Introduction

This chapter explores the idea that human cognition evolved in such a way that we could cognitively dissociate our lives and livelihoods from the natural world. The related ideas of natural capital and ecosystem services are explored as a conceptual framework for reestablishing our understanding of our fundamental dependence on the natural world. As hunter-gatherers we were likely much more in tune with the natural world, the cycle of the seasons, and the behavior of plants and animals. We are animals and we likely understood this at a more instinctive level during prehistory. Yuval Noah Harari suggests that we experienced a cognitive revolution prior to the agricultural revolution roughly 70,000 years ago. This cognitive revolution involved the development of three new abilities related to language: Complex language (language abilities more sophisticated than those demonstrated in other animals), gossip (using language to convey information about other people), and fictions (describing and believing in abstract social constructs and imagined realities). These abilities appear to be unique to Homo sapiens. The cognitive revolution allowed for H. sapiens to envision themselves as unique and perhaps even divinely created. There is a saying “God created man in his own image, and man, being a perfect gentleman, returned the favor.” These cognitive abilities enabled our ability to create, discuss, and believe in abstractions such as money, human rights, corporations, and god. We have developed economic systems, scientific understanding, technology, and a civilization that is now transforming the earth’s environment. This chapter will explore this cognitive revolution briefly and more deeply explore the environmental consequences and changes this cognitive revolution has enabled in terms of changes to the earth’s biogeochemical cycles, loss of biodiversity, climate change, ocean acidification, natural capital, ecosystem function, and ecosystem services.

Guiding Questions

Explain the idea that H. sapiens has evolved a cognitive dissociation from nature.

What is natural capital? Provide examples

What are ecosystem functions? Provide examples

What are ecosystem services and how are they classified?

What evidence suggests that the natural environment is being degraded?

Critics suggest that estimates of ecosystem service value are underestimates of infinity. Explain

How is climate change a market failure?

How are ecosystem services a public good?

Describe one of the earth’s biogeochemical cycles and how human actions have changed it.

Why is valuing a nonrival good problematic?

Describe the relative speeds at which biological, cultural, and technological evolution take place and provide specific examples where these differing rates present significant challenges.

Learning Objectives

Be able to explain the idea of human cognitive dissociation from the natural world and describe how that dissociation may have resulted in our inability to appropriately value our fundamental dependence on natural capital, ecosystem functions, and ecosystem services.

Provide a classification scheme for ecosystem services and explain some of the methods by which they can be valued including valuation in dollars.

Explain the many ways ecosystem services can be regarded as a market failure.

Provide evidence to describe the major ways the earth has been transformed by human action including climate change, ocean acidification, perturbed biogeochemical cycles, deforestation, land degradation, aquifer depletion, loss of biodiversity, and land cover change.

Key Terms and Definitions

The cognitive revolution, Natural capital, Ecosystem function, Ecosystem services, Valuation, public goods, Common property, Open access regimes, Land degradation, Net Primary Productivity, Sustainable development, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), Insectageddon, Ecological economics, Nonrival resources, Nonexcludable resources, Biogeochemical cycles, The carbon cycle, The nitrogen cycle, Fritz Haber, The Haber–Bosch process, The global methane budget, The phosphorus cycle

6.1 The Cognitive Revolution

H. sapiens certainly appears to be a very unusual if not unique animal. The sophisticated nature of our language, culture, and technology all suggest this as does our apparent status as the dominant species on the planet. Our dominant presence on the planet may encourage us to believe in “Human Supremacy.” Human supremacy refers to the belief or attitude that humans are superior to all other forms of life on Earth and that they have dominion over the natural world. It often manifests as a sense of entitlement, control, or superiority over other species and ecosystems. Considering human supremacy as a form of hubris means recognizing it as an excessive pride or arrogance that leads to an overestimation of human abilities and importance. Hubris, in this context, implies a dangerous overconfidence or presumption that can blind individuals or societies to the interconnectedness of the natural world and the potential consequences of exploiting it without regard for the well-being of other species or the environment. It may lead to a disregard for the delicate balance of ecosystems, depletion of resources, and environmental degradation. Acknowledging human supremacy as a form of hubris emphasizes the need for humility, ethical considerations, and responsible stewardship of the planet. It encourages a perspective that recognizes the intrinsic value of all life forms and the importance of coexistence within the broader ecological framework. Our language ability is hypothesized to have enabled us to develop cognitive abilities that enabled us to evolve and develop the complex civilization in which we now live.

While there is an extensive literature documenting language in nonhuman species including birds, insects, mammals, and aquatic mammals (Hauser et al., 2002), there is little doubt that humans possess a suite of capabilities with respect to human language that distinguish us from other animals. We might note that almost all animals have sets of features that uniquely distinguish them from other animals. Hockett (1960) suggests that only humans possess all of the following attributes with respect to our use of language: (1) A vocal-auditory channel for communication, (2) broadcast transmission and directional reception, (3) rapid fading signal (temporally short communications), (4) interchangeability (anything understood can be repeated by the person understanding it), (5) total feedback (sender is aware of the message being sent), (6) specialization (communication being sent has a specific intent), and (7) semanticity (there is a fixed relationship between signal and the meaning of the signal).

