Dr Meriwether Wilson

Dr Meriwether Wilson

Over 100 years ago, a fierce philosophical debate circled the salons, cafes, balls and bars of intellectuals and pioneers alike – often known as the ‘American wilderness’ debate. The legendary icons of this debate included: John Muir (originally from Dunbar, Scotland), founder of the Sierra Club and pivotal in establishing globally famous wilderness areas such as Yosemite National Park in western California; and Gilbert Pinchot, who took the view that these same vast areas of seemingly infinite forest and water resources, were ideal for logging, providing timber for America’s growing cities and towns.

Muir mused about humanity’s primal need for wild places to ponder, enjoy, protect, even if very little was known about these areas; while Pinchot extolled the virtues of potential for economic growth and civic prosperity. We debate these same concepts and positions today, but increasingly within a lexicon of ‘ecosystem services’, with economic growth still assumed to be potentially ‘sustainable’ and as well as catalytic to human well being and social equity. Perhaps when it comes to terrestrial reaches of our planet we have given up on the protection argument, as remotely sensed images fill our minds revealing the certainty of our degradation. We hope that innovative engineering and restoration will recover the green we once associated with the our planet, for future generations.

Yet, what imaginations mentally surface when we reflect on the 70% of our planet that is ocean – upwellings of blueness, deep, dark, mysterious…untapped resources? Are we in the middle of an intellectual confluence of values and technological prowess with regard to the oceans, as we once were with untouched realms of North America? Conversations about land-based environmental resources and strategies increasingly use the word security (e.g. water security, food security, energy security) rather than opportunity, suggesting a sense of urgency. Yet with the ocean, concepts about blue growth and blue economies abound, suggesting a new frontier.

A quick scan of recent position papers and international leadership reinforce this posture, and interestingly blur the line between blue and green, with ‘green’ being a metaphor for ‘sustainable’ while ‘blue’ still suggesting solutions and potential. For example, UNEP’s 2012 report Green Economy in a Blue World states that the ocean is a “cornucopia for humanity”, suggesting and endless bounty for our perusal. The report goes on to note that “creating a green economy in the blue world, can improve human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities; and create sustainable jobs with lasting economic value” (UNEP, 2012, p. 7). A recent 2014 EU communication is entitled Innovation in the Blue Economy: realizing the potential of our seas and oceans for jobs and growth (EU COM(2014) 254 final/2), proposes that with sufficient and open transfer of technically acquired marine knowledge (e.g. seabed mapping), coupled with marine spatial planning, goals such as those proposed by UNEP above are achievable. A vision of enlightened access and benefit sharing of marine resources for all sectors of humanity, with extraction conduced in some magical non-species/ecosystem harming way is compelling and seductive. Is this naïve?

Are there lessons learned from terrestrial development and resource sharing where knowledge and access are stunningly transparent and easy compared with marine environments? Do eminent oceanographers and marine scientists of recent generations offer prescient insights? Carlton Ray, in 1970 wrote a seminal paper entitled Ecology, Law and the Marine Revolution pondering the interactions of ecological dynamics and human dynamics, with the yet to be formalized Law of the Sea envisaged as a beacon to rationalize our goals within the limits and finiteness of the ocean. Nearly 30 years later, JBC Jackson writes in his 2008 paper Ecological extinction and evolution in the brave new ocean that the synergistic impact of our human footprint (largely from overexploitation, pollution and climate change) on marine ecosystems and species is similar to, perhaps greater than, impacts of previous mass extinctions. Only three months ago, in November 2014, the Global Oceans Commission launched a report with the prescient title From Decline to Recovery – A rescue package for the global ocean, focusing largely on the high seas where legal peculiarities and complexities have resulted in 64% of the ocean being unprotected, unstewarded in any real way. As nation states progress in paradoxically parallel races to both protect and exploit seas and within their EEZs (notionally out to 200 nautical miles), it is sobering that this report framed the ocean not as one of bountiful “cornucopia” but as one in need of rescue, requiring our human ingenuity to restore, rather than destroy, the ocean as we know it.

