Major Themes of Environmental Science
The study of environmental problems and their solutions has never been more important. Modern society in 2009 is hooked on oil. Production has declined, while demand has grown, and the population of the world has been increasing by more than 70 million each year. The emerging energy crisis is producing an economic crisis, as the prices of everything produced from oil (fertilizer, food, and fuel) rise beyond what some people can afford to pay. Energy and economic problems come at a time of unprecedented environmental concerns, from the local to global level.
In 1960 the world contained 3 billion people. Our population has more than doubled in the last 40 years, to 6.8 billion people today. In the United States, population increase is often apparent when we travel. Urban traffic snarls, long lines to enter national parks, and difficulty getting tickets to popular attractions are all symptoms of a growing population. If recent human population growth rates continue, our numbers could reach 9.4 billion by 2050. The problem is that the Earth has not grown any larger, and the abundance of its resources has not increased— in many cases, quite the opposite.
Estimates of how many people the planet can support range from 2.5 billion to 40 billion (a population not possible with today’s technology). Why do the estimates vary so widely? Because the answer depends on what quality of life people are willing to accept. Beyond a threshold world population of about 4–6 billion, the quality of life declines. How many people the Earth can sustain depends on science and values and is also a question about people and nature. The more people we pack onto the Earth, the less room and resources there are for wild animals and plants, wilderness, areas for recreation, and other aspects of nature—and the faster Earth’s resources will be used. The answer also depends on how the people are distributed on the Earth—whether they are concentrated mostly in cities or spread evenly across the land. Although the environment is complex and environmental issues seem sometimes to cover an unmanageable number of topics, the science of the environment comes down to the central topics just mentioned: the human population, urbanization, and sustainability within a global perspective. These issues have to be evaluated in light of the interrelations between people and nature, and the answers ultimately depend on both science and nature.
Human Population Growth
Our Rapid Population Growth
The most dramatic increase in the history of the human population occurred in the last part of the 20th century and continues today into the early 21st century. As mentioned, in merely the past 40 years the human population of the world more than doubled, from 2.5 billion to about
Human population growth is, in some important ways, the underlying issue of the environment. Much current environmental damage is directly or indirectly the result of the very large number of people on Earth and our rate of increase.
Famine and Food Crisis
Famine is one of the things that happen when a human population exceeds its environmental resources. Famines have occurred in recent decades in Africa. In the mid- 1970s, following a drought in the Sahel region, 500,000 Africans starved to death and several million more were permanently affected by malnutrition.9 Starvation in African nations gained worldwide attention some ten years later, in the 1980s.
Famine in Africa has had multiple interrelated causes. One, as suggested, is drought. Although drought is not new to Africa, the size of the population affected by drought is new. In addition, deserts in Africa appear to be spreading, in part because of changing climate but also because of human activities. Poor farming practices have increased erosion, and deforestation may be helping to make the environment drier. In addition, the control and destruction of food have sometimes been used as a weapon in political disruptions. Today, malnutrition contributes to the death of about 6 million children per year. Low- and middle-income countries suffer the most from malnutrition, as measured by low weight for age. Famines in Africa illustrate another key theme: people and nature. People affect the environment, and the environment affects people. The environment affects agriculture, and agriculture affects the environment. Human population growth in Africa has severely stretched the capacity of the land to provide sufficient food and has threatened its future productivity. The emerging global food crisis in the first decade of the 21st century has not been caused by war or drought but by rising food costs. The cost of basic items, such as rice, corn, and wheat, has risen to the point where low and moderate-income countries are experiencing a serious crisis. In 2007 and 2008, food riots occurred in many locations, including Mexico, Haiti, Egypt, Yemen, Bangladesh, India, and Sudan. The rising cost of oil used to produce food (in fertilizer, transportation, working fields, etc.) and the conversion of some corn production to biofuels have been blamed. This situation involves yet another key theme: science and values. Scientific knowledge has led to increased agricultural production and to a better understanding of population growth and what is required to conserve natural resources.
Sustainability and Carrying Capacity
The story of recent famines and food crises brings up one of the central environmental questions: What is the maximum number of people the Earth can sustain? That is, what is the sustainable human carrying capacity of the Earth.
