Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Planet Earth, Year 2050

By Traci Hukill, AlterNet. Posted January 25, 2006.


An important report on the world's ecosystems says there is time to avert the worst consequences of global warming, if we start now.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Traci Hukill

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The authors of the world's most overlooked environmental study held a press briefing last week in Washington to discuss what life on the planet will be like in 2050. Their upbeat conclusion: fundamental changes, in practice and policy, can protect us from the worst consequences of overpopulation and climate change.

Good news -- if anybody pays attention.

While it may not be a verifiable fact that the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) is the world's most underappreciated eco-study, it's definitely the most unevenly appreciated one. When the huge report first emerged last spring after four years, $24 million and the efforts of more than 1,300 scientists in 95 countries, it made headlines elsewhere. In December it was awarded a Zayed Prize, something like an environmentalist Nobel. Here in the United States, though, the media barely registered its existence.

What a dirty shame. The U.N.-backed Millennium Assessment is the most thorough survey of global ecosystems ever undertaken. It's also the first report of its kind to link ecosystem health to human well-being, and in so doing strikes the rich, rich vein of human self-interest. Showing people what's in it for them is a great way to get something done.

At the press conference last Thursday, Walt Reid, who directed the study and now teaches at Stanford, restated the report's radical conclusions and issued a stern warning.

The report's basic premise is that healthy ecosystems provide humans with a range of "services" -- things like food, clean water, clean air, buffers from natural disasters and even spiritual renewal. To the extent that these "ecosystem services" are degraded, so is the quality of human life.

And without serious behavior modification, we're headed for a bad run, Reid said. "We've badly mismanaged our ecosystems," he said. "As long as we regard ecosystem services as free and limitless, we will continue to use them in a way that does not make sense."

Reid enumerated the main findings of the study he directed, which concluded that 60 percent of the planet's ecosystem services are being run down or used up faster than they can replenish themselves.

Poor people suffer most from such environmental degradation because their reliance on ecosystems is immediate. When a forest is wiped out, the people who relied on its animals and plants die. The Millennium Assessment amasses vast amounts of data demonstrating human suffering as a result of environmental destruction. And it predicts more pain to come as earth's swelling population pushes more ecosystems to their thresholds and toward extinctions and other "abrupt and irreversible" changes.

Last week's briefing focused on what governments can do to reverse these trends. Reid, along with Stephen Carpenter, zoology professor at University of Wisconsin, and Prabhu Pingali, an economist at the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, presented four scenarios for the year 2050 that represent distinct paths into the future. They are all disturbing.

All start out assuming a couple of basic facts in the next 45 years: a significantly higher population (up from 6 billion to 8.1 to 9.6 billion) with attendant demands for more food and water, and fallout from climate change, like severe storms and dwindling water supplies.

  • The scenario dubbed "Global Orchestration" imagines a future in which global trade and economic liberalization have triumphed. Poverty has fallen and incomes have risen, leading to increased global consumption. Food and water needs are met, but at great cost: a lot of the so-called "regulating" ecosystem services -- erosion control, storm protection, water purification -- suffer. Species invasions and the release of environmental pathogens occur with greater frequency. Overall, though, the five basic indicators of human well-being (material well-being, health, security, social relations and freedom) improve.

Digg!

Traci Hukill is a freelance journalist based in Monterey, Calif.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Personally I'm betting on one of the first two.
Posted by: medstudgeek on Jan 25, 2006 2:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first one is basically business as usual. It wouldn't surprise me but then again 50 years ago it looked like America would be on top forever. So who knows what's coming.

Personally I'd bet on #2, drawing from my reading of Jared Diamond's 'Collapse'. I think you're going to see a lot more resource wars, especially as we run out of fossil fuels. Western civilization is not sustainable in its present form. I don't think humanity will perish--there are too damn many of us and we're too damn adaptabe--but a lot of people are going to die. Yes this is avoidable, but the corporations control the media and this country is very libertarian.

