Final Thoughts

This blog has thus far sought to outline the three breached planetary boundaries of CO2-induced climate change, biodiversity loss and disruption of the Nitrogen and Phosphorus cycles. In doing so, it has attempted to encourage an 'industro-centric' approach to tackling them, promoting corporate responsibility and seeking the potential economic gains of going green.

In 1998 Chichilnisky and Heal stressed the need to transform valuable environmental resources into income whilst also conserving them, however their suggestion was to privatise the environment's resources (an approach discussed previously that can be considered inherently flawed), also insisting that the cost of the implementing environmental financial structures would be met by the savings made in doing so. Whilst savings can certainly be made, this seems like a somewhat rudimentary stance, and for me, there needs to be a more universal acceptance that someone, somewhere down the line needs to accept a compromise or make a sacrifice in favour of the environment.

With that in mind, we must now consider the viability of commercial responsibility - would putting the onus on businesses to instigate environmental sustainability actually work? Companies are not built on making sacrifices for other causes, they are driven by profit margins and consumer demand. So how can traditional corporate motivations be used to drive environmental change?

One option is providing fiscal incentives to businesses adopting strategies geared to tackling any of the planetary boundaries. Anton et al investigate the relationship between incentive schemes and environmental performance, their main findings are summarised below:

• Firms are increasingly adopting EMSs (Environmental Management Schemes) voluntarily, instead of regulation-driven management approaches, as policy increasingly relies on market-based incentives.
• Consumer pressures are particularly effective in increasing the comprehensiveness of EMSs where firms might otherwise be less committed.
• The more comprehensive an EMS is, the more effective it is in lowering emissions per unit output (especially in previously high-polluting firms)
• Regulatory and market-based pressures do not directly impact on toxic releases, but indirectly encourage institutional changes in the management of environmental concerns.
• Most EMSs focus only on the means (proactive efforts) for pollution control rather than the ends (actual performance improvement), they do not necessarily guarantee an improvement.
• Ultimately, public policy can play a role in inducing the preservation of toxic pollution by creating regulatory and market-based pressures that induce adoption of EMSs

So an incentives-based approach is advocated with caution, it might not signify a directly effective nor absolute solution, but it should certainly form part of a coherent framework. It is clear that firms have established the marketing potential in EMS, but this must be reinforced by technical and financial assistance and through regulatory incentives. Whilst we must always question the motivations of firms involving themselves in environmental management (because merely superficial, image-boosting engagement must be avoided), it is important to consider the driving forces of corporate decision-making, i.e. public perception and opinion. Such is the influence of this on firms, that Anton et al site one of the most effective tools for reprimanding uncooperative businesses, is to provide environmental information about them to the public and threaten their corporate image.

This final post may appear to have gone off topic somewhat, so let's bring it all together. From the outset, the aims of this blog were twofold: 1) to investigate the contribution of industry to the breaching of three planetary boundaries, and 2) to evaluate the potential of the boundaries concept for creating a framework with which to tackle global environmental change. Indeed as Frondel et al state regarding the approaches discussed in this post - "neither EMS nor any other single policy instrument appear to be catalysts for innovation and abatement activities". Therefore, a more holistic approach is required, with a framework comprising of several key systems working in accordance to achieve predefined goals. Boundaries must be improved to be made more accurate and reliable, but the concept itself provides a means by which to identify areas which require attention. Firms can be deemed responsible based on their relative contribution to each boundary and financial and technical assistance can be provided accordingly. In addition to this, there is scope for firms to make direct savings from adopting environmental measures - such as increasing the efficiency of fertiliser usage, reducing the ecological impact and the overhead cost for the procedure. In combination, legislative action appears necessary to relieve some of the burden from national governments who would otherwise be charged with enforcing and financing schemes. Certain laws can place the responsibility on industries to provide innovation and address their own environmental performance deficiencies.

Industry must evolve if anthropogenic climate change is to be effectively abated. Governments cannot fund enough renewable energy schemes to serve entire nations, individual consumers can only turn off so many coal-powered lights and the Earth's environment can only withstand so much exploitation.

Last But Not Least

The third and final boundary considered already ‘breached’ by the Stockholm Resilience Centre is that of Nitrogen and Phosphorus cycle loading.  That is, the rate at which both are removed from the natural environment (the atmosphere in the case of N) and converted to reactive forms for human use respectively. Industrial processes (including agricultural practices) account for an overwhelming proportion of this.

