“Invasive Species” is a strange concept

This is a bitter point for me, as it was a dislike for olives and fennel throughout the remnant vegetation of South Australia which drew me to time at university. In many ways I’ve since been brought around by 180^o.

Firstly, as far as I can tell, the difference between natural and artificial selection is one base entirely on the human ego. Life persists only when it can adapt to the environmental pressures being placed on it. We are a force of nature! Our species reasons something and pressures to make it so. Those species that get in the way of this pressure either adapt or die out.

It’s a gut-wrenching truth, but a truth nonetheless. The ancestor of domestic cattle, for instance, is no more but the evolved form of it thrives in the human made environment.

Likewise, species now have a distribution potential that they would never have had prior to us. Sure some migratory birds distributed seed and small aquatic species, but it was us who placed the camel in the outback and the horse through the New World.

Whether it was some new adaptive trait within a population or climatic pressures, the range and niche exploited by a species have always been fluid (well, at least in those whom persist in passing on their genes). If something about them gave them the edge against competitors within the new range, they took the resources at the expense of the losers. However, it could just as easily go in favour of the original niche exploiters or possible that some “equilibrium” is achieved (again, populations of interacting species are not stable).

For many species now considered “invasive” eradication, while a nice idea, is probably an impossibility. Feral cats, rabbits and dogs in Australia could never be removed – regardless how many billions of dollars are thrown at the problem – especially while we decide we like to keep them as pets in our yards! The same goes for any number of the nationally recognised weeds which have additional recruitment from agricultural and ornamental garden stocks. Furthermore, it takes only one avid hiker to scuff their foot in the soil seed bank or one flock of parrots to enjoy the fruit of a feral olive tree or one windswept roadway or babbling brook or…

It doesn’t matter which example you select, human activity has provided a new window, no; has opened a new floodgate – for species distribution (whilst, at the same time, destroyed many of the “natural” pathways through landscape fragmentation) far beyond that would have otherwise have been and species have replied in the way they are built to; by attempting to adapt and carry on their genes to subsequent generations.

Management is, of course essential to our movements forward, but eradication and control are largely beyond our capacity. Rather than waste huge amounts of money fighting “plagues” of “feral” species, we need to address the question of what we want from our environments (ie. “artificial selection”) and what would provide the greatest benefit to our activities and in maintaining the greatest diversity in the gene pool of an ecosystem.

As previously stated, the pristine world is gone, however, there is no reason why an environment that we helped to develop cannot be diverse, productive and beautiful.

We will not power down

A common idea that persists within the more environmentally engaged community consists of a utopian ideal of low energy consumption. A return to basics.

This is self-evidentially not going to happen. It is increasingly becoming essential, for instance, for a successful member of affluent countries to keep smart phones on themselves. We are communicating like never before and the wireless age of mass information sharing is upon us.

Even in developing nations, mobile phone ownership is becoming common place and to expect them, within their development to forgo the energy dependant technologies that have made our standard of living possible is simply selfish. The way forward is one based on technological advancements and not a move backwards into de-industrialism. To place this argument even further from debate one needs only to mention medical science – in what it has achieved over the course of the industrial era and how dependant it is on electricity (so much so back-up generators are a fundamental component of care).

Rather than obsess over a world less technological, we should hope to support research and development that allows for technological revolutions in efficiency of technology and of low emission electricity sources. This pathway offers greater potential for reducing carbon emissions in the shortest time frames (see Tackling Climate Change in the U.S. for example).

I am not saying to give up!

I know that in review, it looks as though I asking the reader to throw their arms up in surrender in this and the previous section. Here, I’ve attacked a number of environmental ideologies and have in my time criticised many others. I don’t do this because I’m an industrial wolf under the environmental sheep’s clothing, but because environmental management is so important to me!

We spend far too much time looking into the far future of possibilities or otherwise ask far too great a leap from our current position to reach an ideal conclusion. However, nice this may be, it doesn’t help our purpose. Asking people to give up a standard of living they have come to expect or asking people never to reach the comfortable heights they’ve seen in the developed world will only turn people away – they will ignore you until collapse undoes our progress.