The interesting thing is what happens if Europe goes green and the US does not. But once China starts catching up with us we are going to be in resource wars and the Euros' contributions will mean nothing. It only takes one major regional power to screw things up for everyone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about 1980,just a reminder from The People Over Tyrants Party
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Jan 25, 2006 7:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 1980 every major wildlife and environmental gruop said we had 20 years to get our act together or we would face an irreversable greenhouse effect. Big Business jumped on it by giving us sun screen,'clear' soaps,deoderants and dishsoaps,
making token adjustments to the air and water quality and introducing bigger gas guzzleing rides. Do we really think we can make it to 2050? Not without a lot of help from the people.
If the Govt got off their collective asses,there are millions of jobs to be had in environmental clean-up and forest crop restoration. But they won't because their faces are superglued to Big Business's fat greedy ass. Since 1980 our environment has gotten worse,not better. If your state is anything like Wisconsin,then all of your state's emmissions are NOT in compliance with Federal Air and Water quality standards. It's the fault of the people. Why? We trusted these bozos to represent us and they do not. We felt they would look out for the best intrests of the People,they have not.
In the din of sound bites,clever spots on T.V.,radio,and the press has lulled us into a state of semi-conscience automatons
that blindly push the 'Dem' or 'Repub" buttons on our voting machines when we should be outraged enough to grab these fools by the back of the neck,throw their asses out with a hardy "YOU'RE FIRED"But we don't. Why? Because life in America is such that after 8-12 hours of slaving for little pay,we don't have time to do our job of running the country.
Factor in the time you need to spend with your spouse and kids just to be a halfway descent parent and you have even less time to run the Govt. It's set up that way on purpose. It's designed that way to keep us out of policy making. It's designed so the People can be hornswaggled in to believeing the 'Santa Claus' good guy Govt types will do what's best for us. Well let's see....Lebannon, Iran Contra,Desert Storm, Bosnia,Central America, now Desert Storm the sequel takes up far too much of their time in D.C. to even look at what's going on with the environment. So if We the People continue to stand back and let the Congress keep breakin' it off in us,what we're going to have is nice fancy gashogs,great weapons,cool buildings and no one left to use them because half were poisoned by the water,nearly half by poisoned air, and who's left will be de-evolving into subhuman,genitalia licking remnants of humanity they are already acting like.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"The Wheels Are Falling Off Our Wagon"
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jan 25, 2006 9:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the Article:
"We can make a very positive difference in ecosystem services by 2050. The caveat is that fundamental changes would have to be undertaken."

That's one huge caveat: as we have distressingly witnessed, even minor changes are resisted by the Powers That Be if they do not improve the short-term "bottom line" and feed the avarice of rich investors. What chance is there, in the lassaiz-faire capitalist system that we have now, of making the necessary changes? Slim to none. I'm afraid that we will continue in the direst of the four scenarios – the one whose factors most resembles present reality – until it can no longer be supported. Enlightenment from this administration? Keep dreaming. I fear that we are in for a very bumpy ride; the 21st century will be remembered by those left as when the wheels fell off America's – and the world's – little red wagon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

poverty outlook
Posted by: vespasian01 on Jan 25, 2006 10:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The projections that overall poverty will decline as the population is growing seems unlikely. One example is the Philippines, where I used to live. This country was dominated by Spain for a few hundred years, then dominated by us since ~1900. These three centuries have not brought equity or reduced poverty to these people, which suggests that this condition is a matter of policy. Poor populations offer cheap labor and are rarely capable of keeping out a foreign military presence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Be realistic
Posted by: jpinder on Jan 25, 2006 1:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's probaly in 2050 when we (living on this planet) just start to think about changing, don't you know anything about humans?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The second scenario is likely
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 25, 2006 2:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
especially if "1984" keeps getting closer to being real year after year as has already been the case for the past 25 years, if not 45.

The other 3 scenarios may come but they won't even be remotely dominant. It'll be like "Roe v Wade", "Social Security", "Medicare", etc ... in that they're there but dead because of all the barriers.

Anyway, good luck to us all and Planet Earth or what's left of it by then.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Justifying tax cuts for the rich
Posted by: Jersey Devil on Jan 25, 2006 5:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now it makes sense. I understand why the Republican Party and Bush Administration have enacted budget busting tax cuts for the rich - so they will be well funded when the environment craps out and the survival is dependent on wealth as the poor die by the thousands.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Main Problem
Posted by: Rod in 83706 on Jan 25, 2006 6:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The crux of all these issues is population size. Some, including me, think we have already surpassed a sustainable population level.

And to think that poverty will decrease as populations increase is counter-intuitive. Seems to me that the misery index will increase with, or faster than, the population curve.