Prior to global human influence, N was only available in limited supply to most of the biological world and thus acted as “one of the major limiting factors controlling the dynamics, biodiversity and functionality of many ecosystems” (Vitousek et al). For plants to be able to utilise N, they must extract it from the atmosphere (which is 78% N) and ‘fixed’, i.e. bonded to hydrogen or oxygen to form inorganic compounds such as NH₄ and NO₃.

This diagram shows a simplified Nitrogen cycle, importantly illustrating the importance of the atmosphere as an essential store and the integral role of industrial fixation.

Sources

• Fertilisers
• Fossil fuel combustion
• Deforestation
• Cultivation of certain crops

Modern agriculture is a major cause of environmental pollution in general, but especially large-scale N- and P- induced environmental change. Primarily, the manufacture and use of fertiliser along with the cultivation of leguminous crops convert more N₂ to reactive forms per year than all of Earth’s terrestrial processes (Rockström et al). Furthermore, human activity is also speeding up the release of N from long-term storage in soils and organic matter, amplifying the effect.

The above diagram shows the rate of increase in various sources of N, most notably is the incredible rate of industrial fertiliser since the mid-1970s, this very effectively illustrates in responsibility of industries in tackling the scale of alteration.

Similarly, P is utilised in a vast array of ways from fertiliser to toothpaste, however around half of all mined P finds its way into the oceans which is estimated to be in the region of 8 times the natural rate of influx.

Consequences

• Increased global N₂O
• Alteration of ecosystem functionality
• Biodiversity loss

A considerable proportion of N involved in agriculture ends up either polluting water courses, in the coastal zone, accumulating in land systems or enhancing processes that add a number of gases to the atmosphere (Rockstrom et al). Altered levels of N in circulation have been proved to have caused changes in composition and functioning of estuarine and near-shore ecosystems, contributing to long-term declines in coastal marine fisheries (Vitousek et al). Historical climatic data has shown that the P that finds its way to the ocean could quite realistically cause large-scale ocean anoxic events, and even lead to marine extinctions.  

Management Options

• Increase fertiliser efficiency
• Alternative energies

Often, half of fertiliser used is lost to air and water, yet practices have been identified and practised which can increase efficiency and reduce wastage. A further enhancement on this is to contain fertilising practices to farmland, and prevent nutrients reaching nearby water courses.

In order to reduce the level of fossil fuel burning, alternative energies are required – this of course is not exclusive to N and P cycle restoration, but to almost all of the boundaries in Rockström’s model.  

Reducing Biodiversity Loss

In the last post it was asserted that setting a parameter for biodiversity loss is particularly difficult considering how little we know about the matter; it might be expected therefore, that acting on its prevention is similarly challenging. Fortunately, this is not entirely the case, and here I outline various approaches to preventing biodiversity loss.

Whilst Dietz and Adger contend that “biodiversity loss is the product of the complex interaction of factors” making it difficult to pinpoint single specific causes beyond mere ‘economic growth’, it has been established in a number of studies that land-use change is without doubt the biggest driver of biodiversity loss globally (for example Lewis et al). Whilst pollution and climatic changes play their parts, the destruction of habitats and manipulation of land for human purposes leads the way in terms of negative consequences. Thus, it would appear that primarily we need to deal with controlling land-use changes.

Lewis et al establish that as 70% of species on the US endangered list rely on non-federal land and as such look at voluntary agreements with private landowners. Such agreements would be incentivised and entail owners conserving their land and potentially even taking steps to increase its suitability for certain species (presumably those most endangered in a given region). Amongst their findings is the drawback of the approach requiring large budgets for effective conservation, conceding that whilst incentives-based policies have the potential to be most effective, they can be almost inconsequential at low-budget levels. An alternative to this often sees states taking over tracts of land for protection on society’s behalf in the form of nature reserves; of course this also requires substantial funding but also a degree of private cooperation in the discussion of property rights.

Another step that has been taken is to regulate the trade of endangered species both nationally and internationally. CITES (Convention in International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) is a treaty signed in 1973 with the intention of ensuring “international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival”. Theoretically it is designed to drive prices up and quantities down, but as Dietz and Adger note, it is entirely dependent on how effectively its restrictions are enforced.

The same authors conclude that neither international trade regulations nor state land protection necessarily represent the best means of reducing biodiversity loss (another option is that of forestry plantation, discussed by Alkemade et al – an approach that seeks to reverse the effect of habitat loss and shows the potential to reap small but significant rewards). However, if we consider the role companies could play in a similar context, there appears to be some scope for moving conservation forward.