We often ask others to make sacrifices, but we too need to make sacrifices. For us, the greatest sacrifice will need to be to get real about environmental management and to let go of many ideals. Another will be the luxury of complaining and blaming others.

I’ve tried to leave each point with some suggestions; many of which demand action. Rather than blaming “evil” industry, car ownership, lazy politicians, corporate greed or whatever else, we are the many – both the voter and the consumer. By voting (or not voting), by buying (or not buying) we create the communities in which we live.

We cannot expect an idealistic result and will drive away many potential supporters in the process. If we instead allow for compromise and directly our activities for “best possible” scenarios, we can affect development and societal behaviour changes for the better. It is more likely to begin with a change in our perspective and not by demanding change in others.

Let me begin with an idea that many will find shocking, outrageous or even inconceivable.

In order to maintain our complex industrial civilisation it may be necessary for us to entertain the inconceivable: that we have the power to manage the planet’s climate and environment. Indeed, this decision is being forced upon us as the planet warms and we reach critical “boundary thresholds“. We may have no choice in the matter if we wish to preserve our civilisation.

We will be compelled to become planetary engineers.

We can see the impact of our civilisation in every aspect of the Earth’s climate and environment: from the CO2 warming the planet, the mass extinction of species and the acidification of the oceans. And while it is hard to conceive our actions having such a profound impact on the Earth, the evidence from science is both compelling and overwhelming.

And yet as individuals and societies, how to we treat this new knowledge: do we accept it, or do we deny it?

Perhaps we are in a kind of shock?

Environment shock: the response to technological and environmental change

We often talk about the dizzying pace of technological change in our lives, and as individuals and societies we struggle to “keep up”. Institutional change – whether it is in private industry or government – is notoriously slow. People and societies are often caught unaware when change comes.

Thus our laws and social habits are often conflict with the changes wrought by technology. For the individual it can be disorienting and confronting.

Forty years ago Alvin Toffler termed the phrase “future shock“. He used it describe the stress societies undergoing profound technological changes experience:

“…Toffler argued that society is undergoing an enormous structural change, a revolution from an industrial society to a “super-industrial society”. This change overwhelms people, he believed, the accelerated rate of technological and social change leaving people disconnected and suffering from “shattering stress and disorientation”—future shocked. Toffler stated that the majority of social problems are symptoms of future shock. “

Similarly, our societies are struggling to meet the challenge of climate change and environmental collapse.

Perhaps what we are experiencing is a kind of “environment shock”.

Defining “environment shock”: shock precedes inertia

I can only offer a tentative definition, but I see parallels between the tension our societies experience with rapid pace of technological change and rapid environmental change.

“Environment shock” could be defined loosely as:

As the environment undergoes rapid and enormous change individuals, societies and institutions struggle to both a) assimilate and understand this information and b) develop effective strategies to both contain and manage rapid environmental change on a global scale.

Case in point climate change: despite decades of overwhelming evidence and the good intentions of many governments, emissions continue to rise and no effective means to control carbon emissions exist. It may be our existing institutions are insufficient to meet the challenge environmental change presents.

Thus “environment shock” prompts some unsettling and hard questions :

• How do we manage a planet?
• Who governs the process of managing the planet?
• Who provides the funding for planetary management schemes?
• How do we balance the self-interest of nations and individuals against the “common good” of managing the planet?
• What is the role of governments and trans-national institutions?
• What is the role of industry?

Perhaps we are still in a state of shock as the implications of these ideas.

When Mike and I first discussed the creation of GenA, I had envisioned that the process would be one of simply leading the way with case studies and other examples – that is, show people what we can personally do to make radical moves forward towards an increasingly sustainable future – and the results would follow.

It seemed to me, counter-intuitive that people would argue against such ideas if the proof was so obvious. However, discussions I have been involved in over recent months and an example raised early on in Jared Diamond’s “Collapse”, which I am currently reading, has left me a little miffed.

Taking Diamond’s example first of all, he discusses how bushfire severity has increased over recent decades in Montana. This he puts down to a whole host of factors, which climate change is only a minor one. What has most dramatically impacted on bushfire severity has been the result of poor forest management.

