1 / 16

MONITORING BIOSPHERIC HEALTH AND INTEGRITY John Cairns, Jr.

MONITORING BIOSPHERIC HEALTH AND INTEGRITY John Cairns, Jr. University Distinguished Professor of Environmental Biology Emeritus Department of Biological Sciences Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg, Virginia 24061, U.S.A. January 2010.

awen
Download Presentation

MONITORING BIOSPHERIC HEALTH AND INTEGRITY John Cairns, Jr.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MONITORING BIOSPHERIC HEALTH AND INTEGRITY John Cairns, Jr. University Distinguished Professor of Environmental Biology Emeritus Department of Biological Sciences Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg, Virginia 24061, U.S.A. January 2010

  2. Since the biosphere serves as the life support system for Earth and also as the basis of the human economy, it should be maintained in optimal condition.

  3. Monitoring is defined as surveillance undertaken to ensure that previously established quality control conditions are being met.

  4. The biosphere is the thin envelope of life and its habitat that covers Earth.

  5. A response team must be established to respond immediately when quality control conditions are not being met.

  6. The surveillance response team must be able to initiate immediate, corrective action when, in its judgment or the judgment of the team leader, immediate remedial action is essential.

  7. Long-term funding for the monitoring team is essential since the biosphere is a complex, multivariate system requiring experience for both monitoring and corrective response.

  8. Since the biosphere consists of a mosaic of interactive ecosystems, monitoring must be carried out in each eco-type with methods and species suited for that type of system. • In order to pool data from similar ecosystems in different areas, the same methods should be used whenever possible. • A quality control system must be in place to ensure consistency in pooled data. • Standard methods are available for chemical/physical data and some ecological data (e.g., American Society for Testing and Materials, European Union). Standard “unknowns” should be used periodically to confirm that the methods and procedures are being used in a consistent way. • Results from similar components should be shared promptly, as well as any difficulties encountered with methods and procedures.

  9. “Top-down”/”Bottom-up” information flow is the core of successful monitoring. • Since monitoring is surveillance undertaken to ensure that previously established controls are being met, all information must be congruent with this goal.1 • Although monitoring involves many individuals, the responsibility must be institutional because it must be continuous over long periods of time. • Funding should be national since the health and integrity of the planet’s life support system – the biosphere – must be protected. • Although ecosystem services have always been free, if the source – natural capital (i.e., the biosphere) – is now damaged and at risk, then so are the ecosystem services it provides. In short, the ecosystem services are no longer free because monitoring is now essential. • Strong resistance to a tax for monitoring the health and integrity of the biosphere will almost certainly emerge. However, sacrificing Earth’s life support system to avoid taxes is suicidal.

  10. The goal of monitoring is to avoid high risk surprises. • In hospital intensive care units, patients are monitored to detect dangerous changes in blood pressure, respiration, temperature, and so on. • If a life threatening change occurs, swift and immediate remedial action is taken. • Swift, immediate action to protect the biosphere will probably be met with strong resistance if the action is perceived as harming economic growth. However, if predetermined quality control limits have been exceeded, resisting remedial action has no justification. • Threats to a large portion of the biosphere (e.g., over fishing) may be strongly resisted by one nation; however, if that nation is successful, the value of the monitoring system will be severely impaired.

  11. In a complex, scientific undertaking, such as monitoring biospheric health and integrity, special interests must not rule.2 • Hansen2 remarks on good science: “It made a big impression on young Feynman – seeing how really good scientists work. They wanted to look at a problem from all angles, reexamining alternatives and different facets, to guard against a mistake. All the while they could recognize the best idea without having to repeat the arguments.” • In the global climate crisis, judgments are being made by people with little or no scientific credentials who are asserting, for example, that carbon dioxide is not harmful because it is in a carbonated soft drink. • Monitoring on a global scale will fail if qualified scientists spend a significant amount of time responding to disinformation that ignores the preponderance of scientific evidence. • Special interests should be heard, but should not dominate the news media under the guise of “balanced” reporting.

  12. What happens to global biospheric monitoring when nations (states) fail or refuse to do their share? • Each year, the Fund for Peace and Foreign Policy magazine ranks 60 “failing states,” countries that, on some level, fail to provide personal security or basic services, such as education, health care, food, and physical infrastructure, to their people.3 • A state that is failing completely receives a score of 120. In 2008, the top 20 failing states had scores ranging from 97.2 to 114.7. • Failing states are probably unwilling or unable to make reliable contributions to biospheric monitoring. • The biosphere covers the entire planet, so this issue must be resolved if the monitoring is to be sound and reliable.

  13. Discussion of the default position (Mother Nature – i.e., natural law takes over) if humankind continues “business as usual” should not be taboo. Negotiating terms with the laws of biology, physics, and chemistry is impossible and should not be part of determining time limits for biomonitoring. • The likely outcome of the default position is starvation, disease, and death for Homo sapiens and many other species. • Multiple interactive crises must be addressed: (1) rapid climate change, (2) overpopulation, (3) ecological overshoot, biodiversity loss, (4) hazardous chemicals, (5) decline in agricultural productivity, and (6) reduced freshwater supplies.4 • Business as usual will drive many more species to extinction, which will be bad for the biosphere. • If climate change is very rapid and extensive, humans may not be able to adapt to new conditions.

  14. The novel concept of planetary boundaries is designed for estimating a safe operating space for humanity with respect to functioning of the Earth System. Although not focused primarily on the biosphere, attempts should be made to pair it with monitoring the biosphere.5 • Rockström et al.5 estimate that humanity has already transgressed three (of nine) planetary boundaries: climate change, biodiversity loss, and changes to the global nitrogen cycle. • Planetary boundaries are interdependent since transgressing one may shift the position of or result in transgressing other boundaries. • Since only humans can monitor biospheric health and integrity, staying well within all nine planetary boundaries is a good idea.

  15. If runaway global climate change severely damages the present biosphere, humankind will have to adapt to a markedly different Earth than the one it evolved and flourished in. • Successful adaptation will require new scientific information developed by an unimpeded scientific process. • If the scientific process were nurtured and respected at present, the need to adapt would not be so crucial. • All humankind should have a special interest in survival, which will depend greatly on sound scientific information produced by scientists who can focus intently on the scientific process. • The biosphere may be near one or more major, ecological tipping points, which will be irreversible. • Time is short and the risks unprecedented, but science can provide the means to reduce many risks markedly with presently available information.

  16. Acknowledgments: I am indebted to Darla Donald for transcribing the handwritten first draft and for editorial assistance and to Valerie Sutherland for converting it to Power Point. I am also deeply indebted to the colleagues and graduate students who carried out monitoring research with me for nearly 30 years. References 1Cairns, J., Jr. 2007. Integrating information from different levels of biological organization. Asian Journal of Experimental Sciences 21(2):205-214. 2Hansen, J. 2009. Storms of my Grandchildren. Bloomsbury New York, New York, NY. 3Brown, L. 2009. Plan B 4.0 by the numbers – data highlights on selling our future. Earth Policy Institute Policy Release, 17December http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/press_room/C68/pb4_ch1_datarelease/. 4Workman, J.G. 2009. Heart of Dryness. Walker Publishing Company, Inc., New York, NY. 5Rockström, J. and 28 additional authors. 2009. Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, p. 8, online at http://www.stockholmresilience.org/download/18.1fe8f33123572b59ab800012568/pb_longversion_170909.pdf.

More Related