by Robert Ellison a.k.a. Chief Hydrologist
Co-operative, polycentric management of planetary systems is best described as a global ‘Iriai’ – a Japanese word meaning to enter the joint use of resources.
The Ecomodernist Manifesto published last month purports to deliver a new, optimistic approach to development and the environment. I applaud the rhetoric and lament the lack of detailed propositions.
The basic premise behind the Ecomodernist Manifesto is:
Intensifying many human activities — particularly farming, energy extraction, forestry, and settlement — so that they use less land and interfere less with the natural world is the key to decoupling human development from environmental impacts. These socioeconomic and technological processes are central to economic modernization and environmental protection. Together they allow people to mitigate climate change, to spare nature, and to alleviate global poverty.
There have been various responses thus far to the Ecomodernist Manifesto and all of them seem confused about the mechanics of decoupling human development from natural systems. In their hands, it is more abstract concept than the nuts and bolts of sustainable development on which we have been working for decades.
I am an engineering hydrologist and environmental scientist. My essential skill set is in the quantification, impact analysis and mitigation of mobilization of sediment, nutrients and pollutants from mining, industry, agriculture and urbanization. Along with having some facility in technical and scientific communication that increasingly is my focus. I am an award winning designer of ‘integrated urban water supplies’ – integrating stormwater management, water supply sources and sewage treatment and recycling to meet human needs efficiently while conserving downstream environments. Urban environments are ecosystems – that can be made interesting, species rich and attractive in their own right – and at the intersection with natural systems there are ecotones that are transitions to natural systems. The ecotones provide opportunities for deploying techniques and technologies by which we can mimic natural – that is predevelopment – downstream water quality and flows. This is the essence of ‘decoupling’ human development from natural systems, but it is not cheap.
As a student of environmental science it was evident that only rich economies can afford environments. Aid has some part to part to play in development, as in the Copenhagen Consensus Post 2015 Millennium Development Goals analysis. The critical element however is in optimal economic growth this century, the conditions for which were defined by classic liberalism over the past two centuries. Economies are dynamically complex systems, they shift abruptly according to internal dynamics. The most stable economies manage interest rates to restrain inflation to a target range, have fair, transparent and accessible laws, have optimal tax takes and evolve a social contract through robust democratic processes. Health and education outcomes can be best improved through economic development and this results in reduced population pressure, as well as providing resources for agricultural soil conservation and increased organic content, for conservation and restoration of ecosystems and for ‘water sensitive urban design’. The central problem for climate and the environment is – perhaps paradoxically – how to best grow economies.
We can address most of the causes of loss of biodiversity only through prosperity and modern mitigation practices. Climate change is a minor cause – which is probably over estimated by the World Wildlife Fund in their latest Living Planet Index – at some 7.1% of the total causes of biodiversity loss. Source: WWF
If we accept the WWF assessment as an indicator of the relative importance of threats to biodiversity – it is apparent that a far broader strategy than ‘putting a price on carbon’ is needed to turn it around. The alternative – seriously proposed in some of the responses – of a romantic return to village life with vastly reduced economic activity seems likely to add to this problem.
As an engineer – I thrive on detail. Define the problem and the objectives comprehensively up front and you have a rational basis for solutions. Resources for urban environments (some 0.5% of total land area) are drawn from mines, agricultural land and from wild stocks. Mining uses comparatively little land – about the same as urban areas – the impacts come from downstream discharges of sediments and pollutants. These can be managed and the land restored to something like pre-existing conditions after mining ceases.
By far the largest use of land is for agriculture – some half of total land area. The total extent of agricultural land is 4.9 billion hectares – and there is not much scope for expansion – on which future global food security depends. There is an absolute necessity to increase the productivity of agricultural lands this century to provide for increased population and changed consumption patterns. This is possible with the most modern agricultural systems that restore soil organic content. The practices reduce runoff, conserve soil and water and enhance agricultural productivity as well as sequestering carbon. There is an opportunity as well to address nitrous oxide and methane emissions. Emissions of greenhouse gases, as suggested above, are far from restricted to transportation and electricity generation. Greenhouse gases come from a number of sectors and technologies.
- ‘Carbon dioxide (CO2)– Fossil fuel use is the primary source of CO2. The way in which people use land is also an important source of CO2, especially when it involves deforestation. Land can also remove CO2from the atmosphere through reforestation, improvement of soils, and other activities.
- Methane (CH4)– Agricultural activities, waste management, and energy use all contribute to CH4
- Nitrous oxide (N2O)– Agricultural activities, such as fertilizer use, are the primary source of N2O emissions.
- Fluorinated gases (F-gases)– Industrial processes, refrigeration, and the use of a variety of consumer products contribute to emissions of F-gases, which include hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).’
Source: US EPA
We may add black carbon to the list of significant climate ‘control variables’(1) – second only to carbon dioxide from fossil fuel sources. Some 26% of emissions come from electricity generation and 13% from transportation. Mitigation of these sources can come from a range of technologies – good solutions come from low cost energy technologies. Mitigation of other sources – as well as management of wild stocks and commons – require a far wider ranging approach than merely taxes and caps. It requires a whole new approach in the intersection of business, government and community that Elinor Ostrom described as polycentric governance. Ideally this leads to a harmony with nature and conservation – rather than a tragedy – of the commons.
Such co-operative, polycentric management of planetary systems is best described as a global ‘Iriai’ – a Japanese word meaning to enter the joint use of resources – and I suggest using the methods of environmental science. Environmental science is a cross-disciplinary field that combines in small teams a range of skills in the natural sciences, law, economics, archaeology, sociology, etc., as well as local knowledge, focussed on solving problems across a variety of scales from the local to the transnational. It provides a rational framework for synergistic solution of complex social, environmental and economic problems. The essay found here discusses how this framework might work over a specific jurisdiction. It describes an integrated government, business and community institutional structure based on the principles and practices of environmental science as it is understood by practitioners. The cost of this structure is not inconsiderable, but is perhaps comparable to the current systems that are objectively failing the test of biological conservation. It is a complex and messy solution – such as Elinor Ostrom suggests in the link above is needed to solve complex problems of the global commons.
The rhetoric of the ecomodernist manifesto boils down to the simple proposition that we can as a species manage both economic development and ecological conservation. It strikes the right note of a bright future for humanity. As such it is an antidote to the cataclysmic narratives that characterize so much of the discourse around these issues. It offers instead a positive vision, which is what is needed to capture the high ground in the culture war. It lacks detailed ways of moving forward. We may also regret clumsy neologisms like Anthropocene or ecomodernism that are a hallmark of the late Anthropocene it seems. A global Iriai is deeply poetic in comparison; it conjures the biblical idea of a stewardship of nature – but using the most modern ideas, methods and technologies.
JC note: Previous CE posts by Robert Ellison include:
- The astonishing math of Michael Ghil’s climate sensitivity
- Planetary boundaries, tipping points, and prophets of doom
- Soil carbon: permanent pasture as an approach to CO2 sequestration
- Decadal variability of clouds
- Towards Mass Marketed Electric Vehicles
As with all guest posts, please keep your comments civil and relevant.
Filed under: Policy