However, there is little doubt that we are using many renewable environmental resources faster than they can be replenished—in other words, we are using them unsustainably. In general, we are using forests and fish faster than they can regrow, and we are eliminating habitats of endangered species and other wildlife faster than they can be replenished. We are also extracting minerals, petroleum, and groundwater without sufficient concern for their limits or the need to recycle them. As a result, there is a shortage of some resources and a probability of more shortages in the future. Clearly, we must learn how to sustain our environmental resources so that they continue to provide benefits for people and other living things on our planet.
Sustainability: The Environmental Objective
The environmental catchphrase of the 1990s was “saving our planet.” Are all life and the environments on which life depends really in danger? Will we leave behind a dead planet?
In the long view of planetary evolution, it is certain that planet Earth will survive us. Our sun is likely to last another several billion years, and if all humans became extinct in the next few years, life would still flourish here on Earth. The changes we have made—in the landscape, the atmosphere, the waters—would last for a few hundred or thousands of years but in a modest length of time would be erased by natural processes. What we are concerned with, as environmentalists, is the quality of the human environment on Earth, for us today and for our children. Environmentalists agree that sustainability must be achieved, but we are unclear about how to achieve it, in part because the word is used to mean different things, often leading to confusion that causes people to work at cross-purposes. Sustainability has two formal scientific meanings with respect to environment:
(1) sustainability of resources, such as a species of fish from the ocean, a kind of tree from a forest, coal from mines; and
(2) sustainability of an ecosystem. Strictly speaking, harvesting a resource at a certain rate is sustainable if we can continue to harvest that resource at that same rate for some specified time well into the future. An ecosystem is sustainable if it can continue its primary functions for a specified time in the future.
(Economists refer to the specified time in the future as a “planning time horizon.”) Commonly, in discussions about environmental problems, the time period is not specified and is assumed to be very long—mathematically an infinite planning time, but in reality as long as it could possibly matter to us. For conservation of the environment and its resources to be based on quantitative science, both a rate of removal and a planning time horizon must be specified. However, ecosystems and species are always undergoing change, and a completely operational definition of sustainability will have to include such variation over time.
Economists, political scientists, and others also use the term sustainability in reference to types of development that are economically viable, do not harm the environment, and are socially just (fair to all people). We should also point out that the term sustainable growth is an oxymoron (i.e., a contradictory term) because any steady growth (fixed-percentage growth per year) produces large numbers in modest periods of time.
One of the environmental paradigms of the 21st century will be sustainability, but how will it be attained? Economists have begun to consider what is known as the sustainable global economy: the careful management and wise use of the planet and its resources, analogous to the management of money and goods. Those focusing on a sustainable global economy generally agree that under present conditions the global economy is not sustainable. Increasing numbers of people have resulted in so much pollution of the land, air, and water that the ecosystems that people depend on are in danger of collapse. What, then, are the attributes of a sustainable economy in the information age?
Populations of humans and other organisms living in harmony with the natural support systems, such as air, water, and land (including ecosystems).
- An energy policy that does not pollute the atmosphere, cause climate change (such as global warming), or pose unacceptable risk (a political or social decision).
- A plan for renewable resources—such as water, forests, grasslands, agricultural lands, and fisheries—that will not deplete the resources or damage ecosystems.
- A plan for nonrenewable resources that does not damage the environment, either locally or globally, and ensure that a share of our nonrenewable resources will be left to future generations.
- A social, legal, and political system that is dedicated to sustainability, with a democratic mandate to produce such an economy.
Recognizing that population is the environmental problem, we should keep in mind that a sustainable global economy will not be constructed around a completely stable global population. Rather, such an economy will take into account that the size of the human population will fluctuate within some stable range necessary to maintain healthy relationships with other components of the environment.
Develop an effective population-control strategy. This will, at least, require more education of people, since literacy and population growth are inversely related.
- Completely restructure our energy programs. A sustainable global economy is probably impossible if it is based on the use of fossil fuels. New energy plans will be based on an integrated energy policy, with more emphasis on renewable energy sources (such as solar and wind) and on energy conservation.
- Institute economic planning, including a tax structure that will encourage population control and wise use of resources. Financial aid for developing countries is absolutely necessary to narrow the gap between rich and poor nations.
- Implement social, legal, political, and educational changes that help to maintain a quality local, regional, and global environment. This must be a serious commitment that all the people of the world will cooperate with.
Moving toward Sustainability: Some Criteria
Stating that we wish to develop a sustainable future acknowledges that our present practices are not sustainable. Indeed, continuing on our present paths of overpopulation, resource consumption, and pollution will not lead to sustainability. We will need to develop new concepts that will mold industrial, social, and environmental interests into an integrated, harmonious system. In other words, we need to develop a new paradigm, an alternative to our present model for running society and creating wealth. The new paradigm might be described as follows.
- Evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Developing a sustainable future will require an evolution in our values that involves our lifestyles as well as social, economic, and environmental justice.
- Inclusive, not exclusive. All peoples of Earth must be included. This means bringing all people to a higher standard of living in a sustainable way that will not compromise our environment.
- Proactive, not reactive. We must plan for change and for events such as human population problems, resource shortages, and natural hazards, rather than waiting for them to surprise us and then reacting. This may sometimes require us to apply the Precautionary Principle, which we discuss with science and values.
- Attracting, not attacking. People must be attracted to the new paradigm because it is right and just. Those who speak for our environment should not take a hostile stand but should attract people to the path of sustainability through sound scientific argument and appropriate values.
- Assisting the disadvantaged, not taking advantage. This involves issues of environmental justice. All people have the right to live and work in a safe, clean environment. Working people around the globe need to receive a living wage—wages sufficient to support their families.
- Exploitation of workers to reduce the costs of manufacturing goods or growing food diminishes us all.
The Carrying Capacity of the Earth
Carrying capacity is a concept related to sustainability. It is usually defined as the maximum number of individuals of a species that can be sustained by an environment without decreasing the capacity of the environment to sustain that same number in the future. There are limits to the Earth’s potential to support humans. If we used Earth’s total photosynthetic potential with present technology and efficiency to support 6.8 billion people, Earth could support a human population of about 15 billion. However, in doing this, we would share our land with very little else. When we ask “What is the maximum number of people that Earth can sustain?” we are asking not just about Earth’s carrying capacity but also about sustainability.
A Global Perspective
Our actions today are experienced worldwide. Because human actions have begun to change the environment all over the world, the next generation, more than the present generation, will have to take a global perspective on environmental issues. Recognition that civilization can change the environment at a global level is relatively recent. Scientists also believe that burning fossil fuels increases the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which may change Earth’s climate. These atmospheric changes suggest that the actions of many groups of people, at many locations, affect the environment of the entire world. Another new idea explored. These two new ideas have profoundly affected our approach to environmental issues.
An Urban World
In part because of the rapid growth of the human population and in part because of changes in technology, we are becoming an urban species, and our effects on the environment are more and more the effects of urban life. Economic development leads to urbanization; people move from farms to cities and then perhaps to suburbs. Cities and towns get larger, and because they are commonly located near rivers and along coastlines, urban sprawl often overtakes the agricultural land of river floodplains, as well as the coastal wetlands, which are important habitats for many rare and endangered species. As urban areas expand, wetlands are filled in, forests cut down, and soils covered over with pavement and buildings. In developed countries, about 75% of the population lives in urban areas and 25% in rural areas, but in developing countries only 40% of the people are city dwellers. By 2008, for the first time, more than half of the people on Earth lived in urban areas, and it is estimated that by 2025 almost two-thirds of the population—5 billion people— will live in cities. Only a few urban areas had populations over 4 million in 1950. In 1999 Tokyo, Japan, was the world’s largest city, with a population of about 12 million, and by 2015 Tokyo will likely still be the world’s largest city, with a projected population of 28.9 million. The number of megacities—urban areas with at least 10 million inhabitants—increased from 2 (New York City and London) in 1950 to 22 (including Los Angeles and New York City) in 2005. In the past, environmental organizations often focused on nonurban issues—wilderness, endangered species, and natural resources, including forests, fisheries, and wildlife. Although these will remain important issues, in the future we must place more emphasis on urban environments and their effects on the rest of the planet.
People and Nature
Today we stand at the threshold of a major change in our approach to environmental issues. Two paths lie before us. One path is to assume that environmental problems are the result of human actions and that the solution is simply to stop these actions. Based on the notion, popularized some 40 years ago, that people are separate from nature, this path has led to many advances but also many failures. It has emphasized confrontation and emotionalism and has been characterized by a lack of understanding of basic facts about the environment and how natural ecological systems function, often basing solutions instead on political ideologies and ancient myths about nature.
The second path begins with a scientific analysis of an environmental controversy and leads from there to cooperative problem solving. It accepts the connection between people and nature and offers the potential for longlasting, successful solutions to environmental problems. One purpose of this book is to take the student down the second pathway.