And some other things to think about:

Water is the key resource that limits the size of the sustainable population.

When you use the terms "global warming" or "pollution", etc, you should add the phrase: ..., which is caused by human overpopulation".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Soylent Green
Posted by: Rod in 83706 on Jan 25, 2006 6:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We should all go rent it once a year.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Soylent Green Posted by: paw
» RE: Soylent Green Posted by: stefano
» RE: Soylent Green Posted by: paw
First One Looks Like Neoliberal Fantasy
Posted by: RJHall on Jan 26, 2006 12:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with the other comments that No. 2 looks by far the most likely scenario. If This Goes On, "This" being the Last Greedy Grab for resources currently underway by the wealthy and corporations, then No. 2, the real business as usual scenario, seems drearily inevitable. And if that's the face of Planet Earth, Year 2050, then what will that lead to by Year 2100...?

What I wanted to add is that No. 1 looks to me completely implausible and internally contradictory, since it suggests that the neoliberal goal of global capitalism and exploitation of the entire world by a few rich companies will make everybody better off. If "global trade and economic liberalization have triumphed", then who says (other than neoliberals) that "Poverty [will have] fallen and incomes [will] have risen", especially since world population will have risen "from 6 billion to 8.1 to 9.6 billion"? Who says that "Food and water needs are met" by global capitalism, especially since the higher world population will lead to "attendant demands for more food and water"? Or maybe better questions would be: WHOSE poverty will have fallen, WHOSE incomes will have risen, WHOSE food and water needs will be met? All 9 billion people, or just the richest few? I suspect that Scenario 1 is at least as likely as Scenario 3 to lead to "people in developing countries might go hungry while everyone else is busy creating regional utopias". Certainly as of today, global trade and economic liberalization have hardly had a wonderful track record for everybody (just ask downsized former employees whose jobs have been outsourced to children in Indonesia or China - for that matter, ask the children themselves), so it does not seem obvious that the "triumph" of those policies would lead to a rosy Scenario No. 1. And even if they did, the question of sustainability remains: If Year 2050 sees Scenario 1, then what would 2100 look like?

As for Scenario 4 (which doesn't sound all that mutually exclusive with No. 3), I'm not so sure about the comment "with the notable exception of social relations, as local customs are lost and more transactions occur over the Internet." The growth of Internet communities has arguably led to BETTER social relations, not worse ones, so far. My being able to post this comment online seems a good example. Social relations within local American communities may have gone down in the last few decades, but you can't blame the Internet for that!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NASA climate expert says agency muzzling him
Posted by: aonghus36 on Jan 30, 2006 5:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Check it out. I found the link on MSNBC, too. *surprise surprise* http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11078127/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The big frame
Posted by: DaveB on Apr 23, 2006 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm glad to see discussion of the "big frame' that will define the history of this century. Understanding the big frame helps when we have to make specific, present-tense policy choices.

It seems to me that pure capitalism is ultimately a poor tool for dealing with the sustainability crisis. Two reasons:

First, capitalism absolutely requires that the return on investment be greater than the investment itself (i.e. economic growth), but the essential problem is that the total human economy already exceeds the capacity of the natural world to sustain it. Blind growth in this situation is counter-productive.

Second, capitalism values everything in money terms, to facilitate market exchanges. The money value of a forest or wetlands can most readily be realized by cutting it down or paving it over. Capitalism has no intrinsic mechanism for recognizing the use-value (as opposed to exchange-value) of natural assets.

Since we are not looking for an eco-Stalinist revolution here, a good first step would be to move in the direction of a strategically modified capitalism, in which ecological factors are given market representation. For example, taxation could be based more on resource consumption and waste generation, and less on the added value of human labor.

Coming decades will bring numerous and large economic dislocations, the specifics of which are difficult to predict. A strong ethic of mutual support will help us deal gracefully with these changes. By contrast, the competitive pursuit of indivdual self interest without regard for the needs of others will lead to resource wars etc, which will only make our problems worse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Global Cooling
Posted by: MaxRedline on Apr 23, 2006 7:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey, 30 years ago, that was all the buzz.

We were headed into a new ice age, and it was all the fault of human activity.

30 years later, we're all headed to a burning hell because of global warming - also due to human activity.

Well, which is it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Global Cooling Posted by: axolotl_helix