What Can I Do to Help Heal the Environmental Crisis?

Haydn Washington

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781000709049
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Biological Sciences
• Subtopic: Environmental Science
• Index: Biological Sciences

The culmination of over three decades of writing by environmental scientist and writer Haydn Washington, this book examines the global environmental crisis and its solutions.

Many of us know that something is wrong with our world, that it is wounded. At the same time, we often don't know why things have gone wrong – or what can be done. Framing the discussion around three central predicaments – the ecological, the social, and the economic – Washington provides background as to why each of these are in crisis and presents steps that individuals can personally take to heal the world. Urging the reader to accept the reality of our problems, he explores practical solutions for change such as the transition to renewable energy, rejection of climate denial and the championing of appropriate technology, as well as a readjustment in ethical approaches. The book also contains 19 'solution boxes' by distinguished environmental scholars.

With a focus on positive, personal solutions, this book is an essential read for students and scholars of environmental science and environmental philosophy, and for all those keen to heal the world and contribute towards a sustainable future.

1

OUR PREDICAMENT

Why we need to heal the world

It is not easy

To witness

Tragedy in motion,

To stand and watch

The roller coaster

Rush down above the chasm,

Where the track ends …

From ‘Mind Trap’ (Washington 2019a)

SUMMARY

Human society is completely dependent on the ecosystems that supply us with the services and benefits we need, yet we are degrading these in a major way. The chapter argues that our society is broken, our economy is broken and the nature that supports us is breaking. It considers each one, starting first with our ecological predicament, where we are in overshoot of sustainable ecological limits. Environmental indicators universally show an environmental crisis. The Global Ecological Footprint is 1.7 Earths (yet we have only one). The Living Planet Index has dropped 60% since 1970. A major biodiversity extinction event is underway, where (without change) half of life on Earth may be extinct by 2100, and 60% of the ecosystem services that support society are degrading or being used unsustainably. We have exceeded at least four of the nine suggested ‘Planetary Boundaries’. The chapter also considers our social predicament, where equity and equality are declining, as is social capital. The chapter finishes by looking briefly (as it is covered further in Chapters 3 and 5) at our economic predicament. The key problem here is our addiction to an ‘endless growth’ economy – when we live on a finite planet that society has forced past ecological limits. These three predicaments comprise the key aspects of our overall predicament, where the world needs major and rapid healing. For the detail explaining this summary, please read on; however, if you just want to know the things you can do (21 are listed) about this, then turn to the end of the chapter.

Introduction

I should warn the reader up front, do not read this chapter unless you are also going to read Chapter 11 on solutions. Otherwise one can be overwhelmed by the problems without realising that positive and practical solutions do exist.

So is our predicament so serious that we really do need to heal the world? In my book Demystifying Sustainability (Washington 2015: 195), I claim that: ‘our economy is broken, our society is broken, and that the ecosystems that support us are breaking’. Why would I say such a thing? I discuss the reasons here. The first thing to do when considering our predicament is to discuss ecological reality. Like all species, humans are fully dependent on their ecosystems to survive (Cardinale et al. 2012; Washington 2013). Humanity of course also has culture and technology, and these allow us to consume more than we could have otherwise (see Chapter 6). However culture and technology enable us to expand the human use of ecosystems, it doesn’t change the reality that, in the end, society has obligate dependence on nature and must (like all species) live within ecological limits. I will summarise these three key predicaments – 1) The ecological predicament; 2) The social predicament; and 3) The economic predicament.

The ecological predicament: why our ecosystems are breaking

Human dependence on nature

It may seem surprising (at least to an ecologist) that society continues to deny human dependence on nature. Yet this remains the case. Washington (2013, 2015) summaries some facts around this dependence, as listed below.

Food webs

Aldo Leopold (1949: 216) characterised ecosystems as a: ‘fountain of energy flowing through a circuit of soils, plants and animals’. Energy is continually being added to ecosystems from the sun, being trapped by plants (producers) and these plants are eaten by herbivores, which may then be eaten by carnivores. The energy limits of the Earth’s ecosystems cannot be ignored. Energy is life, but the amount coming to Earth is fixed. Humanity is now using about 12,000 times as much energy per day as was the case when farming first started (Boyden 2004). So how much of the Earth’s bioproductivity should be controlled by just one species? Vitousek et al. (1986) estimated that about 40% of net primary productivity (NPP) in terrestrial ecosystems was being co-opted by humans each year. Others have estimated figures somewhat higher or lower, but all are a huge percentage of the planet’s NPP. The fact that 60% of ecosystem services are now being degraded or used unsustainably (MEA 2005) shows our current appropriation of NPP is too high. Clearly, we are way beyond what could be considered ‘just’ in terms of our fair share.

Keystone species

Some species have more effect on how energy moves through a food web, and even on what species are found in their communities. These are known as ‘keystone species’, important but little known parts of ecosystems. There are three types: ‘predators’, ‘mutualists’ and ‘ecosystem engineers’ (Cain et al. 2008). Keystone predators are often found at high levels in the food web, such as top predators like wolves, dingoes and jaguars. Keystone mutualists are organisms that participate in mutually beneficial interactions with other organisms, and their loss impacts strongly upon ecosystems. Keystone ecosystem engineers create habitat for other species, examples being grizzly bears (which move nutrients derived from eating salmon into the forest) and prairie dogs (whose tunnels create habitat for other species) (Washington 2013). It is thus critical we keep keystone species; the trouble is we don’t know what many (perhaps most) of them are.

