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

Global Carbon Markets

As promised, this week I will be looking at the alternative ways we can pursue industrial activity, so that global CO₂ emissions can be reduced. In the last post I mentioned the European Union Carbon Trading Scheme, which branches from the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), set at the Kyoto Protocol. I will use this as my starting point in evaluating the effectiveness of legislative approaches to tackling emissions.

Michael Wara (2007) provides this summary of the CDM, explaining that it “works by paying developing countries to adopt lower-polluting technologies than they otherwise would. The difference in carbon emissions between the cleaner method and what they would have used can be converted into CDM credits and sold to industrialised nations who use it to offset their own emissions.” Thus there are a certain number of carbon credits in the market (like any other currency) which can be traded, limiting the amount of pollution that can take place worldwide. At least, that is the theory. Wara’s article in Nature asks the question ‘Is the Global Carbon Market Working?’ Below I have summarised his key findings:

• There are mild successes, such as reducing GHG emissions (but only by a tiny fraction of the annual level).
• Initially the market was expected to create strong incentives to invest in infrastructure for low-carbon energy in developing countries, but it has also allowed developed countries to ‘justify’ their high levels of emissions by buying up carbon credits
• Research shows that only 33% of existing projects in the global carbon market are concerned with reducing CO₂, 62% are concerned with other waste gases – considering the potency of CO₂compared to other GHGs and the much greater quantities in which it is emitted, this ratio must at least be inverted.
• Certain distortions exist – such as that of HFC-23 (a potent GHG which is a product of refrigerant processes). It is very cheap to cut HFC-23 emissions, and thus earn credits – which can be sold at a standard price. It is estimated that a one-off pay out of €100million from the developing world would cover the cost of installing the simple technology needed to capture and destroy HFC-23 at industrial source, saving an estimated €4.6billion in CDM credits that could be spent on other climate-protecting uses. Similar fixes could also be applied to other emissions, such as nitrous oxide.
• The solution that Wara offers is this: make the global carbon market a market for CO₂rather than for all 6 Kyoto Protocol gases (CO₂, methane nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride)

What is highlighted in this article is the overall vagueness of the scheme. It has, through over-ambition, tried to encompass too much and reach too far, and in doing so lost its effectiveness. Wara’s solution is a sensible one, refining the market to focus on just CO₂ would allow more specific limits, targets and legislation to be put in place. It also addresses a key undermining aspect of the scheme, something that Brechet at al. (2012) describe as “the issue of low-hanging fruits”: As long as other gases are covered by a trading scheme, whichever is easiest and cheapest to remove will garner most attention (as the HFC-23 example illustrates). Doing so earns the same reimbursement in carbon credits as reducing carbon emissions would; a clear distortion of the market and an inherent problem with the scheme.

Haszeldine (2009) insists that simply pricing carbon in a market is not enough to enforce decarbonisation, and Brechet et al. (2012) illustrate just why that is the case, revealing yet more problems with the incumbent manifestation of the concept:

• Countries endogenously set their carbon targets at the Kyoto negotiations, rather than them being given to them externally. This meant they were able to assess what a comfortable and realistic level would be for themselves, before agreeing to it.
• Too many carbon credits in the market, which means that countries can engage with the system, profit from it, but not meaningfully reduce global carbon emissions.
• But, the CDM is a good mechanism for countries that are unable to raise the funds for their clean investments, by selling carbon credits.

So what would a more effective global market look like and how can planetary boundaries help? Firstly, it must be more specific by, i) only encompassing one GHG (in this case carbon) so that differentials in ease and cost of removing others does not distort the market, and ii) set specific targets for countries, based on planetary boundaries and the proportion of global carbon emissions that country’s industry is responsible for. In addition to this, the number of credits in the market must be reduced, so that it leads to a meaningful reduction in emissions, and does not simply allow developing countries to profit, and developed countries to merely offset their continuingly high level of emissions.

Of course such a scheme must also be accompanied by widespread and viable technology, as well as facilitating legislative reform … so I’m sure you can guess what the topic of the next post!

First Things First

First, and arguably most significant, of our boundaries is Climate Change (as caused by CO₂ emissions). Carbon Dioxide is a key Greenhouse Gas (GHG), the higher its concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere, the more effectively it insulates the planet. In doing so it causes temperatures to rise and therein lie the many associated problems of Global Warming. I will take the bold assumption that if you are reading this blog, you are at least familiar with the effects of Global Warming, and it certainly goes beyond the capacity of this post to summarise the vast body of associated literature, so just in case, here is a nice overview from the trusty National Geographic.

Whilst all living things produce CO₂ naturally, since around 1750 when humans first began to use industrial processes on a large scale, the total global level has risen at an extraordinary rate. 

But exactly what processes are responsible, and which contribute most? Below is a 2005 illustration of GHG emissions from the World Resources Institute.

Another noteworthy graph can be found here. To quickly clarify that what this blog refers to as industrial, is all commercial activity that provides a mass consumed product. In the case of these two illustrations, that therefore encompasses energy supply, agriculture and forestry. That being the case, it is easy to see the enormous proportion of CO₂ that it accounts for. An article in the Guardian in 2006 revealed that "Five companies in Britain produce more carbon pollution together, than all the motorists on UK roads combined" and that EON UK produced more CO₂ than Croatia. That's more CO₂ from one branch of one multinational energy company than an entire country. Now I realise Croatia isn't the largest country in the world, but I think it leaves little doubt over the responsibilities of companies like EON, RWE Npower, Drax, Corus and EDF when it comes to reining-in global  CO₂ pollution.

