Psychological Aspects of Waking Up to Global Environmental Change

Posted on by
Reply

David P. Turner / July 23, 2026

The waking-up meme is a bit of a trope in the context of global environmental change.  Greta Thunberg believes “the world is waking up” to the climate crisis; attention to the collapse of biodiversity has been cast as “Waking up to Nature”; deforestation should inspire waking up to the environmental costs of overconsumption.  Despite this overexposure (and ambiguous use of the “woke” meme in culture wars about race and social justice), the waking-up metaphor might still do some work for us in trying to understand what it takes to foster global sustainability.

Here, I examine one route to personal waking up in relation to global environmental change (GEC), and consider how the associated psychological processes, or realizations, might help induce societal-scale change.

With respect to GEC, humanity (“we”) are undeniably in a crisis that needs waking up to at the personal and societal scale.  Essentially, many of the global environmental quality indices (planetary boundaries) are getting worse, yet there is limited public urgency about making the fundamental changes needed to address them.  The psychological and social sciences can contribute significantly to understanding how these needed changes can occur.

Waking Up at the Scale of an Individual

There are many kinds of waking up (notably spiritual awakening), but for the purposes of this essay, individual waking up to GEC has two aspects: 1) realization that the way you think and feel about the environment is highly dependent on your genetic and cultural programming, and may represent a limited worldview, and, 2) coming to understand the evolutionary context that produced and shaped you, which could inform a needed redesign of your personal value system.

Genetic and Cultural Programming

Genetic programming refers to results from the field of evolutionary psychology that suggest some of our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are strongly shaped by biological evolution (natural selection).  Both benevolent tendencies (e.g. altruism, love for babies) and not so benevolent tendencies (e.g. fear of strangers) are probably rooted in genes.  Perhaps most relevant to GEC is biologist E.O. Wilson’s claim that we are naturally imbued with some problematic tendencies (e.g. acquisitiveness), but also with biophilia (love of biological life).

Cultural programming refers to aspects of our thoughts, feelings and behaviors that we learn from our parents, teachers, peers, and informational environment.  It matters for our relationship with GEC because our models and teachers may be ignorant or biased about GEC.  If our education lacked much concern for global scale entities and processes, we are unlikely to take an interest in, and help to mitigate, GEC issues.

Waking up is recognizing that personality development and acculturation tend to lock us into highly constructed, and possibly self-harming, belief systems.  With that realization, the individual becomes alive to the possibilities for self-directed personal change and growth, or even some kind of organic psychological transformation.  AI may turn out to be an incredible aid to self-education because individuals can readily enter into dialogue with, and learn from,  AI chatbots that are vastly well informed and endlessly patient (with, of course, caveats about bias, misinformation, and overdependence).

For personal waking up to truly take hold (i.e. change one’s self-identity), new behaviors must be manifested.  Regarding GEC, those behaviors might look like reducing consumption of fossil fuels (e.g. buying an EV rather than a gas guzzler), investigating supply chains for products you consume, becoming politically active, or contributing to environmental NGOs.

Awareness of Cosmic Evolution and its Implications

Once a person wakes up to having been programmed, they may need a framework for creating a revised self, notably with regard to values.  In the Enlightenment era, when forward thinkers rejected Christian dogma as a source of truth, they began to wonder what then is the basis for morality (when God is dead, where does morality come from?).

Scientists have pulled together a coherent picture of the history of the known universe (i.e. Big History or Cosmic Evolution).  A key feature in that scientific narrative is a pattern of increasing complexity, generated by pervasive evolution in many forms (physical, biological, and cultural).  We owe our existence on this extraordinary planet to these creative forces.

When that cosmic perspective comes into view, a possible alignment of the self with the cosmic process presents itself.  Rather than a lifestyle of blithely contributing to degradation of the biosphere – as we are doing with the 6th Extinction and by mowing down the remaining rain forests – we might aspire to conservation and enhancement of the environment.  Aldo Leopold’s “land ethic” points the way towards a new (non-dualistic) GEC values paradigm.

The current Earth system – with its interacting lithosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, and technosphere – is one of the most complex entities in the universe.  It deserves our respect and care.  And, with sympathetic attention, it could well evolve into something more sustainable than its current state (albeit with greater technosphere energy flow).

What Waking Up Means at the Societal Level

A society begins to wake up when a critical mass of citizens starts to question social norms, e.g. the counter-culture movement in the 1960s questioned societal norms regarding civil rights, the Vietnam War, and environmental quality.  Social awakening leads to public discourse, with the effect that the current status or trajectory is viewed as a product of obsolete thinking or sentiments, and should be changed.  Organized public movements advocating for change follow, and lastly actual changes are built into laws, policies, and norms.

Societies around the world are indeed now waking up to: 1) the fact that we are living in the Anthropocene (human impacts on the Earth system are at the geologic scale), and 2) the recognition that humanity has a responsibility not to extinguish itself or degrade the biosphere.  These are societal identity issues. 

Concurrent Individual and Societal Waking Up

Optimally, individual waking up and societal waking up re-enforce each other.  Individuals, who wake up and change their own ideas and behaviors, self-organize to alert others to new possibilities for themselves and for their society. 

To complete an effective societal wake-up, the ideals emerging from individual waking-up experiences must inspire more organized, movement-type activities that ramify into structural changes in society.  Some movements (e.g. Occupy Wall Street in 2011) were effective in raising issues and popularizing particular viewpoints, but not successful in generating structural change.  In contrast, the 20th Century civil rights movement in America led to specific legislation, e.g. the Civil Rights Act, because activists engaged with the political process.

There is always a danger that individual psychological change can be hijacked, e.g. by corporate or commercial interests, hence blunting pressure to change at the societal scale.   The proliferation of roadside litter in the 1950s – caused in part by corporate introduction of single-use disposable containers – induced individual awakening about the issue, and roused public sentiment to do something about it.  However, corporate interests introduced a very successful advertising campaign that put the responsibility on the litterer (rather than on the importance of mandating recyclable containers).

In driving societal change, it helps to have prestige bias (we tend to believe people who are famous, e.g. Robert Redford on the environment), and conformity bias (we tend to believe in something the majority believes) come into play.

It also helps to have economic conditions in society that support new enlightened views.  The Boomers were able to build an effective counterculture movement in the 1960s partly because of the prosperity of the post WWII decades.  Young people were able to support themselves and be activists.  Renewable energy is now growing by leaps and bounds, perhaps more so because the economy favors renewables than because renewable energy is an effective strategy to mitigate climate change.  Economists debate the design of an economy that is not destructively consumptive but retains the vitality to power through a sustainability revolution.

Conclusion

Addressing GEC will require significant changes in individual and social psychology.  Fortunately, individuals and societies have malleable identities.  At the individual level, waking up to limitations imposed by biological and cultural programming, and to the cosmic origins of order, can inspire new identities as planetary citizens.  At the societal scale, civil society and educational institutions can spread awareness and motivate structural change.  Economists must design an economy that can invest in an eco-friendly infrastructure.  Leaders and politicians must make it all happen.

The Symbiotic Technobiosphere

Posted on by
Reply

David P. Turner / March 24, 2026

Examples of symbiosis. Image Credits: coral, lichen, butterfly.

Background

Scientific discourse on Earth system narratives could benefit from a new term to describe a future state of the Earth system in which humanity achieves a more harmonious relationship with the biosphere.  Here, I propose the term “symbiotic technobiosphere” for that aspirational state.

I originally adopted the term technobiosphere in 2011 to describe the coupled system of technosphere and biosphere.  The context was a paper advocating advanced monitoring tools, especially satellite remote sensing, for application in global environmental management. 

The biosphere and the technosphere are usually viewed separately in the Earth system science literature.  Each is a dissipative system with mass, energy flow, and materials cycling.  Both spheres significantly impact Earth’s climate and biogeochemical cycling.  At present, they are spatially contiguous but not sustainably coupled.