Natural bushfires in the region had been controlled for close to a century and the public had opposed thinning of material, fearing that it was the logging wolf in sheep’s clothing. The result has been an altered environment, with far more fuel available for a summertime spark.

Of course, I don’t for a second think it’s the result of a certain community. It’s exactly the same problem I’ve been aware of locally, indeed it is akin to an initial post that started me off as a blogger, where I criticised a “farmer” for being on a hunger strike because legal classifications of his land deemed it unfit for grazing stock. The media largely seemed to take the side of the “farmer” – the same media that would eventually use the desolate landscape a decade from now for some dramatic piece.

I think we, as a whole, do endeavour to do the right thing. I don’t think we mean to lead to such problems. I’ve heard this used to explain why there is such an age discrepancy with AGW denial in that the baby-boomers saw a major increase to the standard of living and worked through such an industrially prosperous era for the good of their country and the generations that follow; it’s a rude shock (and contrary to one’s expectations) to find out that what we thought was relatively harmless – basically the respiration of prosperity – is likely to be an insidious problem, effecting life for centuries to come.

Before we can really make head ways on becoming an adaptive generation, the biggest hurdle facing us lucky ones will be a re-education about ourselves, our place in the environment and what are realistic objectives. It makes no sense in “protecting” a natural environment if the result is dramatically altering the ecosystem function through our management principles as does it make no sense to talk about adaptation if we have conflicting ideas about nature and human societies.

Continuing population growth is not a first world problem.

That is to say, the difference between birth and death rates (excluding immigration and emigration) shows that natural population values are three to six times greater in countries with the lower end of per-capita wealth. If we in first world countries decide on sacrificing the choice in having a family, because of the population crisis, our actions will be in vain.

Children are – especially for poorer people – an investment. They are your retirement plan. More healthy children that make it to adulthood mean more working and able to take care of you in your later years. With higher childhood mortality in such regions, it also makes sense to place your eggs in many baskets. So the question for such people is about finding the maximum amount of children they can support.

If we truly wish to improve the situation of population growth, we will not do so through reducing our own population in first world nations, or by “bringing down capitalism” (ie. some accuse the growth model of capitalism on growing populations, when in truth the biggest consumers are those with the most disposable income) but by addressing the problems that lead to higher population growth where it occurs.

Reducing childhood mortality and improving the basic infrastructure in developing nations will reduce the need for producing as much offspring as a family can support and the best way to do this is through a transfer of knowledge (ie. increasing education) and aid support to developing countries.

If we really want to make a difference to population growth, we have a voice and democratic societies; we need to insist on greater investment in the development of third world nations.

Environmental Purism has no future.

I’ve written on this many times, however it will probably remain an ongoing problem.

The purist would insist that we need to leave environments alone and pristine. Unfortunately there are no environments remaining that are pristine or could return to such a state if left alone.

The example I brushed over above from Diamond’s book is a classic example. Forest management is inherently absurd to a purist, yet fundamental in conservation efforts.

The raw end of the stick is that before human activity, most environments were not a patchwork mosaic, but blended from one to the next without a definitely boarder (expect were geological factors distinctively change within a short distance), thus a conservation park is effectively an island and not as it was before human impact. Water (both ground water and rainfall) amount and chemistry has been altered. Fertilisation / pollution / salinity of soils are wide spread. AGW is redefining climate regions. Selective logging / poaching of fauna has altered the assemblage of species present.

However you look at it, no environment is pristine or worth the massive expense in conserving at a desired state.

But that isn’t to say conservation is pointless, or that I am condoning extinction. One of the most paralysing factors in true stewardship of our environments is this battle between the purist and the more practical. Purism leads to the Montana forest understorey that is densely vegetated – it looks wonderful and green but isn’t something that represents the natural state.

It’s a great case study. The purist should want fairly regular small bushfires, yet they are dangerous. Leaving the understory to grow only makes the problem worse and changes the ecosystem.

I have no doubt that we will continue to spread out across the landscape and so how we interact with the environment is without a doubt one field of research and development that we should be investing much money and effort in. Rather than seeing ourselves as separate from environments, we should see ourselves for what we are; an introduced species.

