=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #472
—December 14, 1995—
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net
==========
Back Issues | Index | Official Gopher Archive
To subscribe, send E-mail to rachel-
weekly-request@world.std.com
with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It’s
free.
===Previous
Issue==========================================Next
Issue===
THE FOUR HORSEMEN–PART 2: LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY
The loss of biodiversity is the most difficult problem we face.
Loss of species is permanent. Ingenuity can replace a whale-oil
lamp with an electric light bulb, but it cannot replace the
whales after we hunt them to extinction. [1]
Driving species to extinction is probably the only permanent
change that people can make to the earth; anything else will
probably be repaired, in the long run, by natural processes.
Extinction itself is a natural process. But humans have speeded
up that process greatly; extinctions are now occurring at a rate
100 to 1000 times faster than the natural rate of extinctions
(see REHW #441). [2]
Extinctions are dangerous for humans, but it is not immediately
clear just how dangerous. In their 1984 book, EXTINCTION, Paul
and Anne Ehrlich compare our situation to an airplane held
together by rivets. As time goes on, an occasional rivet will pop
out. No single rivet is essential for maintaining flight, but
eventually if we pop enough rivets, a crash seems certain to
occur. So it is with humans and the other species with whom we
share the planet. No single species is essential to our well
being, yet it is certain that we need biological diversity in
order to survive. Therefore each time we diminish diversity, we
take another irreversible step toward the brink of a dark abyss.
In the process, we desecrate the wondrous works of the creator.
There is a growing body of scientific literature about the loss
of biodiversity, which reveals a consensus that humans are the
cause of the speedup of species extinction, and therefore of the
loss of biodiversity. [3]
There are now about 5.7 billion humans on earth and our numbers
are growing at about 1.6% each year, doubling the total
population every 44 years. Each month now, we add new people
equal in number to the population of New York City (about 8
million people)–a quarter of a million new mouths to feed each
day. It will not be easy to keep this up. The world’s farm land
is already stressed, and in short supply. Furthermore, soil
erosion is reducing the available supply of good land; each year
about 12 million hectares (29.6 million acres) of arable land are
destroyed and abandoned because of unsustainable farming
practices –0.8% of the world’s total arable land lost each year.
To adequately feed people a diverse diet requires about 0.5
hectares (1.2 acres) of arable land per person, but only 0.27
hectares (0.7 acres) is available today. According to David
Pimentel (Cornell University), in 40 years available land will be
down to 0.14 hectares (0.35 acres) per person because of soil
erosion and population growth. [4]
It is not easy to assess the total impact of humans on the
planet. There are various ways to look at it. For instance,
humans have so far changed about half of earth’s ice-free land
surface. [5] Furthermore, 43% of the earth’s land surface has
been judged “degraded,” defined as “having diminished capacity to
supply benefits to humanity.” [6] One more doubling of our
population and we’ll have changed a very large fraction of the
planet’s vegetated surface, and will have degraded much of that.
In addition, we humans are presently using, or preventing other
species from using (for example, by grazing our domestic
animals), about 40% of terrestrial (non-oceanic) “net primary
productivity.” “Net primary productivity” is the amount of new
vegetable matter created each year by photosynthesis as plants
use the energy of sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide
into carbohydrates, the base of all the world’s terrestrial food
chains. [7]One more doubling of us and there will be precious
little “net primary productivity” left for other species –surely
an ominous prospect. We humans depend upon other species. We
seem to be gnawing holes in our own lifeboat.
Even more ominous is that we have run out of waste-disposal room
on the planet. The world used to be empty, but now it is
full. [8] There is no place left to isolate our residues without
harming something or someone. There is abundant evidence
supporting this proposition. Global warming. Depletion of the
earth’s protective ozone layer. Destruction of the world’s
forests. (Half the world’s moist forests –home to most of the
world’s species –have been destroyed, and the destruction is
continuing.) The accelerated rates of species extinction,
already noted. The decline of amphibians. The bleaching of
coral reefs. The appearance of phytoplankton blooms in numerous
coastal waters. The decline of sea urchins. Mass die-offs of
seals and dolphins. Cancer epizootics in fish. [9] (An epizootic
is a disease affecting large numbers of animals of one kind at
the same time.)
Of course we humans are not exempt from these troubles. Our own
rates of cancer are rising, as are rates of nervous system
disease, immune system disorders, hormone imbalances, and birth
defects. (See, for example, REHW #385, #376, #365, #446,