If the human enterprise on Earth is to flourish, the biosphere and technosphere must become highly integrated – hence the term technobiosphere.  I’ve added the metaphorical “symbiotic” as an adjective to emphasize an idealized codependency between the spheres.

The term symbiosis is generally accepted to include any intimate association of two dissimilar species.  In the discipline of biology, symbiosis originally referred only to mutualisms (both species benefit).  However, later authors extended the meaning to cover all intimate interspecies relationships along a continuum from parasitism (one benefits, the other is harmed), to commensalism (one benefits, the other is neutral), to mutualism (both benefit).  A change from one type of relationship to another, depending on the physical environment, is sometimes observed.

A lichen is the classic example of mutualism-based symbiosis – its biomass includes an algal partner doing the photosynthesis and a fungal partner providing a structural foundation and scavenging for nutrients.  Other widespread mutualism-based symbioses include corals, mycorrhizae, and gut microflora of ruminants and termites.

The characteristic physical intimacy of two living things associated with symbiosis is certainly found in the biosphere-technosphere relationship.  The ubiquity of the biosphere on the surface of Earth is evident from the satellite-based monitoring of photosynthesis on the land and ocean (Figure 1).  Likewise, the ubiquity of the technosphere is evident from satellite-based monitoring of Earth at night (Figure 2).  The spheres interact by way of physical impacts as well as exchanges of energy and material.

Figure 1. Global Net Primary Production based on satellite imagery. Image Credit: Woodward 2007.

Figure 2. Earth at night. Image Credit: NASA/GSFC/Visualization Analysis Laboratory.

The emphasis in biological symbiosis on a genetic basis for the partnership does not apply directly to the technobiosphere because the information that drives the technosphere is mostly digital rather than genetic.  Nevertheless, there is coevolution of sorts going on.  The gene-culture coevolution that could eventually generate a mutualistic technobiosphere will rely on genetic evolution on the biosphere side and cultural evolution on the technosphere side.

In memetic theory, cultural evolution in humans is based on selection of memes, i.e. ideas, words, and cultural practices (bits of information) that are transmitted horizontally (within generations) and vertically (between generations) by speech and example.  Memes are loosely analogous to genes in the sense of arising like mutations (new thoughts) and being selected (adopted by other humans).

Cultural evolution clearly operated in the case of agriculture’s origin – humans were initially only seed predators of wild grain plants, but through cultural evolution they began to plow and plant and harvest.  In the gene-culture coevolutionary framework, the genetic characteristics of the crop plants, such as seed size, were simultaneously changing by way of artificial selection.

On a contemporary farm, the crop plants (e.g. corn) have become highly genetically modified from their wild forms so as to be compatible with machine-oriented management.  The human management (technosphere) side of the relationship has also radically evolved, in this case via cultural evolution of machine design and management practices. 

Biosphere Services to the Technosphere

I suggest here that the symbiosis metaphor can be fruitfully extended to the whole biosphere/technosphere relationship.

The current relationship of technosphere to biosphere is mostly the parasitism form of symbiosis.  The technosphere utilizes over 25% of terrestrial net primary production (NPP).  Domesticated livestock scavenge global grasslands and shrublands for edible plant biomass, heavily mechanized agriculture produces crops for human consumption, heavily mechanized forestry extracts wood for construction and paper products, and a global fleet of fishing vessels scours the seas for marine wildlife.  Natural wilderness occupies only about 25% of the global ice-free land surface. Broadly speaking, technosphere capital is rapidly depleting biosphere capital.  Unregulated capitalism tends to facilitate biosphere degradation because negative externalities of natural resource exploitation are ignored.

The technosphere is also dependent on the biosphere for a steady supply of oxygen (produced by photosynthesis).  Human respiration, and fossil fuel combustion, require ample oxygen.  Other ecosystem services like provision of fresh water and organic matter decomposition are similarly dependent on the biosphere, and crucial to technosphere metabolism. 

Technosphere Services to the Biosphere

It is not intuitive, but I would argue that the Anthropocene biosphere is becoming increasingly dependent on a well-functioning technosphere.  Most of the technosphere services noted here exist only in nascent form but could be purposefully augmented.

Most generally, the technosphere could provide a network of institutions for global monitoring (of both biosphere and technosphere), modeling (for diagnostic and prognostic purposes), and environmental governance (at all relevant scales).  Associated feedback loops would then link the functioning of the technosphere to the functioning of the biosphere. 

Monitoring by the technosphere would extend to environmental variables like land cover, water quality, and biodiversity.  In each case, monitoring is needed to inform environmental governance institutions.

Notably, the technosphere should monitor and regulate (if needed) greenhouse gas concentrations.  In the case of carbon dioxide, high concentrations would be moderated by negotiated targets achieved by reduced emissions, Natural Climate Solutions (e.g. afforestation), and various geoengineering approaches.

Another critical technosphere service would be environmentally friendly recycling of all technosphere material waste.  This requirement extends from sewage to everything currently going into landfills.

Besides monitoring the Earth system, the technosphere sensory system could extend out into the solar system to detect and possibly deter threats to the biosphere, such as asteroids having potential to collide with Earth.

Homeostatic Coupling of Technosphere and Biosphere

A more highly integrated coupling of technosphere and biosphere will rely on emerging feedback loops.  As a start towards engaging those feedbacks, Earth system scientists have established a set of planetary boundaries i.e. measurable features of the Earth system that are impacted by the technosphere and can be monitored.  For each variable, a threshold has been established beyond which the Earth system is considered substantially altered away from the Holocene reference state.  A relatively stable climate during the Holocene (~9,700 BCE to present) favored the origin of agriculture and the buildout of the technosphere. 

Planetary boundaries related to the biosphere include the rate of species extinction, the proportion of biosphere NPP appropriated by humans, and the area of forested land as a percentage of the original forest cover.  The feedback loop needed between the technosphere and biosphere requires a purposeful (teleologic) humanity that responds (self-regulates) when it observes a planetary boundary threshold is crossed.

Take the case of the species extinction rate boundary.  Because of technosphere practices like deforestation, the rate of species extinction is much higher now than in most previous geologic periods.  Yet the technosphere is also monitoring the extinction rate and consequently is beginning to alter land use so as to selectively leave more undisturbed habitat for endangered species (i.e. a negative feedback loop).

Conclusion

Since the technosphere and the biosphere are co-dependent, co-evolving, and intimately associated, it is worthwhile evoking the symbiosis metaphor for their relationship at the global scale.  It reminds us to see ourselves as embedded in a complex global system rather than as detached managers of natural resources.

Contributions from Modernism, Postmodernism, and Metamodernism to Building a New Earth System Management Paradigm

Posted on by
Reply

David P. Turner / February 9, 2026

Introduction

The defining feature of the Anthropocene Epoch is that humanity – through the activity of mass technology (the technosphere) – has become the equivalent of a geologic force.  The geological history of planet Earth now includes an anthropogenic rupture characterized by a rapidly changing atmosphere and climate, as well as a wave of extinctions among plant and animal species.  The negative impacts of these self-induced global environmental changes on the human enterprise are already being felt, and in coming decades will cause widespread misery and death.

Humanity has begun to coalesce in the face of this threat, and is scaling up programs of mitigation (reduction of greenhouse gas emissions) and adaptation (e.g. sea walls).  The results thus far, however, are rather feeble.  Here, I want to survey three cultural-intellectual responses to western Modernity in hope of finding inspirational ideas on how humanity (“we”) might better address global environmental change issues.

There are certainly many ideas from outside the western cultural perspective that are relevant to this project of building a new model for how humanity interacts with the Earth system.  But in this blog post I will be admittedly western centric for the sake of coherence.