It is the prolific use of fossil fuels to build, power and heat industrial centres across the globe that is chiefly responsible for these emissions, but deforestation and cement production have also had massive contributions. In an industrial sense, carbon emissions fall into two main categories: those associated with industry and goods production (i.e. factories, power plants etc.) and those resultant from commercial transport. In future posts, I will be looking at the alternative, carbon-reduced methods for pursuing these activities.

Having said all that, Carbon Dioxide is also the most tended-to of all our Planetary Boundaries worldwide. The European Union Carbon Trading Scheme represents just one of the many attempts to use legislation to actively reduce emissions. In the next post I will evaluate that, and other efforts to control industrial activity. 

Kicking Up A Ström

If a convincing and realistic case is to be made for the use of Planetary Boundaries as a commercial sustainability framework, there are a couple of bases to be covered first. To start with (and what this post will take care of), understanding Rockström et al.’s concept in a little more detail, and then (in the following posts) adding context to the facts and figures by exploring how industrial activity contributes to each boundary variable.

At the heart of the theory are the 9 critical Earth-system processes identified by the team at the Stockholm Resilience Centre. These are:

·         Climate change

·         Rate of biodiversity loss

·         Interference with Nitrogen and Phosphorus cycles

·         Stratospheric ozone depletion

·         Ocean acidification

·         Global freshwater use

·         Change in land use

·         Chemical pollution

·         Atmospheric aerosol loading

The thresholds of those in red have already been crossed and those in blue are rapidly being approached. Rockström et al. go into some detail regarding the former, which I have summarised below.

Climate Change

Anthropogenic climate change is now beyond dispute and the fact that the effects of breaching the following 2 parameters are already being seen, has contributed to the exacting of this threshold.

·         2 parameters used to set climate change thresholds:

o   Atmospheric concentration of CO₂ (threshold = 350ppmv; current = 390ppmv)

o   Radiative forcing - the rate of energy change per unit of the globe as measured at the top of the atmosphere (threshold = 1Wm^-2; currently = 1.5Wm^-2)

o   A critical threshold of between 350ppmv and 550ppmv is observed from past Palaeoclimate data from the last 100 million years and subsequently, these thresholds aim to maintain the large polar ice sheets today.

Rate of Biodiversity Loss

Whilst extinction is natural, during the Anthropocene biodiversity loss has accelerated massively and currently, the rate is estimated to be between 100-1000 times that which could be considered natural.

Although quantifying a boundary for biodiversity loss is difficult, we can say with some certainty that Earth cannot sustain the current rate for much longer without incurring seriously detrimental consequences.

Nitrogen and Phosphorus Cycles

Modern agricultural practices (i.e. fertilizers) are a huge proportion of human dealings with N2, which in total convert more N2 from the atmosphere into reactive forms than the combined effects of terrestrial processes. Similarly, we are processing roughly 8 times the natural background rate of Phosphorus influx.

Detrimental effects include: pollution of waterways and coastal zones, accumulation in land systems, adding a number of gases to the atmosphere, enhancing the greenhouse effect and shifting lake systems from clear to turbid.

What Rockström and his team have done here is actually more progressive than it might seem. For decades now, we have been aware that our activities could have environmental implications but have perhaps always adopted the ‘leave it to the next generation’ mind set. However, this piece is both timely (in the sense that ‘too late’ seems to be edging ever-closer) and constructive (in the sense that from it, we can know exactly where we stand). And whilst there is a degree of uncertainty surrounding the set thresholds, there is little doubt that each variable is increasing continually. So basically, either way you look at it, we should be urging actions now rather than later. 

A New Beginning

One of the major things marking humans out from other species is our ability to manipulate the resources around us in order to produce and manufacture on a remarkable scale. This is, as we know, an increasingly global affair, as are the associated consequences. 

The industrial revolution not only saw the rise of large manufacturing hubs designed for the mass production of specialised goods, but also of extensive transportation networks tasked with distributing these goods across the globe. Both of these developments had serious environmental repercussions – increased resource consumption, air pollution, habitat destruction – the list is extensive. In fact that list has continued to grow steadily since the mid-1700s. So it is safe to say that industrial activity has an awful lot to answer for in terms of contributing to global environmental change. Thus, if we are to tackle it effectively, what better place to start than with multinational companies and global industrial giants?

Sustainable development is not a new concept by any means; in fact I am sure we are all familiar with the notion of meeting production needs whilst simultaneously preserving the environment that facilitates that production. However, actually implementing that concept has often been a far greater challenge than devising the technology to make it possible.  

Johan Rockström, working with a group of scientists at the Stockholm ResilienceCentre, outlines a framework formulated as a set of ‘Planetary Boundaries’, which define a ‘safe operating space for humanity’. Including elements such as Biodiversity Loss, Ocean Acidification and Land Use, the work presents the Earth’s current levels of each variable on a scale in relation to a ‘critical point’, beyond which we are operating in unsafe territory.

This blog will explore the potential for pursuing an agenda of sustainable development using Planetary Boundaries as a framework to implement it. It will take the stance that industries are the crucial starting point for change and in doing so, cover the ways Multinational Companies can adapt, reap benefits and kick-start an Industrial Evolution.