In the debates proposed for this upcoming “Global Environment Society Academy” MSc reading week, we encourage you to read, and reflect on the philosophical concept – the precautionary principle – and if can be better applied to address the inevitably intertwined goals of protection and exploitation for the ocean in this century, than we did for terrestrial realms in the past century.

References:

EU 2014. Innovation in the Blue Economy: realising the potential of our seas and oceans for jobs and growth.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=COM:2014:254:REV1&from=EN

Global Oceans Commission, 2014. From Decline to Recovery: A Rescue Package for the Global Ocean

http://www.globaloceancommission.org

http://missionocean.me

Jackson, JBC, 2008. Ecological extinction and evolution in the brave new ocean. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS), August 12, 2008, vol 105, suppl 1 (11458-11465)

Ray, C., 1970. Ecology, Law and the “Marine Revolution”. Biological Conservation, Vol 3, No. 1, October 1970 (7-17)

UNEP, 2012. Green economy in a Blue World – Synthesis Report.

http://unep.org/pdf/green_economy_blue.pdf

Dr. Wilson is a Lecturer in Marine Science and Policy at the University of Edinburgh focusing on the science-policy-society intersections of transboundary marine ecosystems and services, in particular  international waters.  Her current research explores emerging challenges in coastal-marine governance and marine ecology regarding infrastructure establishments in nearshore and offshore marine areas.  This research builds upon two decades of experience with international organizations (World Bank, UNESCO, UNDP, IUCN, NOAA) on the establishing marine protected areas globally across diverse ecological scales, cultures and economies

Dr. Dave Reay

provide solutions for those seeking to reduce their own carbon footprint. He explores the reality of making personal sacrafices to live a low-carbon lifestyle and illustrates the ways in which we as a society could re-imagine the approaches we take to our professional endeavors. Could digital technologies provide us with the tools to make our visions of sustainability a reality?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I’m currently on the return leg of a trip to give a climate change talk at a big science conference – the European Geophysical Union (EGU) – in Vienna. Almost a decade ago I made the decision that, wherever possible, these trips would be made in a low carbon way. I haven’t been on a plane since.

However, after these past 5 days of travel by clackety rails and lumpy seas it’s now clear that a much speedier AND lower carbon option would have been to attend and present at the conference online. The over-lit expanses of the conference centre were teeming with the usual multitude of academics and students dodging poster tubes but, alongside this traditional format, was a system (called PICO) that allowed virtual participation via the internet. Though some of the ‘researcher bonhomie’ is inevitably missed as a virtual participant, it’s a route that opens attendance up to so many more people and has the potential for big carbon savings.

As academics, attending international conferences is a standard part of the job with most of us having cut our presentation-teeth as jittery doctoral students at annual meetings like the EGU. The skills and networks that grow from this practice are certainly important yet, with advances in technology and the huge challenge of climate change, it seems high time that virtual meetings and presentations came more to the fore.

In other facets of academia the benefits of virtual meeting and learning technology are being more successfully reaped. Participation in online learning is growing apace across the world and higher education is a lead player in this. At the University of Edinburgh our inaugural set of free-access online courses (called ‘Massive Open Online Courses’ or ‘MOOC’s) attracted 300,000 registrations. Together with a growing portfolio of online honours and Masters courses the ‘virtual’ student body at Edinburgh is now fast outgrowing its face-to-face counterpart.

This revolution in the way we teach and learn could do wonderful things. It could link us with great students anywhere in the world whose circumstances would, in the past, never have allowed them to study with us. Students with families to look after, jobs to hold down, and insurmountable visa restrictions could now more easily become part of the global community that is the University of Edinburgh. The environmental benefits may also be far-reaching, with distance-learning students avoiding some or all of the carbon-intensive travel between Edinburgh and home.