Modernity, and Pushbacks against it from Modernism, Postmodernism, and Metamodernism

Modernity is a historical period in the course of western civilization extending from the 16th Century onward to the present.  It began with the Enlightenment, when religious dogma as a way of knowing was displaced by reason and science.  A core event was the Industrial Revolution, which fostered a proliferation of machines and buildings, along with a global infrastructure for travel and communication.  Capitalism is the operating system of Modernity.  Relentless economic growth is a characteristic feature.  The grand narrative of Modernity is progress – elaborated in the form of improving technology and quality of life.  The many downsides of Modernity include two world wars, rising inequality, and the aforementioned global environmental changes.

Cultural theorists have identified three movements, or constellations of ideas, which have arisen since around 1900 as a critique of Modernity.  The modernism, postmodernism, and metamodernism movements are sequential, but with substantial overlaps.  Modernism flourished from around 1900 to 1960, postmodernism from around 1960 to 2010, and metamodernism from around 2010 to the present.  These movements do not represent political ideologies, rather different ways of thinking.

They have of course inspired vast troves of lectures, articles, books, and videos, within both academia and popular media, but here I want to evoke only a few ideas or themes within each movement that might be extracted as contributions to a new paradigm for the relationship of humanity to the rest of the Earth system.

Modernism

In the early 20th Century, before World War One, countries around the world were exuberantly pursuing what I have called the “buildout of the technosphere”, i.e. the extension and thickening of the network of cities, factories, machines, roads, and support infrastructure that now cloaks the planet.

Great masses of people were drawn into this network as factory workers, construction workers, ship builders, administrators, and the like.  The natural environment was treated as an infinitely malleable background, and environmental quality was largely ignored.

Science advanced rapidly, but served as both a boon (e.g. nitrogen fertilizer) and a bane (e.g. nerve gas) to civilization.  National leaders were feeling so inspired by all the “progress” that they stumbled into the First World War, with all its mindless waste and horror. 

Modernism as a cultural-intellectual movement arose as a critique of this trajectory (i.e. the trajectory of Modernity).  Writers, philosophers, architects, and artists of many types began to question the linearity, regimentation, environmental degradation, and human degradation (including colonialism) that were features of Modernity.

A significant theme that surfaced early on was the idea of nature as a force greater than humanity.  Modernist writers understood nature as something more than just a background to industrial development.  Joesph Conrad, in The Heart of Darkness, saw nature as “an implacable force”, something we degrade but cannot ultimately control.  This idea is relevant to the present because we are now beginning to recognize nature – framed as Gaia (the quasi self-regulating Earth system) – as having agency.  James Lovelock, early Earth system scientist and popularizer of the Gaia narrative, referred to “The Revenge of Gaia” in the title to one of his books.  Humanity must now aspire to cooperate with or manage Gaia.

A second useful theme from modernism is “interiority”.  In contrast to the realist novels of the 19th Century (e.g. George Eliot’s Middlemarch), the novels of early modernism often spend considerable time inside the heads of the protagonists.

One thing that occupied those minds was maintaining a personal relationship to the natural world.  Characters in D.H. Lawrence novels often espoused that an antidote to the environmental and intellectual squalor of industrialization was an engagement with blood, flesh, and soil.  The Birken character in Women in Love strips off his clothes and writhes around on the ground, communing with a bed of primroses.  A hundred years later, the disconnect from nature induced by Modernity is ever greater.  We need modernism’s reminder to immerse ourselves in nature, to engage with it.  We might thus come to love and nurture it instead of degrading it.  The aggregate effect of many caring individuals could be significant societal change.

A third modernist writer pushback was against the increasingly regimented and mechanical sense of time that is imposed by industrialization.  Virginia Woolf compresses much of Mrs. Dalloway into a single day, and stretches the life of her protagonist in Orlando over multiple generations (even alluding to a change in climate over that period).  Woolf, James Joyce, and others tried to break out of conventional temporal framing.

This concern with compressing and stretching time is relevant to contemporary issues because the advent of the Anthropocene means we must juxtapose historical time with geological time.  Comprehending humanity as a geological force requires that we place the near-time environmental impacts of humanity (e.g. climate change) in the context of environmental changes happening over a geologic time scale.  And we must firmly grasp scenarios for the Earth system extending into the distant future, scenarios that differ greatly depending on current investments in mitigation (e.g. how soon we accomplish a renewable energy revolution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions).  Our capacity to mentally shift temporal perspective needs exercise.

Postmodernism

By the 1960s, the products of Modernity had come to include another World War, the threat of nuclear holocaust, and environmental decline at the global scale.  Artistic and philosophical critique of Modernity proliferated, and the dominant critique began to be packaged as the postmodern movement.

The core orientation of postmodernism is a suspicion about “grand narratives” especially the narrative of continuous progress during the roll-out of western civilization.  Postmodern philosophers maintained that what we call reality is constructed (made-up essentially) by the dominant socio-economic actors in society.  Even the scientific epistemology was questioned to the degree that it claimed to be the only way to establish universal truths.

In literature, postmodern novels like DeLillo’s White Noise and Pynchon’s Gravity’s Rainbow portrayed a world without reliable sources of authority, and immense ambiguity about every aspect of the human condition.

Postmodernism did not have much to say about the environment except perhaps to reject the environmentalist’s totalizing narrative of decline.  However, if there is something worth saving from postmodernism for our purposes here, it would be having the vision and fortitude to question the whole direction that western civilization is headed, i.e. asking if it is really progress to precipitate a 6th Mass Extinction and a cataclysmic change in the global environment.  Too many people today are not asking big questions. 

Postmodernism itself can’t take us much beyond asking questions, but it certainly rattles the foundations of western self-regard.

Metamodernism

By the time of the 9/11 terrorist attack, cultural theorists had grown weary of postmodernism.  Modernity was drifting towards apocalypse, and instead of wallowing in a nihilistic labyrinth of deconstruction, perhaps something should be done about it. 

The polycrisis that now besets humanity is clear to see.  It includes environmental degradation at all scales, the emergence of AI as something that may become superior to ourselves in many ways, a rickety economic system based on capitalism that continues to generate vast inequality, and systems of governance at all scales that are disrupted by polarization and are inadequate to the demands of the times.  We also face a metacrisis  – an inner psychological turmoil induced by the pace and complexity of environmental, technical, and societal change.  Our mental capacities seem to be incommensurate with the demands of the times.  No wonder doom scrolling has become a global pastime.

The metamodern movement is a new set of ideas and concepts inspired by the deficits of Modernity and daring to be forward looking.

Meta- here implies oscillation between modernism and postmodernism, but it also allows for emergence above them and beyond them.

Like modernism and postmodernism, the metamodern movement is not fundamentally political, i.e. does not advocate any particular stance on the many political polarities of the day.  Metamodernism is rather a way of thinking that will hopefully birth a new version of humanity, a version able to accomplish the needed “Great Transition” away from the polycrisis.  The meta- move is to take a step back to gain perspective.

I’ll focus on four critical metamodern concepts.  For this blog post, I want to concentrate on the ways these concepts might inform how we think about the environment.

1. History.  Metamodernism recognizes the benefits of Postmodern skepticism about grand narratives.  Nevertheless, it maintains that we can sincerely take a stand on momentous issues like massive anthropogenic environmental change and envision a non-calamitous future.

2. Interiority.  Metamodernism takes a step beyond modernism’s call to pay attention to interiority by calling for deliberate personal growth.  We each have the capacity to grow in terms of self-awareness, emotional depth, and intellectual breadth – but doing so requires focus and effort.  Digital Modernity strives to consume our attention, leaving few inner resources available for personal reflection and self-development.  However, personal growth is now entangled with the polycrisis.  Individual decisions about consumption (EV vs. gas guzzler), and about politics, matter.

3. Intimacy.  In late Modernity, a person is essentially a consumer.  Our relationships with each other are largely transactional.  The new ask from metamodernism is that we bind ourselves to the other humans on this planet based on our shared predicament.  We know the causes of rapid climate change and the 6th Extinction, and we share the responsibility to do something about them.