People and nature are intimately integrated. Each affects the other. We depend on nature in countless ways. We depend on nature directly for many material resources, such as wood, water, and oxygen. We depend on nature indirectly through what are called public-service functions. For example, soil is necessary for plants and therefore for us; the atmosphere provides a climate in which we can live; the ozone layer high in the atmosphere protects us from ultraviolet radiation; trees absorb some air pollutants; wetlands can cleanse water.
We also depend on nature for beauty and recreation—the needs of our inner selves—as people always have. We in turn affect nature. For as long as we have had tools, including fire, we have changed nature, often in ways that we like and have considered “natural.” One can argue that it is natural for organisms to change their environment. Elephants topple trees, changing forests to grasslands, and people cut down trees and plant crops. Who is to say which is more natural?
In fact, few organisms do not change their environment. People have known this for a long time, but the idea that people might change nature to their advantage was unpopular in the last decades of the 20th century. At that time, the word environment suggested something separate—“ out there”—implying that people were not part of nature. Today, environmental sciences are showing us how people and nature connect, and in what ways this is beneficial to both.
With growing recognition of the environment’s importance, we are becoming more Earth-centered. We seek to spend more time in nature for recreation and spiritual activities. We accept that we have evolved on and with the Earth and are not separate from it. Although we are evolving fast, we remain genetically similar to people who lived more than 100,000 years ago. Do you ever wonder why we like to go camping, to sit around a fire at night roasting marshmallows and singing, or exchanging scary stories about bears and mountain lions? More than ever, we understand and celebrate our union with nature as we work toward sustainability.
Most people recognize that we must seek sustainability not only of the environment but also of our economic activities, so that humanity and the environment can persist together. The dichotomy of the 20th century is giving way to a new unity: the idea that a sustainable environment and a sustainable economy may be compatible, that people and nature are intertwined, and that success for one involves success for the other.
Science and Values
Deciding what to do about an environmental problem involves both values and science, as we have already seen. We must choose what we want the environment to be. But to make this choice, we must first know what is possible. That requires knowing the scientific data and understanding its implications. Scientists rely on critical thinking. Critical scientific thinking is disciplined, using intellectual standards, effective communication, clarity, and commitment to developing scientific knowledge and skills. It leads to conclusions, generalizations, and, sometimes, scientific theories and even scientific laws. Taken together, these comprise a body of beliefs that, at the present time, account for all known observations about a particular phenomenon. Some of the intellectual standards are as follows:
Selected Intellectual Standards
Clarity: If a statement is unclear, you can’t tell whether it is relevant or accurate.
Accuracy: Is a statement true? Can it be checked? To what extent does a measurement agree with the accepted value?
Precision: The degree of exactness to which something is measured. Can a statement be more specific, detailed, and exact?
Relevance: How well is a statement connected to the problem at hand?
Depth: Did you deal with the complexities of a question?
Breadth: Did you consider other points of view or look at it from a different perspective?
Logic: Does a conclusion make sense and follow from the evidence?
Significance: Is the problem an important one? Why?
Fairness: Are there any vested interests, and have other points of view received attention?
Modified after R. Paul, and L. Elder, Critical Thinking (Dillon Beach, CA: The Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2003).
Once we know our options, we can select from among them. What we choose is determined by our values. An example of a value judgment regarding the world’s human environmental problem is the choice between the desire of an individual to have many children and the need to find a way to limit the human population worldwide.
After we have chosen a goal based on knowledge and values, we have to find a way to attain that goal. This step also requires knowledge. And the more technologically advanced and powerful our civilization, the more knowledge is required. For example, current fishing methods enable us to harvest very large numbers of chinook salmon from the Columbia River, and public demand for salmon encourages us to harvest as many as possible. To determine whether chinook salmon are sustainable, we must know how many there are now and how many there have been in the past. We must also understand the processes of birth and growth for this fish, as well as its food requirements, habitat, life cycle, and so forth—all the factors that ultimately determine the abundance of salmon in the Columbia River.
Consider, in contrast, the situation almost two centuries ago. When Lewis and Clark first made an expedition to the Columbia, they found many small villages of Native Americans who depended in large part on the fish in the river for food. The human population was small, and the methods of fishing were simple. The maximum number of fish the people could catch probably posed no threat to the salmon, so these people could fish without scientific understanding of numbers and processes. (This example does not suggest that prescientific societies lacked an appreciation for the idea of sustainability. On the contrary, many so-called primitive societies held strong beliefs about the limits of harvests.)