#410, #411.)
Solutions [10]
In March of this year, 180 countries held a World Summit on
Social Development, endorsing the statement that “social
development and justice are indispensable for the achievement and
maintenance of peace and security within and among nations.” [11]
They might as well have added “and among species,” for preserving
biodiversity will require us to curb human population, and
curbing human population will require us to end the absolute
poverty that afflicts 1.5 billion humans. When poverty
diminishes, so does the pressure to have many children.
But ending poverty will require the developed world to reverse
some traditional policies. As things now stand, the inequality
between nations is growing larger each year. As time passes, the
rich nations are gathering more of the planet’s available
benefits unto themselves, leaving less and less for the rest of
the world. In 1960, the richest countries with 20% of world
population received 70.2% of global income, while the poorest
countries with 20% of world population received 2.3% of global
income. Thus the ratio of income per person between the top
fifth and the bottom fifth was 31:1 in 1960. In 1970, that ratio
was 32:1; in 1980, 45:1; by 1991, the ratio had grown to 61:1.
In constant [inflation-adjusted] 1989 U.S. dollars, the absolute
gap in per-capita annual income between the top fifth and the
bottom fifth rose from $1864 in 1960 to $15,149 in 1989. [12] An
immediate, affordable positive step would be to cancel the debts
accrued in recent years by the developing world. [13]
Ending poverty will require changes in parts of the developing
world as well: for example, more education, better health care,
and expanded political rights and social opportunity for girls
and women can create more productive social conditions. [14]
But ending poverty will also require transfer of skills and
technology to the developing world, to promote economic growth,
meaning growth of material goods. To make room for such growth
on a finite planet, the developed world needs to take the lead by
curbing its own grotesque excesses: greatly reducing the use and
waste of fossil fuels; of persistent, bioaccumulative toxic
chemicals; of wood; of virgin metals. This implies less logging,
less mining, less profligate and wasteful consumption of all
kinds. We need to eat less meat; harvest (and waste) fewer fish;
eat lower on the food chain–thus benefitting the planet and our
own health. [15] Furthermore, the developed world needs to
achieve negative population growth, reducing its absolute
numbers. After all, a child born in a rich nation is vastly more
destructive of the planet than a child born to a peasant family
in Asia or Latin America.
These suggestions for change seem far-reaching, but in truth we
need to go farther. Saving biodiversity requires leaving large
tracts of land in a natural state –or returning large tracts of
land to a natural state. It is not enough to merely stop cutting
new roads; we need to close old roads and revegetate. (In the
U.S., there are 350,000 miles of logging roads in national
forests –over 7 times the length of the interstate highway
system. Many of these should be closed.) In general, we need to
pave less land, and unpave more land. We need to use fewer
synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, learning (re-learning,
actually) to grow our crops in a more natural “organic” way. We
need to re-think what we call “development,” including
subdivisions and one-acre lots. There was a time when these could
be justified as beneficial, but that time has passed. We need to
curb sprawl and we need to reverse the many public subsidies that
promote it. We need to live closer together.
Many of these suggestions will require governments to set limits
and boundaries because free markets –despite their many merits
–tend to work poorly in allocating resources for preserving the
environment and biodiversity. [16] Acting through democratic
government, an organized citizenry can impose values on their
local free-market economy, making sure it works for their
long-term benefit and not against it. [17]
In sum, we would do well to remember that, if there is a conflict
between nature and humans, nature will resolve that conflict in
its own way. We should also recognize that bold new departures
are needed chiefly because we are the first generation that has
faced the prospect of a “full world.” And we are the last
generation that has the opportunity to do something about it in
an orderly way.
                
                
                
                
    
–Peter Montague
===============
[1] Stuart L. Pimm and others, “The Future of Biodiversity,”
SCIENCE Vol. 269 (July 21, 1995), pgs. 347-350.
[17] This is a subject to which we will return when we continue
our series on “Sustainable America” which began in RACHEL’S #458,
#459, #460, #461, and #465.
Descriptor terms: loss of species; loss of biodiversity; land
use; consumption; extinction; human population; arable land;
ageiculture; farming; food supply; net primary productivity;
photosynthesis; global warming; ozone depletion; forests;
amphibians; frogs; salamanders; phytoplankton; sea urchins; coral
reefs; seals; dolphins; fish; wildlife; cancer; epizootics;
poverty; inequality; income distribution; women rights; growth;
logging; mining; energy conservation; nature preserves;