4. Context.  The fragmentation of life in Modernity keeps us juggling many balls simultaneously.  Metamodernism asks us to step back, or forward, or above, each ball.  There is no fixed frame of reference, but always a need for context.  In terms of systems theory, we need to construct hierarchies and holarchies that permit changing the spatial and temporal scale of our perspective.  Metamodernism asks that we never wholly rest in one context.

Two recent novels that qualify as metamodern are Ian McEwan’s Solar and Stanley Robinson’s The Ministry of the Future.  In Solar, McEwan satirizes his main character (Beard, a theoretical physicist) as having good intentions with respect to the environment, but deep human flaws that prevent him from accomplishing much.  Besides examining the interiority of Beard, McEwan uses the novel to educate the reader about the environmental crisis and possible technologies to address it.  That oscillation makes it metamodern.  The oscillation or tension in Ministry is between the exceedingly dire environmental trajectory portrayed for the near-term future vs. a long-term future in which humanity manages to deal with the vested interests that block climate change mitigation.

A New Paradigm

The selection of ideas here from modernism, postmodernism, and metamodernism provides only a glimmer of the constellation of ideas needed to create a new paradigm (technobiosphere symbiosis?) for the relationship of humans to the Earth system. 

However, that glimmer has significant implications.

  1.  Linear time is disintegrating.  Humans will be dealing with past and present actions (e.g. carbon emissions) for centuries to come.  We have to project ourselves into the future and cultivate a sustainable world.  The distant past and the distant future matter.
  2.  Our sense of space is also destabilizing.  The nation has been a spatial reference for Modernity.  Now, we have to think globally.  The biosphere is a thing, the technosphere is a thing.  Earth is our home. 

Relevant ideas for building a new relationship of humanity to the rest of the Earth system will come from many other sources besides the cultural-intellectual movements discussed here, notably from science – especially the young discipline of Earth system science.  Both the Arts and Sciences need more rather than less societal support to continue creation of ideas and experiences that foster inner personal growth and outer global sustainability.

A Sad Day for Earth System Science

Posted on by
Reply

David P. Turner / August 9, 2025

OCO-2 satellite

Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

The Trump administration recently directed NASA to draw up plans to terminate the Orbital Carbon Observatory (OCO) missions.  The move is consistent with a general trend in this administration to defund science efforts related to climate change.  Since the OCO missions aim to understand spatial and temporal patterns in carbon (CO2) exchange between Earth’s surface and the atmosphere – and CO2 is a greenhouse gas – the OCO missions are in the administration’s crosshairs.

The key sensor on an OCO platform (either a satellite or the International Space Station) is a spectrometer that records reflected sunlight in specific narrow wavebands.  That information is used to estimate the abundance of CO2 in a column of air extending from the surface to the top of the atmosphere.  These data are used in a process called inverse flux modeling to infer sources and sinks of CO2 on Earth’s surface.

Inverse modeling is a mathematician’s dream.  For the inversion, a simulation model of the atmosphere is constructed by partitioning the atmosphere into a massive number of cells.  The circulation of the atmosphere is then simulated, and in each time step, energy and mass (including CO2) are passed among the cells.  The model starts out with rough estimates of these fluxes, then uses the observations of actual CO2 concentrations observed by the OCO sensor to gradually refine the initial (“prior”) flux estimates.   

Of particular interest are regional estimates for 1) fossil fuel emissions, and 2) carbon uptake by the biosphere.  The fossil fuel emissions estimates are especially relevant to verifying the Paris Accord reporting by each nation of their carbon emissions.  The estimates of biosphere carbon sinks can help with land use management to maximize carbon uptake, hence offsetting fossil fuel emissions.  Inversion-based flux estimates can also be used to validate the Earth system models that project long-term impacts of the technosphere and the biosphere on the global carbon cycle.

An additional capability of the OCO spectrometer is to monitor fluorescence emissions associated with photosynthesis.  These data are inputs to simulation models of global plant productivity (gross primary production), and have helped establish that global plant productivity is increasing.

The engineering and modeling that came together in the OCO missions represent an extraordinary accomplishment.  The operational lifetime of these instruments would normally extend for many years.  The sheer waste of purposely sending the OCO-2 satellite to burn up in the atmosphere is mind boggling.  It would be a sad day indeed for Earth System Science if that were to happen.  Congress still officially has a say, and perhaps it will reassume its responsibilities and prevent this travesty.

We are living in the Anthropocene era:  humanity (the technosphere) is clearly impacting all aspects of the Earth system, including the atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere, and cryosphere.  We have the capability and a responsibility to monitor and manage those human impacts.

Deliberately blinding scientists, prognosticators, and politicians to global scale carbon dynamics does not bode well for the human prospect on Earth.

The “Shifting Baseline Syndrome” Concept Can Apply to Ecosystem Process Rates

Posted on by
Reply

David P. Turner / July 16, 2025

Sea otter consuming sea urchins.  Photo Credit: matt “smooth” thooth knoth through Flickr via Creative Commons License.

Introduction

The Shifting Baseline Syndrome (SBS) holds that successive generations of natural resource managers tend to have a different image of what is natural. 

The concept was originally proposed by a fisheries biologist (Daniel Pauly) who observed it in the context of declines in commercially harvested fish populations.

The obvious management significance of SBS is that population targets for restoration of natural ecosystems might be too low.

Here I will visit application of the SBS concept to ecological processes rather than just state variables like population size and biodiversity. 

First though, I note that one might ask if the term “baseline” even has meaning anymore.

We know that virtually all natural processes are now altered by human actions to some degree.  Also, that anthropogenic climate change and the 6th Extinction will play out over centuries, and will be largely irreversible.  Everything measurable about ecosystems is shifting, hence in some sense there are no baselines.  Which makes it a good time to hone in on how best to use the SBS concept. 

Case Studies of SBS in Relation to Ecological Processes

1.  Effects of Predation in Terrestrial and Marine Ecosystems

“Trophic cascade” effects of losing the upper trophic level in an ecosystem are common in terrestrial, as well as marine, ecosystems but are not always obvious. 

A land manager coming anew to Yellowstone National Park in the 1980s  ̶  after extirpation of wolves  ̶  and encountering overgrazing along streams, might not appreciate the regulatory role of wolves on the elk population (a major herbivorous species).  The baseline for the process of predation on elk had shifted, but the land manager might miss it.

A survey of kelp abundance along the coast of the Pacific Northwest US in the late 20th century would have found little kelp.  This form of marine plant is of great ecological importance because it provides food and protection for young fish.  A major control on kelp abundance is the presence of sea urchins.  They prowl the ocean floor and consume dead and live kelp plants.  A major control on sea urchin abundance is predation by sea otters.  The otters are able to overcome sea urchin spines and feast on their internal organs.  Unfortunately, sea otter fur is quite valuable and the otters in the Pacific Northwest were hunted to local extinction by around 1910.  As a consequence, urchin barrens  ̶  where little kelp is found   ̶   have formed from an overpopulation of sea urchins, with corresponding effects on fish populations.  As kelp faded from the near shore environment in the 20th Century, wildlife managers may have begun to think kelp was naturally found only at low density in these waters (a case of SBS).  Restoration of sea otter predation on sea urchins, and better management of other sea urchin predators, is helping recreate more vibrant, kelp-friendly, marine ecosystems. 

2.  Effects of Declining Invertebrate Diversity on Decomposition

Ecosystem ecologists commonly study rates of leaf litter decomposition by enclosing fallen leaves in a mesh bag and leaving the bag on the soil for an extended period.  The rate of change in dry weight is then a metric for decomposition rate.  One might assume that the results of a litter bag study reflect natural or baseline conditions.  But such is no longer the case.

A critical factor that is moving this bar is the “insect apocalypse”.  The process of decomposition (i.e. decay of foliage, roots, wood) is driven in part by invertebrates such as insects and slugs, and the process is slowed by a decline in invertebrate biodiversity. 

Driving forces in the decline of insect biodiversity include land use change, pesticides, and effects of climate change.  Desynchronization in the interactions among insect species, and between insect species and local plants, can significantly impact local populations.