There is no reason why we cannot develop societies that interact with the surrounding environment, both taking valuable resources for our own activities and returning waste (from the view of our activities) materials that are useful to niches in the connected ecosystem.

The first step of course, will be to accept that the pristine world is gone, species introduction, chemical and environmental changes are (in many cases) beyond repair; how can we turn a sad state of affairs into one that benefits our species as well as surrounding ecosystems? The second step again, will be to use our voices and the benefits of our democratic societies to pursue a course of true environmental integration and stewardship.

To be continued.

That said, it’s not really a topic for New Anthro and so I’ve been stewing over re-opening MI… But three blogs?

Hence the writer’s block I’ve fallen in with…

Anyway, to lighten the mood and prove that I have in fact been working, I’ve got a couple videos I’ve recently made following completing a 3D model of my monitoring station in Google SketchUp. I’ve developed a big of a bug for the creation of videos, so I may produce a few truly for New Anthro / GenA in the coming months!

Let me know what you think!

It’s very easy to wish that we didn’t have the problems we now face, or that some wonderful utopian solution is just around the corner and that it will save our souls. But such things will not occur and holding onto such myths cause fractures within the already engaged individuals on such topics and merely assists this frustrating paralysis.

Half of the world’s population will not evaporate completely from space and time; not humanely nor completely. Wishing for a smaller world won’t change the global population from 7 billion strong.

Regardless of how nice it might seem to some people, the dream a global rural community, where everyone is a food producer is impractical and would ultimately cause more damage to the remaining ecosystems than the system we already have. Not to mention that we would also lose a great proportion of our capacity to meet persistent environmental change or to improve the global standard of living to developing nations through such  change

No, the stark reality is that;

• We have 7 billion people and the number is continuing to grow (at much fast rates in developing nations),
• Developing nations want a standard of living comparable to that we in the affluent west have long enjoyed which will place a huge impact on already stressed resources and most importantly they have the right to want such a standard of living just as much as we do,
• The twentieth and twenty first centuries will be the age of the fossil fuel; we have a very long way to go to develop societies that enjoy a respectable standard of living with a low- to-nonexistence dependence on fossil fuels, which leads into;
• Climate change resulting from human CO₂ emissions is unavoidable, but, as Prof Dessler has put it many times; it’s like an inevitable collision between cars – we still have control how hard the impact will be, and
• Most people will be unable (or unwilling) to develop a strong connection with rural landscape and food production.

That’s the sharp end of the stick.

To be realistic about effective management of the remaining ecosystems and improving the sustainability of our activities, we will need to keep these points in mind.

Probably the hardest points for many of us to accept are the social points, because they take in mind other perspectives which we may not relate to. Some of the more hardcore environmentalists may make daily sacrifices to lower their personal impact on environmental degradation and CO₂ emissions, but still they enjoy a life many folds greater than people in the slums of Mumbai (both in access to goods and services and in their carbon footprint), for instance.

It is fundamental that we avoid as much as possible such first world romantic illusions – such as a return to a world of primary producers or that simply making small sacrifices will make a massive difference (ie. that renewable power will solve the problem or that we should stop having children etc) – and rather try to see the world closer to that the majority do. Having running clean water and reliable power within the home and even your own bedroom are still luxuries for the majority of the global population.

Effective change will need to see the problems of population, food production and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions from the majority view, not that of the luck few.

At the same time it presents excellent opportunity in that we can ask how can the majority be raised to an appropriate standard of living while keeping the greenhouse gas emissions down. Such solutions could improve the lives of billions of people while providing the tools necessary to retrofit the first world.

We too often debate from the other side, but the greater change must come from where the greatest impact is needed and that is the vast majority who still live a harder life in poverty.

Another difficult point to accept for many is that our addiction to fossil fuels is a long way from over. The smoke stack is the heart of the industrial era and it simply cannot be turned off overnight and replaced by a few nice windmills and some solar panels. Even the hotly debated nuclear or hydro discussions will not wean us off of the black gold within my life time.

We will probably have to accept that none of us alive today will live long enough to see the world free from combustion. Dessler’s metaphorical car holds too much inertia for that.