This could take one of the two approaches discussed (if not both): incentives or legislation. Companies could be rewarded for actively taking steps to reduce their impact of biodiversity or they may be required by law to offset their activities with the purchase of land for protection. If structured effectively this could mean that economic growth (which it is unreasonable to expect to slow in many areas of the world in the coming decades) would be tangibly coupled with a reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss.

A Word of Caution

As I suggested in the previous post, setting a parameter for biodiversity loss is perhaps the most problematic of the boundaries; it is, however, not alone in this respect. No concept or theory should be accepted on the grounds of the good of its intention, or without being explored critically first, and Rockström’s is no exception to this. Whilst this blog is concerned with how the boundaries concept can help facilitate a response to global environmental change, it is important to bear in mind it is a work in progress.

Simon Lewis, writing for Nature, recommends that the Planetary Boundaries theory is met with a degree of caution, that whilst it is “compelling” it also has the “potential to shift political focus to the wrong areas”. He identifies two flaws within the concept and warns that ignoring these could undermine the goals of the policies it looks to help.

The first flaw is a technical one: that some parameters are fixed limits, not boundaries. This is best explained using an example – the Phosphorus cycle for instance. As a parameter, the concern that anthropogenic fixing of Phosphorus is seriously damaging the marine environment will drive investment in technology to combat the associated impacts. However, this overlooks the fact that Phosphorus is a non-renewable resource and one that humans are very dependent on as a key plant nutrient – thus this more meaningfully represents a “depletion-limit”. When viewed as a boundary, little effort is made to stop the depletion of phosphate supplies, but instead to simply reduce the environmental impacts. Rather, we should be emphasising this as a depletion-limit in order to “shift focus to technology that could help safeguard stocks”.

The second flaw relates to scale: A global focus on 9 thresholds could spread political will thinly – and it is already weak. Essentially, some boundaries could just as effectively be negotiated at regional scale, with a select few (such as CO₂ emissions and climate change) being pursued as a global collective. A good point is made here, that solutions to regional problems in certain places can be of global significance aggregately – not all of the boundaries need be pursued by everyone.

A final word of caution from Lewis warns that too strong a focus on returning the Earth to earlier-Holocene-like conditions (as Rockström et al. promote) risks side-lining other very important issues that do not fit the concept, but which are of equal importance – the inordinate amount of floating plastic waste in the Pacific Ocean, for instance. So what can we take from the boundaries concept? Well, the idea of setting definite and tangible targets can play a pivotal role in future policy making and can facilitate more specific action plans (i.e. regional/industry sector targeting). Most importantly from Lewis’ article, is the realisation that not everyone, not all industries, not all countries need pursue each and every boundary. If every business and tackled the single boundary they contributed to most, the overall impact would be enormous. 

Moving On... Biodiversity Loss

Whilst CCS is by no means the only option available to reduce industrial CO₂ emissions, it is a good example of how technology is capable of achieving climate change goals. I will review other potential approaches in due course, but for the time being I want to move onto the next Planetary Boundary: Rate of Biodiversity Loss.

In a follow-up article to ‘A Safe Operating Space for Humanity’, Steffen et al. (2011) justify its inclusion in amongst the other 8 boundaries, “[though biodiversity loss] does occur naturally and would continue to some degree without human interference…the rate of animal extinction has skyrocketed in the postindustrial age”, going on to suggest that today’s rate per species is somewhere between 100-1,000 times more than what could be considered natural.

How does industry affect it?

Human activity at every scale effects biodiversity – from the keen gardener, to the individual farmer, through fisheries, all the way to global manufacturing companies. Some examples of the particular type of activity directly affecting the ecosystem:

-          Urban and agricultural development

-          Sprawl

-          Increases in wildfires that destroy habitat

-          Introduction of new species into environments

-          Exploitation of land to support human consumption

(Steffen et al, 2011; Dasgupta, 2011)

Why is biodiversity important?

Commonly, biodiversity is explored in economic terms, evaluating its value to humanity and the service it provides. Dasgupta (2011) and Alho (2008) have closely aligned arguments, the former stating, in reference to these economic-based approaches, that “the motivation is to understand the way in which the exploitation of ecosystems alters their usefulness to humankind by changing the biotic and abiotic processes that underlie various ecosystem functions, and hence the services they yield”. A huge variety of very specific studies such as those by Luwig et al. (2003), Perrings & Walker (2005) and Chichilnisky & Heal (1998) regarding lake eutrophication, land management and economic investment in the biosphere respectively, contribute to a huge breadth of literature that looks at ecosystems as a renewable natural resource. This is not to mention the less quantifiable ‘intrinsic’ value of having nature operate ‘as it should’, which many conservation organisations promote, for example Natural England. 