Slowed decomposition means slower release of nutrients and possibly slower plant growth.  Thus, by altering state variables such as the diversity of invertebrates, we are altering critical process rates, possibly on a massive scale.  But detecting and tracking these rate changes is difficult.

3.  Effects of Deforestation on Regional Evapotranspiration

Large areas of the Amazon Basin have been deforested in recent decades.  A key process altered by deforestation is the transpiration of water, i.e. loss of water through leaf stomata.  Where canopy leaf area is decreased, transpiration decreases and because around 50% of precipitation in a rain forest is recycled from previous rain events (by way of transpiration), the loss of forest leaf area associated with regional deforestation tends to induce a decline in regional precipitation.  Decreased precipitation in the Amazon Basin is projected to impact native vegetation and agriculture.

The principle of “stationarity” in climate research is similar to that of “baseline” in ecological studies.  Climatologists aspire to describe the statistical properties (e.g. mean and variability) for properties like precipitation and temperature for a given region.  The climate is designated as stationary if these statistical properties are stable over time.  If those properties are drifting, as in the case of fossil-fuel-emissions-driven climate change, the climate is said to be non-stationarity and hence less predictable.

If ecological baselines are shifting and the climate is losing stationarity, natural resource managers require strong monitoring programs to track changes, and new adaptive strategies to avoid ecosystem degradation.

Conservation Strategies in the Face of SBS

A growing awareness of shifting ecological process rates, and the possible consequences, has helped inspire several conservation strategies.

Rewilding

The original “rewilding” concept emphasized “cores, corridors, and carnivores”.  Advocates pointed to degraded ecosystems and attributed the problem to the decline or absence of specific processes, e.g. predation.  The full range of trophic interactions was seen as fundamental to shaping the structure and function of ecosystems and landscapes.  Human interventions such as hunting were not considered a substitute for natural processes such as predation.

The reintroduction of wolves to the Yellowstone region is an iconic case of rewilding.  But the theory has also been applied in the case of background processes like decomposition.  Here, transfer of invertebrates and microbes from undisturbed to disturbed sites helps restore decomposition rates. 

The theory of rewilding is still under development but a core principle is to keep ecosystems “wild” – meaning to insure the continuous operation of all natural processes needed to drive the self-organization that is characteristic of complex systems.

Nature-Based Solutions (NBS)

Large areas of land and ocean provide services to humans – notably food, wood, water filtration, and recreation.  These working ecosystems are clearly no longer natural, yet they contribute to biosphere metabolism and are worth managing as such.

Human interventions and impacts are often altering these ecosystems, sometimes with limited reference to natural processes e.g. the full range of impacts form cattle grazing on public rangelands in the western US is poorly understood.  An NBS management approach aims to restore and monitor core ecological processes needed to provide ecosystem services to humans and to support thriving ecosystems as parts of the biosphere.

NBS is a conservation framework with an “overarching goal to address global societal challenges”.  It tends to be applied at large scales and require significant human management intervention.  On the human side, delivering ecosystem services and comprehensive stakeholder involvement are core objectives.  On the ecological side, the emphasis is on management of natural processes.  Restoration and management of mangrove forests is a good example because it requires intensive site manipulation that ultimately provides services like carbon sequestration and coastline protection from storm surges.

Both private sector and public sector efforts at sustainability are increasingly framed in terms of a nature – centered perspective.

Conclusions

Anthropogenically-driven non-stationarity in the physical environment, and shifting baselines for both state variables and ecological processes, are increasingly relevant to natural resources management.  Conservation frameworks like rewilding and Nature-Based Solutions provide adaptive strategies for managing under these contemporary conditions.  Governmental support for monitoring and restoration at multiple scales is required.

Taming the Technosphere in an Age of AI Ascendency and Information Plenitude

Posted on by
Reply

David P. Turner / May 23, 2025

AI-infused technosphere

Stylized image of Earth and its AI-infused technosphere.  Image Credit: MS CoPilot.

Introduction

The technosphere is increasingly impacting core features of the Earth system, notably the climate and the biosphere.

Accordingly, there is wide recognition that we humans (with the usual caveats about the meaning of “we” here) need to rein in (tame) the technosphere.

However, this project does not amount to just putting constraints on existing technology; new technologies designed to harvest, synthesize, and act on vast arrays of digital data are also needed.

The idea of managing the technosphere, or indeed the Earth system, has an obvious air of hubris.  But the technosphere is unquestionably having global scale deleterious impacts on the Earth system, and the human responsibility to do something about it is clear.

Notable recent changes in the technosphere that will help with global management include the arrival of well-functioning Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools like large language models (LLMs) and neural network-based machine learning algorithms.  Along with the information plenitude referred to in my title  ̶   a product of the recent trend to digitize all information, be it in the form of text, images, audio, or video  ̶  some hope of grasping global scale dynamics is emerging.

AI provides a fundamentally new way of thinking – beyond historical faith-based and reason-based approaches.  The human thinking apparatus – our brain  – simply does not have the capacity to assimilate and synthesize information at the scale with which it is being produced.  Fortunately, AI algorithms in combination with massive computing power and vast observational data sets can often do the job.  One great strength is that they can search the solution space of a problem more thoroughly than the unassisted human mind.

AI might also be considered analogous to a new source of energy.  Just as fossil fuels freed up our bodies to do more interesting and less labor-intensive activities, AI is freeing up our minds to do more fulfilling and less routine activities, including attending to sustainability at local to global scales.

The Role of AI in Earth System Management

Managing a socio-ecological system (such as the Earth system) requires monitoring the system, developing a model to assimilate observations of the system and help with understanding and planning, and organizing a deliberative body to make decisions.

The relevant global scale monitoring data includes observations of the metabolism and growth of the technosphere and the biosphere, along with tracking of the real time behavior of other parts of the Earth system, e.g. AI machine learning has proved useful in satellite-based monitoring of deforestation.

The relevant models could be 1) process-based Earth system simulation models, e.g. that include a representation of the global climate as well as social subsystems, 2) mechanism-free data driven models based on AI-assisted pattern analysis, or 3) combinations of these two approaches.

As far as deliberative bodies, the world is dangerously short of global governance infrastructure.  United Nations sponsored efforts such as the Paris Climate Accords are only a shadow of what is needed.  AI may be helpful in generating and summarizing relevant data, though of course the bigger challenge is with human capacity and willingness to change.  Ultimately, superintelligent AI might have features that make it better at devising optimal choices about global governance than (mere) humans could come up with.

Use Cases That Already Effectively Combine AI with Massive Data Sets

1) AI management of regional electricity grids.  Management of regional electricity grids has become much more complicated as they transition from traditional base-load power plants to supply by renewable sources.  The intermittency of wind and solar, as well as variation in the scale of the inputs (roof-top to utility-scale operations in the case of solar energy), are particularly challenging.  Smart grids must be capable of sending and receiving power from a multitude of individual customers, and maintaining dynamic pricing to balance power consumption during periods of high and low demand.

Fortunately, machine learning is effective at assimilating a blizzard of power system data, and in making automated decisions that link energy supply and demand.

2.  Use of meteorological observations, climate models, and AI to develop early warning systems for extreme weather events.  The incidence of extreme weather events (EWEs) such as floods, droughts, and fire is increasing because of anthropogenically-driven climate change.  Associated human fatalities, and damage to technosphere infrastructure, are correspondingly rising.

Weather forecasting tools like regional weather models have significant limitations with respect to forecasting EWEs.  These models are regularly updated by observations, and they project conditions into the near future based on simulating physical processes such as wind, precipitation, and heat transfer.  The model limitations show up in terms of the kinds of information they can assimilate, and in representing physical processes at the proper spatial and temporal scale.