What we do have at hand are the breaks and we can control the rate of “deceleration”, that is, how quickly we reduce our greenhouse emissions, which will come from solving the problem of developing an adequate standard of living in developing nations and then retrofitting this to human activities elsewhere.

In doing so, we will also address the points made in Dick Smith in, Population Crisis and Nicholas Stern in, A Blueprint for a Safer Planet; that population control needs first to address health and education in developing nations, which will in turn slow population growth to something similar to that seen in developed nations. From there we can work out how to reduce the global population over multiple generations to something more sustainable while avoiding the obvious result of an aging population.

The environmental realist will recognise that there are no quick fixes and while some fancies might be enjoyable to muse over in one’s spare time, they will amount to nothing due simply to the huge chasms between the current reality and the ideal future. We are not talking about results we will see in our life time – indeed societal structure of a 50, 60 maybe even 90 years from now will probably be easily recognisable to anyone of us today – but about something that will only start to take real form in the twenty second century.

We will lose more species and we will know for certain that we have left the Holocene entirely behind us – these are sad and unavoidable truths. However, how much loss and change is up to us today and the only way we can make meaningful decisions to impact these results is through being honest about problem and what are the achievable steps we can make from where we are standing at the time.

I had insisted on something and was later proven to be wrong.

I can no longer remember how I had been proven wrong or what the discussion had been about at all – I don’t dwell on such things. However, what will remain with me as long as I live, is the reaction I received when I admitted my mistake. The three people whom all apparently knew me very well were shocked at my openness in accepting my mistake.

I consider myself a very reflective person and indeed can go to great lengths to put forth my case on a subject. I would be lying if I didn’t also admit to becoming a little bombastic if a debate is seeming to go nowhere, in effect simply stating my case louder and with more assertion, largely because I feel it’s being ignored.

That said, I know I’m not always right. I have no desire to insist I’m right.

To believe that oneself holds all the answers is an intellectual deadend. No one person knows everything, even if they know a lot about some things. After all, one human mind can only do so much work within its short life and every mind must unfortunately start from scratch. It’s through collective debate and accumulation of reasoning that we increase our understanding as a group. It is thus so much more useful to the individual to accept that they only borrow knowledge over their life span and that the knowledge they are exposed to is, in many ways, foggy still.

I mention this now because of recent discussions I have had on the blogosphere. It’s true that the same responses to my efforts have been made since my initial efforts online (ie. that I think I’m better than others / bombastic etc), but I’m getting a little tired of it (largely because the people involved tend to use it rather than approach the case I put forth) so maybe I should take a moment out to clarify myself a little.

What I like most about science

…is the eventual need to separate the individual from an idea. If one thinks of something and demonstrates it to be so, they then need to send it off into the wilderness of critical debate. It’s the same with proof-reading in that many minds together do a better job at scanning for error than one person biased by the initial conception of the thought itself.

If the fledgling idea weathers the wilderness to return home, you can have greater confidence in its validity. Of course, it may head out to battle at some later time only to encounter improved knowledge it cannot stand up against and that will be the end of it, however the longer it is able to endure, the stronger it is and the more benefit it will be to demystifying of our knowledge base.

I express myself in this same way both as a blogger (in posts and comments) and in my real life. It’s not so much my personal opinion, but rather an accumulation of ideas that seem to stand as a conclusion in my head. I have no personal interest in their existence, but I do put a lot of effort into constructing a sound thought. I do this not because I fear being wrong or that I have a strong underlying ideology that I wish to preserve, but because I only want to know if it’s right or not.

I don’t see any good in holding an idea because I like the idea – that’s the spirit of the dark ages – I seek to be a little less ignorant before time snuffs me out and to hopefully save others the effort of having to test the same conclusions yet again (which would be such a waste of time).

Anyone out there who has debated with me previously would know that I tend of write very wordy replies. For instance, so far this is the fifth post I’ve written after a frustrating encounter I recently had in another thread. I invest a lot of time and energy in producing not only a conclusion, but to provide as much prior evidence and the A-to-B processes which have led me to my conclusions.

