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 steamelectric 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
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.