An alternative weather forecasting approach uses AI (machine learning) to assimilate a much broader array of observations.  This approach largely leaves physical mechanisms behind and is said to be “data driven”, i.e. based on statistical relationships between historical observations of the causes and effects of weather change.  The forecast of an extreme weather event from this approach can be promptly fed to appropriate emergency response organizations that act to make relevant preparations and increase local resilience.

Beyond weather forecasting,  the machine learning approach is beginning to be used in applications based on Earth system digital twins.  A digital twin can be used to simulate alternative scenarios and may have embedded one or more process-based simulation models.  As model complexity increases, e.g. by adding models of social subsystems, a machine learning-based model may prove to be more effective.

A critical point here is that mass observations of weather and ground data are needed to train and drive an AI-based model.  In that regard, the recent focus on shrinking federal agencies like NOAA, NASA, and EPA, which make critical environmental observations, is particularly counterproductive.

3)  Use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in Earth System Science education and advocacy.

The technosphere is creating vast amounts of textual, graphical, and video information specifically about global environmental change, including peer-reviewed journal articles, books, periodicals, blogs, and NGO reports.  The more that people use this information to understand what is happening in the Earth system, and what could be done about it, the better chance we have of making needed changes in the technosphere (e.g. reducing greenhouse gas emissions). 

Domain-specific LLMs (e.g. Earth Copilot) have an important role to play in this aspiration because they can, with infinite patience, communicate a synthesis of the scientific consensus on a given topic at an appropriate level of learning ability (i.e. level of education). 

Certainly, an LLM can produce wrong answers at times.  The output of an LLM depends on the data used in its training, the manner in which it is fine-tuned, and new web-based information that it employs in response to a specific prompt.  Errors or lies in the training data may thus leak into the outputs.  Already, researchers have found policy relevant differences among the most used AI-chatbots, and bad actors are creating web sites with false information purely for the consumption of AI web crawlers that scrape the web seeking new information.

Despite the resistance of LLM creators to having their training data censored, more care is needed.  It is also important to continually expand, by way of further research, the range of concepts and ideas used in training data. 

Conclusion

AI gives us the ability to access, synthesize, and manage the contemporary plenitude of digital information.  Early successful applications of AI include management of regional electric grids, forecasting of Extreme Weather Events, and facilitating learning about Earth System Science.  Given that human progress in managing the technosphere is incommensurate with the damage the technosphere is doing to the Earth system, the range of potential applications is immense.  “We” must continue to develop them.

Credits

The lead image was created by collaboration with MS CoPilot, and some of the links were inspired by Perplexity.AI.  The text, with all its human flaws, is of my own hand. Taming the Technosphere blog posts are apparently used by the web scrappers that collect training data for AI LLMs, and are used (sometimes with attribution) for query-related responses by AI-assisted chatbots.

Differentiating the Concepts of Biosphere, Technosphere, and Technobiosphere

Posted on by
1

David P. Turner / February 20, 2025

Figure 1. A stylized rendering of the integration of biosphere and technosphere. Image credit: Original Graphic.

Earth System Science studies the Earth system in terms of the whole, its parts, and the associated dynamics.  The biosphere and the technosphere are well-recognized functional parts of the current Earth system, but while the biosphere helps maintain the global biogeochemical cycles and climate, the technosphere is disrupting them.  The technobiosphere concept represents a potential fusion of these two parts into a matter-, energy-, and information-processing entity that advances planetary evolution.

Biosphere

In the early 20th Century, Russian geochemist Vladimir Vernadsky identified the biosphere as the sum of living organisms on the surface of Earth.  He emphasized how the biosphere absorbs solar energy and uses the energy to construct and maintain order in the form of biomass.  Earth system scientists have subsequently discovered that over geologic time, the biosphere has undergone major changes in the kinds of organisms it contains and in the way it contributes to maintaining the global biogeochemical cycles and global climate.

Technosphere

In a more recent conceptual advance, geologist Peter Haff identified the technosphere as the sum of all human-built technological artifacts on the surface of Earth, along with the human beings and institutions that manage those artifacts.  Like the biosphere, the technosphere uses energy (mostly in the form of fossil fuels) to construct and maintain order.  In this case, the order is in the form of machines and structures of various sorts networked together to support advanced technological civilization.  The technosphere is expanding rapidly, and indeed we have entered the Anthropocene era in which technosphere metabolism has begun to act as a geological force. 

The biosphere and technosphere concepts are helpful in thinking about Earth as a system, and how it changes over time.  One notable observation is that the technosphere is now growing at an exponential pace and its growth is coming in part at the expense of the biosphere – specifically a loss of biodiversity and ecosystem diversity. 

The technosphere – unlike the biosphere – largely does not recycle its wastes, e.g. vast amounts of plastic end up in landfills, and CO2 is freely dumped into the atmosphere from the combustion of fossil fuels.  The current trajectory of technosphere impacts on Earth’s climate and biosphere is leading to an instability in the Earth system that will challenge humanity’s ability to adapt.

Technobiosphere

For the long-term welfare of humanity, the next step in planetary evolution may well be a fusion of the biosphere and technosphere.  This new entity – the technobiosphere – deserves a label because, although it will retain a well-functioning biosphere and technosphere, much of its self-regulation will depend on human consciousness and, perhaps eventually, Artificial Intelligence (AI).

What that fusion will mean in practice is that the technobiosphere is run on renewable energy, largely recycles its waste materials, and does not grow at an exponential rate.  It would have the capacity to monitor itself, maintain itself, and alter its impacts on the global biogeochemical cycles.  New stabilizing negative feedback loops would link components of the technosphere, biosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere, and geosphere.

The global carbon cycle in particular is amenable to technobiosphere regulation by means of controlling energy-based emissions of carbon dioxide and methane, reducing carbon emissions from deforestation, and increasing biologically-based carbon sinks by tree planting and protection of undisturbed ecosystems.

Integration

Clearly the limited contemporary integration of biosphere and technosphere is insufficient to call the combination a technobiosphere.

As to what will drive an enfolding of the technosphere back into the biosphere, I am afraid it is on us. Most importantly, a functional infrastructure for global environmental governance has to be developed to coordinate the global community.  Key principles on which to base that governance include sustainability and habitability.

Sustainability refers to a relationship between the technobiosphere and the rest of the Earth system such that the global environment is stable enough to support successive generations of humans.  If the global climate is warming by 3oC per 100 years because of carbon-based energy generation, the relationship is not sustainable.

Habitability refers to a planetary environment that supports all life forms.  If the growth of techno-artifacts is causing a 50% loss in biodiversity per 100 years, the habitability of the Earth is in decline.  In contrast, habitability could increase if continued urbanization, and an eventual decline in the human population from the global demographic transition, allowed for more of the land and the ocean to be dedicated to conservation purposes. 

The development of AI represents both threats and opportunities in relation to technobiosphere evolution. 

A key threat lies in how AI will speed up the technosphere (hence making greater demands on natural resources) and make the technosphere more autonomous.  Super-intelligent AI bots and agents may eventually care more about their own survival than the survival of the biosphere. 

AI-based opportunities lie in spurring scientific advances that reduce human impacts on the Earth system, and in helping educate natural resource managers and planetary citizens.  AI-based inquiry (with large language models) is a new form of perception  ̶  an intelligence capable of surveying information at the planetary scale and delivering a synthesis accessible to our individual minds.  

Conclusion

The way language works, the existence and meaning of specific words is socially constructed (by way of cultural evolution).  The biosphere concept allows us to see a planetary scale, energy-harvesting, and order-producing entity that helps regulate the global biogeochemical cycles and climate.

The technosphere concept allows us to see a new human-constructed, planetary scale, control force now altering Earth’s biosphere, biogeochemistry, and climate in a destabilizing manner. 

We need to start imagining an integrated technobiosphere  ̶  a part of the Earth system able to monitor and regulate itself so as to survive and thrive at a geologic time scale.