If it’s proven to be wrong, it can be more helpful to me than if it isn’t. Again returning to the mentioned debate recently undertaken, none of my ideas were even addressed. I started with two points, one of which another person inflated into numerous other ideas – all of which needed to be address (demonstrating ignorance in social ecology on the part of the other) – which were then ignored through a side step in attacking me personally.

In effect, I sent my initial two ideas out into the wilderness for them to walk back, kicking a can to each other along the way, followed by a few new friends who were poorly built. I tried to make sense of these friends and sent the lot back out there and like sharks in a school of fish, they were all completely avoided.

The exchange did nothing to help clarify my initial points, leaving me effectively where I began, and so proved to be, not only a waste of my time, but insulting and disheartening in the accusations made at me personally.

Ultimately, what I encountered there (and in other, similar exchanges) is a situation where the other does have reasons to preserve a line of thought beyond simply decreasing their ignorance; they want X to be right so that it validates conclusion Y. It’s common in each of the interests groups that I have devoted much of my online writing against, such as creationists, anti-vax groups and, of course, AGW deniers.

It’s not a position I entirely understand (perhaps spending my adolescences being mocked, most notably by teachers, as stupid in what was discovered to be dyslexia in my early 20′s, discouraged me from ever approaching the ‘high horse’), however it is not one that should be completely discouraged either.

Ideology is passion. Beyond reason, people choose to believe in things and devote energies they would not otherwise. It’s a hallmark feature of our species and while it is the line of thought that has led us to the dark ages before, it also inspires altruism towards other peoples and towards species, volunteer efforts such as Greening Australia (ie. they don’t need to understand the ecology to be motivated to assist) and is even the heart of art creation.

The problem isn’t so much these ways of thinking, the people involved or even with reason and ideologies debating! The problem is that we cloud the purpose of the exchange.

Both are important in how society functions, in the health and happiness of the people within it and in the management of the natural environment around such places (and I’d argue, should be able to move through). However, you can no more reason scientifically the merit in left or right ideologies as you can wish away environmental degradation and a changing climate. They are not the same types of debate.

This is the frustration that I have encountered on the blogosphere which of course is a place far more heavily devoted to personal opinions than impartial reasoning. I treat it as the latter, but it’s not really a forum designed for that. I guess I haven’t yet found my niche.

Such impartial reasoning must make up our foundation

…because you can’t built a house on the clouds. When we are talking about the natural universe, we need to avoid personal opinion as much as possible. This is a difficult task and because it is so unnatural for us to do so, it’s not one many people feel comfortable with. Here, one needs to give up on ideas of being right or wrong and enjoy the journey for its own sake.

With whatever our increasing understanding of the natural universe uncovers, we can then debate on what it means to us and how we could (or should) apply it to our lives. Here is where the complexity of the human mind can truly flourish, creatively expressing our understanding to our societies and the surrounding environments. There really isn’t right or wrong here, but rather differing point of view.

Both are obviously not completely exclusive, there is indeed some overlap, however it makes more sense for us to be honest whether it’s an emotional or impartial line of debate in which we wish to undertake. In either case, you cannot change a mind any more than you can change the laws of the universe – and this is the lesson I have had to learn, especially in how my comments are seen by others and what I should expect in response.

That people very close to me were unaware of my separation from the points I tend to labour on about is an eye open, as has been the online exchange discussed above. I crave clarity and wish my ideas to be tested. Maybe I chose the wrong forum. However, I enjoy the blogosphere so it’s the gremlin I’m willing to bear.

Most importantly, until we clearly define the debates we’re having, we will no doubt continue to meander among problems and potential answers because we mix up what is with what ought. It’s largely a waste of time and energy that limits our capacity for true stewardship.

Note: this was originally intended for Gen Adaptation blog but I’ve had some PC issues. Also cross-posted on Watching the Deniers

In “The God Species” Mark Lynas has produced a work bound to inspire some, challenge the preconception of others and spark debate. Given the enormity of the challenges our civilisation faces this is vitally necessary.

Indeed, this very reason for Gen Adaption is help spark debate and encourage discussion. Thus I was very eager to read “The God Species”.