The nutrient cycles

Ecosystems require nutrients to be continually recycled. Essential nutrient cycles include those for phosphorus, sulphur, nitrogen and potassium. Ecosystem services are dependent on the balanced functioning of nature’s nutrient cycles. However, humanity has pushed these cycles out of kilter, essentially doubling the amount of phosphorus and nitrogen moving through ecosystems, with major negative impacts (Washington 2013).

Overshoot

‘Overshoot’ is to shoot or pass over or beyond (Catton 1982). The term is relevant because it demonstrates that society has exceeded ecological limits, causing an environmental crisis. To understand overshoot (Washington 2018a), one needs to consider several factors, as covered below. Many environmental scientists, ecological economists and other scholars believe the overarching drivers of overshoot are the endless growth myth (and economy), overpopulation and overconsumption (as summarised in Washington 2015).

Ecosystem services

Gretchen Daily (1997) stated that ecosystem services are conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems: ‘sustain and fulfil human life’. They maintain biodiversity and the production of ecosystem goods that include seafood, forage, timber, fibre and medicines. They embody the actual life-support functions that maintain society, such as cleansing and recycling. They also confer important aesthetic, spiritual and cultural benefits. Ecosystem services are commonly defined as the direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to human well-being (De Groot et al. 2010). A total of 1,360 experts wrote the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005). It split ecosystem services into four parts, being provisioning services (products obtained from ecosystems), regulating services (benefits obtained from regulation of ecosystem processes), cultural services (non-material benefits) and supporting services (those necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services) (Figure 1.1).

FIGURE 1.1 The relationships between ecosystem health and human well-being (MEA 2005)

The MEA (2005) noted that human use of all ecosystem services is growing rapidly. Overall it concluded that 60% of ecosystem services are being degraded or used unsustainably. Many ecosystem services are being degraded primarily to increase food supply. It should be emphasised, however, that ecosystem services are in fact anthropocentric, as they are defined as the services that nature provides to humanity (Washington 2019b). However, the rest of nature requires services from ecosystems as well. A narrow focus on ecosystem services can thus ignore that nature has intrinsic value, a right to exist for itself (Batavia and Nelson 2017).

Environmental indicators

Environmental indicators all show that society is in overshoot in regard to ecological limits. The Ecological Footprint (Wackernagel and Rees 1996) is based on the idea of ‘biocapacity’, the capacity of a given area to generate an ongoing supply of renewable resources and to absorb waste. The ecological footprint is monitored by the Global Footprint Network (GFN 2019). Ecological Footprint analysis compares human demands on nature with the biosphere’s ability to regenerate resources and provide services. Unsustainability occurs if the area’s Ecological Footprint exceeds its biocapacity. Both are usually expressed in global hectares (written as ‘gha’) or global hectares per person. In 2014, the Earth’s total biocapacity was 12.2 billion gha, or 1.68 gha per person, while humanity’s Ecological Footprint was 20.6 billion gha, or 2.84 gha per person (GFN 2019). Hence the Global Ecological Footprint is an unsustainable 1.7 Earths. This is clearly not sustainable, as we must live on only one Earth. It should be noted however that this also assumes that no land is set aside for other species that consume the same biological material as humans (Stechbart and Wilson 2010). This is actually a dangerous assumption, as apart from any ethical ‘right’, nonhuman species provide the ecosystem services on which society depends (see Washington 2019b).

The Living Planet Index developed by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) measures trends in thousands of vertebrate species populations, and shows a decline of 60% since 1970. In other words, the number of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish across the globe is (on average) less than half what it was 40 years ago (WWF 2018). Biodiversity is declining in both temperate and tropical regions, but the decline is greater in the tropics. Habitat loss and degradation, and exploitation through hunting and fishing, are the primary causes of decline (Ibid.).

Planetary boundaries is a concept that seeks to define a ‘safe operating space for humanity’, and Rockstrom et al. (2009) identified that three planetary boundaries (out of nine) had already been exceeded – climate change, biodiversity extinction and nitrate pollution. Steffen et al. (2015) added phosphorus pollution. It is worth remembering however that ‘planetary boundaries’ as a term is also an anthropocentric concept. They are boundaries to define a ‘safe operating space’ for humanity and thus do not consider the rest of life on Earth. The concept however could be broadened to embrace this.

Extinction

Species extinction is 1,000 to 10,000 times above normal levels in the fossil record (Chivian and Bernstein 2008). Wilson (2003) believes the extinction rate is likely 10,000 times greater than normal, so that something like three species go extinct every hour. He concluded that humanity has become a serial killer of the biosphere. We are now in the midst of the sixth mass extinction we know of in the last 600 million years (Ceballos et al. 2015). Wilson (2003) has warned that without action, by the end of the century, half of all speci...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of figures and boxes
• Biographies of box authors
• Foreword ‘Scorched Earth’ by William Rees
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• 1. Our predicament Why we need to heal the world
• 2. A healing worldview and ethics
• 3. Reality, limits, denial and growthism
• 4. The tragedy of overpopulation denial
• 5. Transforming society’s assumptions
• 6. Appropriate technology tempered by humility
• 7. Reinvent and rejuvenate yourself Reject hubris
• 8. Be in place, don’t own it
• 9. Listen and wonder
• 10. Is collapse coming?
• 11. Seek to heal: the ‘Great Work’ of ten key solutions
• Conclusion – healing our world
• Ideas for educational exercises
• Index