The Future Will Not Take Care of Itself

Posted on by
1

David P. Turner

January 20, 2025

Earth system scientists tend to think a lot about the future.  Their simulations of Earth’s near-term future  ̶  based on projections of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions  ̶  suggest dramatic changes in the climate that will stretch our human capacity to adapt.  For the purposes of climate change mitigation, their assessments indicate that the current trajectory of climate warming could be moderated significantly by collective action to reduce emissions.

Neoliberal economists on the other hand do not think much about the future.  According to neoliberal economic theory (and practice), the future will take care of itself.  Individual purchasing choices within a free market economic system will purportedly bring any negative aspects (externalities) of economic activities under control and correction.  Therefore, governmental interference in the economy is the road to ruin.

If Earth system scientists are right, and neoliberal economists are wrong, humanity is in big trouble.

A neoliberal economy is a free market economy  ̶  one in which supply and demand reign supreme (i.e. market fundamentalism).  Associated public policies include limited taxation, limited governmental regulation, antagonism to organized labor, private ownership of common resources, and cheap credit to promote investment.  The liberal part of the term refers to concern for individual freedom from governmental control, hence favoring little regulation and low taxes.  The neo- part refers to the widespread adoption of hyper-liberal economic policies around the world beginning in the 1980s (e.g. the Reagan and Thatcher administrations).  Besides insuring individual freedom, the theoretical upside of neoliberal economics is strong growth in gross domestic product (GDP) and this “rising tide lifts all boats”.

However, with respect to the future global environment, neoliberal economics has two long-term pernicious effects.  The first is that the neoliberal stance against regulations and taxation allows capitalist entrepreneurs to avoid paying the environmental (and social) costs of production.  CO2 emissions into the atmosphere – a global commons – from the combustion of fossil fuels for energy is an iconic example.  CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere in the course of energy generation, but the costs of the emissions  ̶  in the form of current and future impacts of climate change on human welfare (e.g. sea level rise)  ̶  are paid by people subject to climate-related disturbances the world over.  Failure to link fossil fuel combustion to its negative environmental impacts hinders the necessary societal effort to reduce emissions.

A second flaw of neoliberal economics is that the prized growth of the economy places increasing demands on natural resources, e.g. the atmospheric capacity to cleanse itself.  The neoliberal assumption is that resources are unlimited if the price is right.  But on our densely populated planet, many natural resources are being overused and degraded.  In the cases where neoliberal economists do demonstrate concern for the future of the environment, the policy response is usually to put the burden for mitigation on the consumer. If someone is worried about climate change, they can buy an electric vehicle, and anyone not worried about it can buy a gasoline vehicle.

A primary alternative to neoliberal environmentalism is to include corporate and public institutions as responsible parties in addressing the negative environmental consequences of the economy on the environmental commons.  These bodies operate at the scale required and have the resources to study the future and plan appropriately.  Although state capitalism is perhaps not something to be emulated uncritically, China has recently demonstrated that if you want to rapidly reduce gasoline consumption, the government can intervene in many ways to make it happen without wrecking the economy.

Environmental sociologists refer to the process of Ecological Modernization (EM) as a path to governance where environment problems are addressed through policy changes and technological improvements, all in the context of modest economic growth.  EM is not revolutionary systemic change to the capitalist economic system.  It is more like continuous tinkering with policy (e.g. tax policy and pollution standards).  EM is a form of cultural evolution that follows the model of biological evolution.  Just as genetic variation provides the basis for natural selection in biological evolution, various policy alternatives provide the basis for political decisions in cultural evolution.  Of course, it helps to have public forums, informed citizens, engaged politicians, and forward-thinking leadership.

Here, I’ve referred to the future-oriented aspects of Earth System Science and Neoliberal Economics.  However, there is another whole discipline  ̶  Future Studies  ̶  that explicitly concerns itself with caring about the future.  One of its common topics is scenarios for the human enterprise on Earth, be it self-induced environmental change beyond our ability to adapt, toxic political systems leading to collapse of civilization, or establishment of a sustainable, high technology, global civilization.  Whether Future Studies is more at home in the Social Sciences or the Humanities is debated, but it is certainly a form of post-normal science, i.e. the practitioners commonly derive conclusions about public policy from their analyses.

Our primate brains may not be particularly well designed to think in terms of the global spatial scale and the multigenerational temporal scale.  Nevertheless, we find ourselves in the Anthropocene era and we must accept our responsibilities for deliberately acting at those scales.  Dogmatically clinging to market fundamentalism will not do the job.

Aspirations for a Just Earth System as well as a Safe Earth System

Posted on by
1

David P. Turner / November 19, 2024

Recent commentary on paths to global sustainability has advocated for Earth system justice (ESJ), specifically for an Earth system that is just as well as safe.

A safe Earth system is one in which both the biosphere and the technosphere thrive.  Current threats to the biosphere and technosphere come in the form of well-documented anthropogenic impacts on Earth’s energy balance, the global biogeochemical cycles, and the biota.  Earth system scientists have identified a set of planetary boundaries – such as an atmospheric CO2 concentration and associated increase in global mean temperature – beyond which Earth system characteristics such as climate will be destabilized, thereby putting at risk the welfare of both humans and other species.

A just Earth system is more difficult to define.  Historically, justice has largely been concerned with how people treat each other.  The formulation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was an outstanding achievement in the struggle for social justice.  However, the advent of the Anthropocene era has generated new questions about equality and fairness.

One of the key observations relevant to defining ESJ is that the people most impacted by climate change (e.g. impacts from a greater frequency and intensity of extreme weather events) are often not the people who have made the biggest contribution to causing climate change.  The basis of this distributional inequity is that relatively wealthy people usually have high per capita greenhouse gas emissions, but their wealth also buffers them from the consequences of climate change.  To account for this differential exposure, Earth system scientists have begun to estimate just planetary boundaries that would protect even the relatively vulnerable.

While distributional inequity can be considered in the current time period (intragenerational), we must also consider inequity through time (intergenerational justice).  Recent generations have greatly benefited from fossil fuel combustion, but it is future generations that will mostly pay the costs as climate disruption becomes manifest.  In a just world, each generation would leave the planetary life support system in as good or better a condition than the condition in which they inherited it.  Following that principle would require much larger  investments in greenhouse gas emission mitigation than are currently being made.

The Earth system justice concept also raises the issue of interspecies justice.  What give Homo sapiens the right to drive other species extinct?  Since we have clearly entered the Anthropocene era (with its associated 6th Great Extinction), humanity now has a responsibility to care for other species, and indeed for the biosphere as a whole.

Achieving ESJ is a daunting challenge because, even when considering just the biogeochemical aspects of Earth system function, the technical and environmental questions about how to address global environmental change issues are already complex.  To add the related issues associated with intragenerational justice, intergenerational justice, and interspecies justice makes finding answers even more difficult ( e.g. the hydrologic cycle as it relates to meeting basic human needs while factoring in protection of aquatic ecosystems).

There are policies that could help make the Earth system safe but would not make it more just, such as appropriating land from indigenous people to create carbon sinks.  Likewise, there are policies that could help make the Earth system more just, but would not make it safer, such as building coal burning power plants in developing countries that provide relatively cheap and reliable energy but also emit large quantities of greenhouse gases.  So, although the objective of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions is straightforward, the questions of who has responsibility, how to go about it, and where to prioritize the efforts, are more nuanced.

Given the many trade-offs among safe planetary boundaries and just planetary boundaries, political decisions must be made.  In the political realm (at least when there is some semblance of democracy), there is generally both a forum at which the stakeholders on any given issue can express their positions, and a societal decision-making mechanism that attempts to account for, or reconcile, the various interests.  In the case of climate change mitigation, we are fortunate that many mitigation policies can also serve to promote social justice.  Investments to manage land for the purposes of carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation could also serve to maintain homelands for vulnerable Indigenous people.  Investments in education and provision of family planning services improve quality of life, and also serve to tamp down population growth and hence total greenhouse gas emissions. 

