocean beds and Arctic soils.4
 Geo-engineering techniques to reduce rate of global warming may produce one or more
unintended deleterious side effects.
HOMO SAPIENS IS A PART OF THE BIOSPHERE AND
IS AN IMPORTANT THREAT MULTIPLIER.
 Economist Daly5 remarks: “We do not satisfy our needs in any arbitrary sequence but seek
rationally to satisfy our most pressing needs first.”
 In meeting the most pressing needs first, little thought is given to the health of the
biosphere.
 Humankind also has the power to reduce the number of threat multipliers.
 Altering a “throw-away” lifestyle will reduce threat multiplication.
 If everyone in the world lived as individuals in the United States do, humankind would
need five planets to support it.
ALL HUMANS MUST ELIMINATE THREAT
MULTIPLIERS, WHICH WILL REQUIRE BOTH CHANGES
IN LIFESTYLES AND CONVERSION OF WASTES INTO
BIOSPHERIC RESOURCES.
 The core belief that led humankind into this trap of threat multipliers was that technology could always
find a substitute when a resource was depleted.6
 Human technology may be the worst threat multiplier.
 The abundance of resources provided by technology and fueled by cheap, abundant energy has led to
the present predicament of overpopulation, ecological overshoot, climate change, and destruction of
the biospheric life support system.
 Liebig’s Law of the Minimum states that growth is controlled not by the total of resources available but
by the scarcest resource at the time of the year of greatest scarcity.
 The time of greatest scarcity for many resources will be determined by climate change.
“THE DEVELOPMENT OF INCREASINGLY POWERFUL
TECHNOLOGIES AND CONSUMPTIVE LIFESTYLES . . . [HAS]
CREATED A MODERN CATEGORY OF HUMAN-CAUSED
DISASTERS – STEALTH DISASTERS.”3
 “Stealth disasters . . . tend to have protracted, unobvious onsets; do not necessarily have dramatic
manifestations; and often do not attract public attention until they reach a stage approaching
catastrophic consequences.”7
 Ecological and social tipping points have much in common with stealth disasters.
 One threat multiplier and cause of stealth disasters is the enormous disparity in resource distribution.
 The amount of resources allotted to the weak in a socially stratified society is, at best, a subsistence
level that sometimes results in resource wars.
EVEN CLOTHING CAN BE A THREAT MULTIPLIER.
 Early man killed game, ate the meat, and used the hide for clothing.
 Then the population grew exponentially, and the number of skins did not increase
exponentially.
 Fibers could be grown and technologies could be developed to weave the fibers.
 Growing the fibers required part of the biosphere.
 The technologies used energy and produced wastes, most of which did not nurture the
biosphere.
ECONOMIC GROWTH IS A MAJOR THREAT
MULTIPLIER BECAUSE, WITHOUT SURPLUS
RESOURCES, NO GROWTH IS POSSIBLE.
 Growth in consumption and population reduces resources more rapidly than no growth
(i.e., a dynamic steady state).
 Resources are neither infinite nor infinitely substitutable.
 The biosphere is limited in the amount of natural resources that can be generated.
 Decreasing natural capital to fuel economic growth decreases human security and
increases risks and threats.
THE METRIC GIVEN MOST ATTENTION WORLDWIDE IS ECONOMIC
GROWTH. BASICALLY, ONE COMPONENT
OF THE BIOSPHERE (HOMO SAPIENS) REMOVES
RESOURCES FROM THE BIOSPHERE, PROCESSES THEM,
AND SELLS THEM TO OTHER HUMANS.
 Some items, such as petroleum, coal, and natural gas, come from ancient biospheres and
will not be replaced in timeframes of interest to human society.
 Other items, such as gold, are not of biospheric origin, although the present biosphere may
be damaged when they are extracted.
 Economist Kenneth Boulding used the term cowboy economy to describe the perspective
that resources are inexhaustible and wastes are innocuous.8
 Schumacher describes this attitude as “a breakthrough a day keeps the crisis at bay.”9
 Daly10 uses the term growthmania to describe the unquestioning attitude toward
economic growth.
THE UNQUESTIONING PURSUIT OF ECONOMIC
GROWTH IS A MAJOR FACTOR IN PRODUCING THREAT
MULTIPLIERS SINCE EVER INCREASING CONSUMPTION
OF RESOURCES ALSO MEANS EVER INCREASING
PRODUCTION OF WASTES.
 Most anthropogenic wastes do not serve as inputs (resources) for natural systems.
 On a finite planet, “the solution to pollution is dilution” is not a viable, long-term strategy.
 The only viable, long-term strategy is to use nature’s model so that all output (wastes) can be a
beneficial input (resource) somewhere in the biosphere.
 Implementing this strategy would serve as a “threat reducer.”
ECONOMIC GROWTH HAS ALREADY DAMAGED THE
BIOSPHERE AND CHANGED IT MARKEDLY. IF
“BUSINESS AS USUAL” CONTINUES, THE BIOSPHERIC
CHANGES WILL INCREASE THE NUMBER OF THREAT
MULTIPLIERS.
 Humankind’s world view remains cornucopian (i.e., unlimited resources).
 The next paradigm shift will probably be forced by the general decrease in available
resources.
 Threat multipliers and increasing social inequity in allocation of resources will probably be
the forcing factors in the paradigm shift.
 Using technology to avoid lifestyle changes is a major factor in threatening the biosphere
and the source of most threat multipliers.
Acknowledgments. I am indebted to Darla Donald for transcribing the handwritten draft and for editorial assistance in preparation for publication. Valerie
Sutherland prepared the Power Point presentation.
References
1Watson,
R. T. and A. H. Zakri, co-chairs. 2005. Living Beyond Our Means: Natural Assets and Human Well-Being. Statement from the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment Board, p. 5. http://www.maweb.org/documents/document.429.aspx.pdf.
2Philpott, T. 2010. New research: synthetic nitrogen destroys soil carbon, undermines soil health. Grist 23Feb http://www.grist.org/article/2010-02-23-newresearch-synthetic-nitrogen-destroys-soil-carbon-undermines-/.
3Gardner, T. 2010. Arctic melt to cost up to $24 trillion by 2050; report. Reuters 5Feb http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6145M520100205.
4Goodstein, B. 2010. As quoted in Gardner, T. 2010. Arctic melt to cost up to $24 trillion by 2050; report. Reuters 5Feb
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6145M520100205.
5Daly, H. 2010. As quoted in Dilworth, C. 2010. Too Smart for Our Own Good: The Ecological Predicament of Humankind. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, p. 129.
6Simon, J. L. 1996. The Ultimate Resource 2. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA.
7Warren, J. L. and S. Kieffer. 2010. Risk management and the wisdom of Aldo Leopold. Risk Analysis 30(10):165-174.
8Boulding, K. 2010. As described in Dilworth, C. 2010. Too Smart for Our Own Good: The Ecological Predicament of Humankind. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, p. 93.
9Schumacher, E. F. 2010. As quoted in Dilworth, C. 2010. Too Smart for Our Own Good: The Ecological Predicament of Humankind. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK, p. 93.
10Daly, H. 2010. As quoted in Dilworth, C. 2010. Too Smart for Our Own Good: The Ecological Predicament of Humankind. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, p. 93.