Transcript Monitoring Biospheric Health and Integrity

MONITORING BIOSPHERIC
HEALTH AND INTEGRITY
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.
January 2010
Since the biosphere serves as
the life support system for
Earth and also as the basis of
the human economy, it
should be maintained in
optimal condition.
Monitoring is defined as
surveillance undertaken to
ensure that previously
established quality control
conditions are being met.
The biosphere is the thin
envelope of life and its
habitat that covers Earth.
A response team must be
established to respond
immediately when quality
control conditions are not
being met.
The surveillance response team
must be able to initiate
immediate, corrective action
when, in its judgment or the
judgment of the team leader,
immediate remedial action is
essential.
Long-term funding for the
monitoring team is essential
since the biosphere is a complex,
multivariate system requiring
experience for both monitoring
and corrective response.
Since the biosphere consists of a mosaic of
interactive ecosystems, monitoring must be
carried out in each eco-type with methods and
species suited for that type of system.
In order to pool data from similar ecosystems in different areas, the same
methods should be used whenever possible.
A quality control system must be in place to ensure consistency in pooled
data.
Standard methods are available for chemical/physical data and some
ecological data (e.g., American Society for Testing and Materials, European
Union). Standard “unknowns” should be used periodically to confirm that the
methods and procedures are being used in a consistent way.
Results from similar components should be shared promptly, as well as any
difficulties encountered with methods and procedures.
“Top-down”/”Bottom-up” information flow is
the core of successful monitoring.
Since monitoring is surveillance undertaken to ensure that previously established
controls are being met, all information must be congruent with this goal.1
Although monitoring involves many individuals, the responsibility must be
institutional because it must be continuous over long periods of time.
Funding should be national since the health and integrity of the planet’s life support
system – the biosphere – must be protected.
Although ecosystem services have always been free, if the source – natural capital
(i.e., the biosphere) – is now damaged and at risk, then so are the ecosystem services it
provides. In short, the ecosystem services are no longer free because monitoring is now
essential.
Strong resistance to a tax for monitoring the health and integrity of the biosphere will
almost certainly emerge. However, sacrificing Earth’s life support system to avoid taxes
is suicidal.
The goal of monitoring is to avoid high risk
surprises.
In hospital intensive care units, patients are monitored to detect dangerous
changes in blood pressure, respiration, temperature, and so on.
If a life threatening change occurs, swift and immediate remedial action is
taken.
Swift, immediate action to protect the biosphere will probably be met with
strong resistance if the action is perceived as harming economic growth.
However, if predetermined quality control limits have been exceeded, resisting
remedial action has no justification.
Threats to a large portion of the biosphere (e.g., over fishing) may be strongly
resisted by one nation; however, if that nation is successful, the value of the
monitoring system will be severely impaired.
In a complex, scientific undertaking, such as
monitoring biospheric health and integrity, special
interests must not rule.2
Hansen2 remarks on good science: “It made a big impression on young Feynman
– seeing how really good scientists work. They wanted to look at a problem from
all angles, reexamining alternatives and different facets, to guard against a mistake.
All the while they could recognize the best idea without having to repeat the
arguments.”
In the global climate crisis, judgments are being made by people with little or no
scientific credentials who are asserting, for example, that carbon dioxide is not
harmful because it is in a carbonated soft drink.
Monitoring on a global scale will fail if qualified scientists spend a significant
amount of time responding to disinformation that ignores the preponderance of
scientific evidence.
Special interests should be heard, but should not dominate the news media
under the guise of “balanced” reporting.
What happens to global biospheric monitoring
when nations (states) fail or refuse to do their
share?
Each year, the Fund for Peace and Foreign Policy magazine ranks 60 “failing
states,” countries that, on some level, fail to provide personal security or basic
services, such as education, health care, food, and physical infrastructure, to
their people.3
A state that is failing completely receives a score of 120. In 2008, the top
20 failing states had scores ranging from 97.2 to 114.7.
Failing states are probably unwilling or unable to make reliable
contributions to biospheric monitoring.
The biosphere covers the entire planet, so this issue must be resolved if the
monitoring is to be sound and reliable.
Discussion of the default position (Mother Nature – i.e.,
natural law takes over) if humankind continues “business as
usual” should not be taboo. Negotiating terms with the laws
of biology, physics, and chemistry is impossible and should
not be part of determining time limits for biomonitoring.
The likely outcome of the default position is starvation, disease, and death for Homo
sapiens and many other species.
Multiple interactive crises must be addressed: (1) rapid climate change, (2)
overpopulation, (3) ecological overshoot, biodiversity loss, (4) hazardous chemicals, (5)
decline in agricultural productivity, and (6) reduced freshwater supplies.4
Business as usual will drive many more species to extinction, which will be bad for the
biosphere.
If climate change is very rapid and extensive, humans may not be able to adapt to new
conditions.
The novel concept of planetary boundaries is
designed for estimating a safe operating space for
humanity with respect to functioning of the Earth
System. Although not focused primarily on the
biosphere, attempts should be made to pair it with
monitoring the biosphere.5
Rockström et al.5 estimate that humanity has already transgressed three (of
nine) planetary boundaries: climate change, biodiversity loss, and changes to
the global nitrogen cycle.
Planetary boundaries are interdependent since transgressing one may shift
the position of or result in transgressing other boundaries.
Since only humans can monitor biospheric health and integrity, staying well
within all nine planetary boundaries is a good idea.
If runaway global climate change severely damages the
present biosphere, humankind will have to adapt to a
markedly different Earth than the one it evolved and
flourished in.
Successful adaptation will require new scientific information developed by an
unimpeded scientific process.
If the scientific process were nurtured and respected at present, the need to
adapt would not be so crucial.
All humankind should have a special interest in survival, which will depend
greatly on sound scientific information produced by scientists who can focus
intently on the scientific process.
The biosphere may be near one or more major, ecological tipping points, which
will be irreversible.
Time is short and the risks unprecedented, but science can provide the means
to reduce many risks markedly with presently available information.
Acknowledgments: I am indebted to Darla Donald for transcribing the handwritten first draft and for editorial assistance and to Valerie
Sutherland for converting it to Power Point. I am also deeply indebted to the colleagues and graduate students who carried out
monitoring research with me for nearly 30 years.
References
1Cairns, J., Jr. 2007. Integrating information from different levels of biological organization. Asian Journal of Experimental
Sciences 21(2):205-214.
2Hansen, J. 2009. Storms of my Grandchildren. Bloomsbury New York, New York, NY.
3Brown, L. 2009. Plan B 4.0 by the numbers – data highlights on selling our future. Earth Policy Institute Policy Release,
17December http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/press_room/C68/pb4_ch1_datarelease/.
4Workman, J.G. 2009. Heart of Dryness. Walker Publishing Company, Inc., New York, NY.
5Rockström, J. and 28 additional authors. 2009. Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity.
Ecology and Society, p. 8, online at
http://www.stockholmresilience.org/download/18.1fe8f33123572b59ab800012568/pb_longversion_170909.pdf.