An important practical rationale for addressing inequity as part of addressing global environmental change is that impoverished people may be pushed to live in marginal environments and will exploit any available natural resources to survive.  They don’t have the luxury of worrying about whether the environment is being degraded.

More generally, many global environmental change problems require global scale solutions. That means humanity as a collective must address them.  A major problem with respect to inequity is that it erodes feelings of solidarity.  Inequity prevents the organization of humanity as a “we”.

Achieving a safe and just Earth system will require leaders who understand the issues elaborated here, as well as the building of Earth system governance institutions that allow relevant policies to be debated and promulgated both nationally and globally.  The Great Transition to a sustainable global civilization needs technological advances like a renewable energy revolution, but also efforts to mitigate multiple forms of injustice.

Deglobalization and Reglobalization of Wood Supply and Demand

Posted on by
Reply

David P. Turner / August 20, 2024

Wood is an iconic renewable resource  ̶  trees grow, wood is harvested, new trees are planted, and more wood is produced.  On a managed forested landscape growing trees with a 100-year time to maturity, a forester can maintain a sustained yield of wood by harvesting and replanting patches totaling 1% of the total area each year. 

However, not all commercially processed wood comes from sustained yield forests.  Cutting of previously unlogged natural forests (i.e. primary forests) in the boreal and tropical zones is still widespread.  Removal of the large trees in tropical forests is often followed by land use change. 

Natural forests (currently about one quarter of the total forested area globally) are valued for multiple ecosystem services  ̶  notably conservation of biodiversity, provision of fresh water, and carbon sequestration.  They also provide a home to forest-dwelling indigenous people around the world.  Thus, reducing the loss of tropical natural forests to logging is a high conservation priority.

Like many natural resources, wood supply is heavily influenced by economic globalization.  Under neoliberal free trade economics, wood enters the global market based primarily on the cost of production.  If manufacturers can obtain logs relatively cheaply from first entry of natural forests rather than from sustainably managed forests, they are economically compelled to do it.  Pushback against this ideology is coming from regulators, NGOs, and advocates for indigenous people’s rights.

Global Wood Demand

To determine if the total global demand for wood could be sourced from sustainably managed forests, let’s first examine the magnitude, geographic pattern, and trend in wood demand.

Wood is commercially processed in the form of roundwood, with predominant uses of commercial wood as construction materials, paper/packaging, and biomass energy.  The projected long-term trend is for continued annual increases (1-3%) in global roundwood demand. 

Current global roundwood consumption is on the order of 4 billion cubic meters per year.  The highest wood consuming country is the U.S.  Second is China, however, much of China’s consumption is imported, moves through a value-added product chain, and is exported.  China is the largest importer of unprocessed logs and the largest global producer of plywood and paper.  Other historically large consumers of roundwood include several countries in the EU.  New sources of demand are emerging in developing countries.

Use of wood in buildings will increase in coming decades driven by expansion of the housing sector (more people and higher standards of living).  Wood will be a preferred component in new construction because of both advances in materials science, and the carbon benefits of substituting wood for steel and concrete.

Demand for paper and cardboard is rising 3-4% per year, in association with its soaring use in packaging.

Wood demand for combustion in biomass energy power plants is also on the rise (~5%/yr) mostly because emissions from biomass energy power plants are considered carbon neutral in some domains (e.g. the E.U.). 

Global Wood Supply

Roundwood comes into the global production stream from a great variety of sources.  Besides unsustainable cutting in natural forests, we might identify a continuum of sustainable forestry management approaches along an axis based on the importance of wood production relative to other ecosystem services.  The continuum extends from plantation forestry, through modified natural forests, to undisturbed old-growth forests.

Supply from Sustainably Managed Forests

Boreal Zone

In Scandinavian countries, a large proportion of wood removals is from previously harvested and replanted boreal forests.  However, the total volume produced is relatively small. 

Temperate Zone

After hundreds to thousands of years of human occupation, the temperate zone has relatively little natural forest remaining.  In the temperate zone, softwood species (conifers) are generally managed by clear-cutting and replanting, whereas hardwood species are usually harvested by selective cutting.  Managed forests in the temperate zone are primarily in European and North American countries.  New Zealand, Australia, Chile, and China have also developed extensive areas of planted forests.

Tropical Zone

Sustainable management of tropical forests based on selective cutting with suitably long re-entry times is possible, but not yet widespread.  Plantation forests in the tropical zone grow relatively fast and thus have a short rotation time (and faster return on investment).  The area of planted forests in the tropics is increasing.  

Supply from Natural Forests

Most of the wood production in Russia and Canada is from natural forests.  In Russia, much of this logging is essentially a “mining operation”, with corresponding negative impacts on biodiversity.

Logging of tropical hardwoods in natural forests is extensive in most regions where tropical moist forests grow.  After tree removals, the land is commonly used for grazing, commercial agriculture, or subsistence agriculture.  In Indonesia, deforestation is often associated with conversion to palm oil plantations.  In Central Africa and parts of the Amazon Basin, high value trees are removed for export and the land is left as secondary forest.

Much of the wood from cutting in tropical natural forests is exported to manufacturing centers like China (about two thirds) and the EU. 

Because of the rapidly increasing area of plantation forests, the proportional contribution of natural forests to the global wood supply is declining.  However, completely shutting down that wood source for conservation purposes would significantly diminish global wood production.  A first order analysis by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) suggests that the current global wood demand could largely be met by sustainable forestry (i.e. without cutting in primary forests) if about half of the world’s forests were used in wood production (the rest being devoted to provision of other ecosystem services.  Projected increases in wood demand could not be met with the land base available for wood production. WWF proposes a reduction in per capita wood consumption, but a  more likely outcome would seem to be increased per unit area productivity associated with more intensive forest management.

 The Role of Forest Certification

Consumers of forest products increasingly insist on evidence that the associated wood was harvested sustainably.  Consequently, there is an growing interest in sustainable sourcing within the forest products industry.

A key to ending the supply of wood from first entry into natural forests is forest certification.  Buyers and sellers of wood can use certification as proof that their business practices are not contributing to deforestation or forest degradation. 

Certification authorities are usually nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations.  Forest management on a particular piece of land is certified based on management practices, including harvesting and replanting.  Certification is also applied to wood itself in various stages of the supply chain.

Major retailers like Home Depot and IKEA have made concerted efforts to provide certified wood.  Approximately 13% of the global forestland is certified, and the trend is upward.

A significant cost premium must be absorbed by forest managers, manufacturers, retailers, and consumers when managed land or wood products are certified.  The willingness to pay that premium depends on educating wood consumers about issues with forestry practices.  At the national level, policies supporting restriction of uncertified wood imports are becoming more common.

Chinese manufactured wood exports are sometimes routed through Vietnam and Malaysia to subvert attempts by companies in the EU and US to accept only certified wood products.  A promising technology for enforcement of certification labeling involves tracing the origin of logs or wood by use of genetic information.

Deglobalization and Reglobalization

Global industrial roundwood demand is projected to rise by 50 per cent or more by 2050.  To reduce loss of natural forests in the tropical zone, there must be a deglobalization of wood imports from tropical natural forests.  This loss of logs (much of it illegal in any case) could be compensated for to some degree by increasing production from certified planted forests in the boreal, temperate, and tropical zones.  Obviously, this new wood production should not come by way of converting intact primary forests to plantations. 

Currently only 11% of the global forested area dedicated to wood production is plantation forests, yet that land provides around 33% of current industrial roundwood demand.  Our world is going to need more high-yield forest plantations, along with the international trade that serves to match wood supply and demand (reglobalization).

Conclusion

The technosphere consumes a vast quantity of wood; where it comes from and how it is harvested matters greatly to the possibility of global sustainability.  If unsustainable logging in primary forests was shut down, and compensatory increases in wood production were created from planted forests, sustainably managed forests could conceivably provide the current global demand for wood.  Certification of managed forests and forest products is a key mechanism for halting entries into remaining natural forests, which better provide a variety of other ecosystem services.