Lynas is the author of the well received “Six degrees: our future on a hotter planet” (2007), which examined the Earth’s geologic and climate past in an attempt to see what our future may look like should global temperatures rise anywhere between 2-6 degrees (see a good summary by the author here). I read the work several years ago, and was impressed with the work. It was a very good meta-analysis of the science, and helped inform my understanding of the risk climate change poses.

Lynas earned the ire of some environmentalists in an 2010 article in “The New Statesmen” titled “Why greens keep getting it wrong”. In it Lynas criticised environmentalists for “getting it wrong’ on the issues of genetically modified foods and nuclear energy. In particular, Lynas was scathing on green opposition to nuclear energy.:

“In all these areas environmentalists were successful because they followed science – both in understanding the dangers and designing solutions. It is where greens part company from science, as with nuclear power, that problems arise. I have now concluded that all the main objections raised against nuclear power are bogus, or overhyped, or solvable, yet the established environmentalist position – because of a herd mentality as well as deeply held ideology – remains opposed.

…As a result of three decades of successful anti-nuclear campaigning, tens of billions of tonnes of carbon have accumulated in the atmosphere, thanks to proposed nuclear plants being replaced by coal.”

It was accompanied by a documentary on the Uk’s Channel 4. Guardian journalist George Monbiot was scathing of Lynas and his co-presenter Steward Brand. You may also wish to see a video reply from Friends of the Earth to the claims made in the documentary. Interestingly, Monbiot has since become a supporter of nuclear energy, seeing it as a necessary evil in the fight against climate change.

I’d also note that Bill McKibben, James Lovelock and James Hansen, amongst the most prominent luminaries in the climate change “movement”, are also advocates for nuclear power.

With these considerations in mind, I wanted to approach “The God species” with an open mind. I wasn’t sure what to expect: a shrill denouncement of the “green movement” and pean for the wonders of technology or a nuanced discussion on how to respond to the challenge of climate change?

Fortunately Lynas has delivered a well researched and thoughtful text. If there are errors in the book, they weren’t glaringly obvious – thus if any readers come across them I’d been interested.

Planetary boundaries during the age of the anthropocene: taking science based approach

“The story of the modern era… is the story of our transcendence… For modern humans were to discover a new source of fuel that would allow us to expand both our numbers and our dominance dramatically. This new fuel, in the form of underground deposits of fossilised biological carbon, was to be the energy springboard that catapulted our species – and the planet – into an entirely new geological are, the anthropocene. Using the tool of the gos, we were to become as gods. But unlike Zeus, we still live in ignorance about our true power. And time is running out, for the flames of our human inferno have begun to consume the world…” (The God Species, pg.29)

Underpinning the ideas presented in “The God Species” are three key concepts that have emerged within science during the past decades:

• earth systems science
• a proposed new geological age – the anthropocene – that recognises are impact on the planet
• planetary boundaries

We’ll briefly cover each concept in the next post, as a rudimentary understanding of these are important. It also demonstrates that Lynas is attempting a science and evidence based approach to any of the solutions he proposes (this will become important in discussion about GN, nuclear and geo-engineering).

Whether you agree, or disagree, with Lynas on specific points, “The God Species” is an important contribution to discussion on how we as a species now face the challenge of managing the planet.

One cannot underestimate the enormous intellectual leap one has to make in order to fully grasp just what we as a species have to do.

In essence we need to manage the Earth’s  hydrological cycle, climate, chemistry and biodiversity in order to ensure the continuation of our technological civilization and the well being of a global population currently at 6.8 billion.

We are indeed a global civilisation, with a responsibility to manage the globe.

Thus, in the next series of posts we begin to explore the science underpinning The God Species, and discussing some of the solutions proposed by the author.

Comments and debate is more than welcome – indeed it is encouraged.

A summary:

Mark Lynas is a noted science author, environmental activist and has even acted as a policy advisor for the Maldives. His latest work, “The God species: how the planet can survive the age of humans” is an important contribution to the discussion on adapting to climate change (and other environmental challenges). It is bound to court controversy, as Lynas challenges environmentalists to reconsider their views on genetically modified foods and nuclear energy. Lynas has raised some important questions, and at the very least his work represents an attempt to formulate a science-based response.

Mike @ Watching the Deniers