Based on the success of our existing distance education courses (such as our Carbon Management Masters), and internationalisation initiatives such as the Global Academies, Edinburgh is well set to ride the online learning wave. This is an opportunity to realise the kind of ‘sustainable growth’ that most businesses and governments can only dream of – growth that is both economically and environmentally sustainable.

The only certainty when predicting the future is that it will be different to what you expect, and in the field of climate change this is something we know only too well. Nevertheless, a future in which online learning becomes a core part of higher education provision seems a good bet. As for academics, and our embracing more actively the technological substitutes for conference globe-trotting, the revolution may have a rather more sedate pace. For myself at least, the first question I’ll ask next time a conference invite comes in will be: “Do you do ‘Virtual’?”.

Dave Reay is a Reader in Carbon Management in the School of Geosciences. He is director of the MSc in Carbon Management and also runs the online MSc course ‘Climate Change Impacts & Adaptation’ .

For those who want to travel in Europe without flying one of the best resources available is ‘The Man in Seat 61’

Dr. Richard Milne

that that bring a sense of security to our society. Dr. Milne examines four of these global-scale threats and asks the question of whether we will be remembered by generations to come for our willingness to stand together to combat these threats, or for our ‘business as usual’ response, ignoring all of the warning signs.

The mythical four horsemen of the apocalypse were Death, Famine, War and Pestilence.  Death of course is ever present, but the other three struck fear into human hearts because they could ride in swiftly and take thousands of lives.  Yet society always survived these visits, because the horsemen always ride off again.  Wars end, famines recede, and epidemics run their course.  In the modern world, not much has changed.  War is country-hopping in the middle east, Pestilence whispers “bird flu” into the ears of bored journalists, and Famine has reinvented himself as “Economic Crisis”, because money seems to have replaced food as our basic need.  They may take some of us, but they will never take us all. Indomitable humans!

The real threats to human society are long-term.  They arrive not on a charging steed, but at snail’s pace, like lumbering but unstoppable zombies.  They are discussed, yet never seen as urgent.  However their threat is ultimately far greater than that of the original horsemen, because the damage they do is likely to be permanent, or at least far harder (and slower) to reverse.  When the history of the current century is written, the main story of the early years will not be wars, terrorism and credit crunch.  It will be about whether or not we dealt with these threats.  Meet the Four Tortoisemen of the Apocalypse.

Tortoise 1: Climate Change

Forget polar bears!  If climate change is allowed to run unchecked, the conditions that allowed civilisation to form will disappear, to be replaced by a far more unstable planet.  Humans may survive, but the comfortable lifestyle of today will be a distant memory.  Man-made climate change is accepted by all competent scientists, but doubted by the public for two reasons.  One is that incredibly sophisticated and well-funded propaganda campaign called “climate skepticism”.  The other is that no sane person wants climate change to be real, and certain types of people form their beliefs based on what they want to be true, rather than what the evidence says.  This makes them willing to accept, uncritically, even the most idiotic arguments of climate “skeptics” while rejecting the clear and obvious evidence that climate change is already happening.

Tortoiseman 2: Overpopulation.  

The same sort of people are therefore likely to reject other inconvenient threats like overpopulation.  The facts are undeniable:  Earth’s population is growing exponentially, doubling every 40 years. Agricultural innovation tries to keep pace by increasing food production, but the increase is at best linear, and hence starting to fall behind.  If you keep adding people to a finite planet, then sooner or later large numbers of them will starve, even if no floods or famines occur; the only argument to be had is how soon.  Overpopulation deniers, however, insist that we can grow our population forever. Some of the deniers are those with devout religious beliefs about procreation, but perhaps more dangerous are the right-wingers, whose credo is that all human needs can be met by economic growth. This is an illusion, created by uneven wealth distribution and the fact that lack of money is the only cause of hunger here.  In reality, economic growth moves resources around and can create jobs, but can’t magically grow a finite resource like farmable land area.    The solution to overpopulation is to educate young women and give them control over their family sizes, but most of the public, just seem to view overpopulation as unimportant.  Like climate change, it is seen as happening elsewhere, if at all.  No-one links it to immigration; if they did, opinions might change.