Even Rockstrom and his team admit that setting a precise and accurate planetary boundary for biodiversity loss is difficult (Steffen et al., 2011), but their reasoning is that because we know so little about the way species are interwoven and how they connect to the broader environment. But interdependency is surely a secondary limitation, once you consider that we know about so very few of the species existing on Earth. Richard Wright produced a very informative piece for the BBC, questioning how we can set a boundary for something we are yet to even quantify. This is a very good question, and one that I am not prepared to dispute; however there is a matter of principle here: even if we do not know how much biodiversity loss Earth and humanity can withstand, it does not mean it is not a worthwhile endeavour.  As I have discussed, biodiversity is of great concern to industries and businesses, and if only in economic terms, it represents an important global challenge.

Carbon Capture Storage

This week I will finally be looking at the technology that can potentially facilitate industries in reducing global carbon emissions. Haszeldine (2009) evaluates the current status of a technology going by the name of Carbon Capture Storage (CCS); he promotes this as one of, if not the only realistic option to achieving some of the global emissions targets set at Kyoto and other summits, or even those set by individual governments.

How does CCS work?

There are 3 methods of CCS currently being investigated, they are Postcombustion, Precombustion and Oxyfuel, all of which essentially serve the same purpose, but simply take place at different stages of production. Common to all three methods, is that CO₂is pressurised, liquefied and transported to storage sites (i.e. specific porous rock deep underground) via networks of pipelines.

Advantages

• Postcombustion technology can be applied to almost any industry and future upgrades will almost definitely increase efficiency substantially
• In the long term, conversion of power plants to CCS would aid UK households in avoiding substantial future energy costs, after an initial increase of around 10%.
• CO₂has been transported in pipes since the 1970s, so theoretically it should be ‘just’ a case scaling-up to a continent-wide pipeline network, serving multiple countries and feeding to various storage locations.
• Injected CO₂into rocks will stay securely sequestered for tens of thousands of years
• There is evidence to suggest that CCS will be cheaper to deploy and maintain in the long term than other renewable options, the main hurdle being the initial start-up costs (or rather acquiring funding for them) 

Challenges

• There are, unfortunately, a number of challenges that still hinder the progress of this technology, but not all are endogenous. 
• Chief among the drawbacks, certainly from the industry point of view, is that currently these methods significantly reduce the efficiency of production, with large amounts of solvents, heavy machinery and high maintenance efforts required.
• More learning cycles are required to refine the technology, before being able to meaningfully scale it up to the level needed – this will take time and money.
• Huge amounts of geological storage are required to have an impact on worldwide CO₂levels; this may be a tried and tested method, but only at a relatively small scale and in a restricted number of locations.

What is needed?

Power plant capture, pipeline transportation and geological injection of CO₂can technically be implemented now, but with inefficiencies and many energy losses. So what is needed to make this technology a viable option?

• More intricate details of the storage process must be worked on, along with the sourcing of suitable locations, before any large-scale commitments can be made to converting industries to CCS
• Aside from the resolvable limitations of the technology itself, legal permission, business development, a lack of supporting policies and public opposition represent genuine hurdles to the progress of CCS.
• The largest blockage is not technological, but rather the lack of a market to provide revenue that justifies large investment

It is important to bear in mind that CCS is a solution that deals with CO₂emissions, rather than one that prevents emissions entirely. In this respect it cannot truly be considered ‘green production’, but I see this as its main potential strength, too – the fact that almost any existing industry can be equipped with CCS technology, without drastically disrupting the production process.

In reviewing something like CCS, we can begin to understand what is needed to tackle global CO₂levels. More specifically, we can start to get an idea of what is required to help industries drive the change. By this I mean a supporting legislative infrastructure provided by both governments and multi-regional organisations that can provide incentives for businesses of all sizes and sectors, to make the leap.

Something Topical...

So today saw the kind of cooperation that is needed on a much more widespread scale, as both Republican and Democratic governors saw eye-to-eye in the US over wind farms and the possibility of a carbon tax. 

As the Guardian points out, such a tax would offer the US government a great opportunity to kill two birds with one stone - climate change and the country's budget crisis. It is this kind of incentivizing that will go a long way to encouraging businesses and governments alike to adopt more environmental measures. 

A little closer to home, the potential is also being realised, with some consideration going to how the revenue could most effectively be spent: Carbon tax could boost economy and combat fuel poverty