 |
 |
Article One
Report on the Burntwood Lecture 2008: Prospects for a sustainable society: What is the correct role for science?
Andrew Barrett-Mold
The Institution of Environmental Science’s annual Burntwood Lecture was held at the Royal Society, where the IES started life almost 40 years ago, in London on Wednesday 12th November 2008. The Burntwood Lecture provides an opportunity for an eminent speaker to talk on a current, critical and pressing environmental topic, and brings together leading authorities from scientific, political and industrial sectors. This year’s lecture came from Tony Juniper on ‘Prospects for a Sustainable Society: What is the correct role for science?’ Tony Juniper’s environmental work spans more than twenty years and ranges from public awareness activities to global campaigns for environmental protection. He is a naturalist, ornithologist, author, campaigner and journalist. From 2000-08 he was Director of Friends of the Earth and currently works in a variety of roles including Special Adviser to the Prince of Wales' Rainforest Project and Senior Associate for the Cambridge University Program for Industry. His lecture outlined the following.
The past successes of environmental science have been down to the hard work of researchers gathering data and then presenting their findings to policy makers. A key question is whether the problems facing us today require a new strategy for scientists? The scientific community has always been independent from the cultural community and carried out research at a technical level. This research has highlighted such issues as the impacts of coal burning, the trade of wildlife, or the damage to the ozone layer. However, current global environmental threats go beyond individual issues; they are placing stresses on the planet’s resources, not individually but collectively.
In the 1980’s the issue of coal burning was argued over furiously, the industry denied that it had an impact on the acidification of precipitation, or that this was causing any damage to habitats. Today, EU directives have phased out the most polluting kinds of coal-fired power stations and those that remain have been fitted with desulphurisation devices; as a result acid rain emissions have reduced by about 80%. This could only have been achieved by people gathering data on the ground. Another success for the environmental sciences has been the protection of endangered species from wildlife trade, but before trade can be banned it had to be proved that these animals were endangered. Scientists also had to gather the data on the ozone concentrations in the atmosphere before they could prove that these chemicals were having a negative effect, resulting in the Montreal Protocol and the phasing out of certain industrial chemicals.
These examples show how the work of environmental scientists has had positive results in the past. Today 10% of this country has some form of nature conservation designation, certain chemicals, iconically pesticides are regulated and the biodiversity convention operates at a global level. And while these results must be congratulated it is also apparent that the scale and speed of current threats is moving us into a new phase that may require a different approach.
It is now widely accepted that we must keep any global temperature increase below 2°C. This is the most optimistic of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) scenarios. These scenarios are based on different assumptions of population increase, economic growth, and the vehicle and energy type mix. The most drastic case has a temperature rise of 6°C, and current emission rates are above those in this scenario. Right now, the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in our atmosphere is 387 parts per million (ppm) and is steadily increasing by about 3ppm per year. Ice core records of the past 400,000 years show a fluctuation of CO2 levels with the glacial-interglacial cycle. During glacial events when the planet is coldest, the CO2 concentration is around 180ppm, when the planet is warmest (interglacials) it is around 280ppm. These fluctuations are fairly regular and consistent with planetary cycles. Atmospheric measurements today are recorded on Hawaii (due to the island’s remoteness) and when these are added to the ice core records they appear as a massive spike over a tiny amount of time. We know that with warmer sea surface temperatures tropical cyclones would become stronger, so in a warmer world we would see more extreme events like hurricane Katrina, and the economic ramifications that go with this – every 10 years there is a doubling of insurance payments due to extreme events.
It has been calculated that keeping greenhouse gas concentrations at 450ppm CO2 equivalent (includes all greenhouse gases) would give a 77% chance of global temperature increase this century stabilising at 2°C. The CO2 equivalent now is 433ppm, and assuming that it will continue to increase at 3ppm per year gives us about 8 years to get it under control (and even then the odds are about three quarters of it stabilising). So it clear that the timescales are very short and even though a 2°C increase doesn’t sound like a lot it will still lead to the disappearance of ecosystems (particularly coral reefs that already live right at the edge of their tolerances) and the melting of high mountain glaciers. However the most worrying aspect is the risk of positive feedbacks developing. It is now possible to physically demonstrate the release of methane from permafrost by lighting a plume from hole punched in the tundra. The loss of polar ice could lead to massive warming, as white ice reflects about 90% of the sun’s energy reaching it, whereas land or water absorbs about 80%. This feedback would warm the Arctic and could result in the loss of the Greenland Ice Shelf and a massive subsequent sea level rise.
Whilst this data has been gathered and the scenarios modelled, there are still deep contradictions in the policies of governments. Even in the UK, where awareness is high, there plans to develop new coal-fired power stations, which may never be fitted with carbon capture and storage (CCS) and expand airports while setting impressive new targets for emissions reductions. However, these problems are not just from the rising use of fossil fuels; an underrepresented factor is the change in land usage. The clearance of forests in Indonesia and Brazil mean they are the 3rd and 4th biggest CO2 emitters. It is easy to think of this in terms of each country meeting their goals but much of the timber cut down in these countries ends up in Europe, and these forests are often replaced by palm oil or soya bean plantations to provide western countries with cheap food or biodiesels; we are all bound up in a global marketplace. The increase in meat consumption globally leads to not only greater livestock grazing but also greater soya bean production for animal feed, and therefore greater deforestation. Western countries are also intrinsically linked to the destruction of coastal mangroves in tropical regions, as much of this is due to the development of hotels and shrimp farms. However, even in the developed world, where this has been happening for centuries, it continues; the British Trust for Ornithologists have measured the decline in Corn Buntings, Tree Sparrows and Bullfinches.
These impacts haven’t received as much attention as the emission of greenhouse gases, probably because greenhouses gases are much easier to measure. However the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment tracked the increasing impacts across the globe and one outcome of this was that if we do not change these trends it will not be possible to reach the UN millennium development goals to alleviate poverty. Often the reason why most of these negative trends are tolerated by policy makers is that we need to encourage economic growth, particularly in developing countries, but this suggests that if we do not change these trends it is the global economy that will suffer. At the same time as this environmental damage there are increasing constraints on resources. Renewable resources, such as water, are under strain from population increase, greater demand from industry, agriculture, pollution and the impacts of climate change.
But it is not just renewables under-threat here, there are various predictions of when peak oil production will be hit; some suggest it will be by 2011, some suggest it has already happened. We tend to think of oil in terms of transport, but it is no coincidence that the price of food and oil follow each other, as energy is required for the farming and transport of food.
So, with the environment under greater constraints than ever, and changes happening faster than with any previous issues, do we need to re-evaluate the way scientists engage with people and move them into more of a cultural role? In 2004 an article in Science found 928 studies on global warming and not one of them disagreed with the scientific consensus, in the popular press 53% of the articles voiced a different side of the argument. The question is whether scientists can speak to the public with single voice and can they engage with media and politics whilst still maintaining their independence?
One future for the role of science involves a new branch of environmental science, a kind of ‘Social Ecology,’ that combines ecology with politics and social science. It is underestimated how much social sciences can aid the environmental issues, which are often viewed as disempowering due to the negative results they turn up. It is important to understand how people will react, how politicians will react and how the economic system needs to react. Connections between different branches of science could help this. These are connections that wouldn’t have necessarily have been considered, but in the face of the challenges ahead new approaches, such as this, need to be considered.
Podcasts, photos and presentations from the event are available here.