Projected World Population 1800 to 2100 (Source: Dr. Alex McCalla & UN FAO)

Tortoiseman 3: Ecosystem Destruction.  

This is a problem everyone knows about, but most people either don’t care, or perceive it with sadness rather than fear.  A forest lost here, a species lost there, it’s a shame but why worry when there’s a war going on and people dying?  Occasionally the link is visible – for example most people are aware that the loss of bees will impact heavily on food production, yet food production relies in subtler ways on innumerable biological relationships.  Wasps pollinate some flowers like raspberries, and can pick off pest species too.   In a functioning ecosystem, food webs create checks and balances: when one species becomes more common, its predators and parasites follow suit and reduce their numbers again.  These processes can control pests of agriculture without recourse to insecticide sprays; modern monocultures do still allow booms of pest species but it would be far worse if their natural predators disappeared.  This is an example of what are termed “ecosystem services”.  Plants purify groundwater.  Fungi and other soil organisms recycle nutrients.  Forests and bogs trap rainfall and reduce the flooding from sudden heavy rainfall events.  The fish we eat from oceans sit near the top of marine food webs which could collapse due to overfishing, ocean acidification or other pollution.  We rely on a functioning ecosystem, both locally and globally, to meet our food and other needs.  Too few people realise that to grow food you need soil, and that modern agricultural methods are eroding soil all over the planet.  Yet those who speak out against continuing ecosystem destruction are labelled as sentimental, treehuggers, enemies of progress, the list goes on.  Any one of these alone would be threat enough, yet each makes the others worse.  More people means more carbon emissions.  More warming means more farmland lost to deserts and rising sea levels.  Lost farmland and growing population forces people to cut down forests, realising more carbon and degrading stressed ecosystems still further. Meanwhile a growing population forces us to flog more food out of existing land, pouring on fertilisers and pesticides because our natural allies in soils and pest predators have been reduced or removed.  Yet these chemicals come with their own carbon footprints, and damage the ecosystem still further. Climate change creates extreme weather, destabilised ecosystems remove biological defences from floods and plagues of pests.  It’s a vicious circle and brings us to the fourth Tortoiseman, riding shotgun for the others.

Tortoiseman 4: Food Security

Of all of these, this is the one likely to impact first, and most, on our comfortable lives in the developed world.  Overpopulation would mean a progressively smaller share of global food production if things are divided equally, and as they are not, it will instead mean more rapidly shrinking shares for the poorest.  Yet the developed world is not immune.  Bouts of extreme weather have destroyed wheat crops in sufficient quantities to push up the price of bread, yet climate change has barely shown its teeth in the past ten years.  Far worse is to come.  All it will take is a coincidence of several major extreme events, causing crop losses all over the world, to bring us to a point where suddenly we can’t guarantee enough food for everyone in (say) Britain.  It may only last a week or two, but a crisis like this will change forever how we see our lives and what threatens them.   Finally we will start to realise, as a wise man once said, that you can’t eat money.  Yet once again, the real problem lies further ahead, not with the unpredictable present but in a future where we know food production will get more and more challenging while the number of mouths to feed increases.  This is a problem that won’t go away, unless we deal with all these problems now.  We cannot leave our descendants to face the horrors of mass starvation.

We all want to think that human civilisation is indestructible, and that the way things are now is how they will always be.  It is human nature.  Yet great civilisations have fallen throughout human history, very often because of environmental change that they themselves had caused.  Today mankind will stand or fall as a single species, because we are all now interconnected and what we are doing to the environment affects everyone.  We are also perhaps unique in that we understand completely the things that we are doing and how they threaten are future.  The challenge, therefore, is whether we can come together to turn back the Four Tortoisemen of the Apocalypse.