There are fascinating new discoveries with respect to both animal and plant communication that suggest that our understanding and characterization of “language” may be very limited. For example, there is a growing body of evidence that squids communicate with one another by controlling color patterns on their skin, some patterns of which can only be seen by other squids in patterns of polarized light (Mäthger & Hanlon, 2006). There is also evidence to suggest that trees communicate with each other using mycorrhizal networks (Gorzelak et al., 2015). The idea that trees may communicate via mycorrhizal networks utilizing a relationship with an entirely different biological kingdom (fungi) suggests a sophistication and perhaps even cooperation that we likely do not fully appreciate at this point. We discuss these ideas to suggest that H. sapiens may perhaps be engaging in some degree of hubris if we perceive ourselves as unique or distinct from other living things on the earth because of our language abilities. The word “hubris” is particularly relevant and poignant in this case. Hubris means having excessive confidence or arrogance to such an extent that one can sow the seeds of their own self-destruction. Our impact on the earth’s environment and ecosystems may in fact be sowing the seeds of our own self-destruction and it is likely that cognitive developments associated with language enabled us to bring this about.

It is generally accepted that many animals (and perhaps even some plants) have a degree of sentience (i.e., can have subjective experiences that are pleasant or unpleasant; DeGrazia, 2020). This raises significant moral and ethical questions that likely led the renowned biologist E.O. Wilson to propose that we reserve half of the planet earth for nonhuman forms of life (Wilson, 2016). These sentiments suggest that the belief that humans are a fundamentally unique and distinct life form is perhaps weakening. Increasingly we attribute some degree of sentience and/or consciousness to many forms of life. The nature and origin of consciousness (whether human or nonhuman) remains a longstanding and fascinating area of research.

Julian Jaynes wrote a book titled The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (Jaynes, 1976). Jaynes was a Princeton psychologist, psycho-historian, and consciousness theorist who was an early thinker about the “cognitive revolution” later described by Harari in his book Sapiens. Jaynes’ book addresses the problematic and mysterious nature of consciousness—“the ability to introspect”—which he argues must be distinguished from sensory awareness and other processes of cognition (e.g., a fly avoiding being swatted does not necessarily suggest the fly has consciousness per se). Jaynes suggests that consciousness is a “learned behavior” that emerges more from language and culture than from biology. Jaynes is thus arguing that the origin of consciousness is rooted in ancient human history rather than in some metaphysical or evolutionary processes. Jaynes provides some limited archaeological and historical evidence (including analysis of Homer’s “The Iliad”) that suggests that prior to the “learning” of consciousness, human sentience was what Jaynes called “the bicameral mind”—a mentality based on verbal hallucination in which human individuals essentially heard “voices” that we may have attributed to a deity.

Why does a population geography book explore the “cognitive revolution” and the nature and origin of human consciousness? The reason for this is that it appears that the evolution of human consciousness has a significant role to play in the pace at which cultural and technological evolution take place. Western civilization has been profoundly influenced by dualist philosophers dating back to Plato and Aristotle. Dualist philosophy emphasizes the apparent radical difference between mind and matter and denies that mind and brain are the same. Rene Descartes (a prominent dualist philosopher) worked from the monotheistic idea of a fundamental distinction between God and creation and extended this to the idea that creation consisted of two distinct substances: mind (or soul) and body (matter). Mind being a divine substance that is not subject to the laws of science (e.g., physics and chemistry). The significance of this philosophy of Descartes is well expressed by Jason Hickel “Humans are unique among all creatures in having minds and souls, which is the mark of their special connection to God. As for the rest of creation—including the human body itself—it is nothing but inert, unthinking matter. It is but “nature.” This idea of human “uniqueness” and perhaps even divine provenance likely contributes to our ability to perceive ourselves as distinct from the natural world and as something other, or more than, mere animals. This perspective is being increasingly challenged from the perspectives of many indigenous peoples who do not make the same distinction between humans and nature (Mazzocchi, 2020). In any case, the beliefs and capabilities that humans have developed have enabled the development of many diverse and sophisticated cultures and technologies.

It appears today that the rate of technological evolution is faster than that of cultural evolution which is in turn faster than the rate of biological evolution. These differing rates of evolution present some wicked problems for all forms of life on this earth and human beings in particular (Combi, 2016). Some examples of the challenges that manifest from technology evolving faster than culture are: genetically engineered babies (Yong, 2018), genetically modified foods (Karalis et al., 2020), misinformation and disinformation dissemination via social media and the internet (Kavanagh, 2019), autonomous weapons using facial recognition technology and AI (Sayler, 2019), and much, much, more (Video 6.1). These challenges are fundamentally a challenge of governance (Kavanagh, 2019) and failures of governance are at the root of the challenges we face with respect to environmental sustainability. The rest of this chapter explores the ways the human population has changed the global environment. This is often referred to as anthropogenic global change. Changes to the global climate via global warming caused by increases in atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are a classic example of anthropogenic global change. Global changes such as climate change, ocean acidification, loss of biodiversity, and changes to biogeochemical cycles (e.g., the nitrogen cycle) can impact the natural capital and ecosystem services upon which all life depends.

6.2 Natural Capital

The term “Natural Capital” was coined by E.F. Schumacher in his 1973 book Small is Beautiful. Planet Earth can be conceived of as an endowment of natural capital that earns “interest” in the form of “ecosystem services.” The earth (in aggregate) is the fundamental natural resource upon which all life depends. In pseudoeconomic terms, the earth is a stock of “natural resources,” which includes the earth as a physical substrate bathed in sunlight and all the material, energy, and life embedded in the earth’s functioning ecosystems. Some of this natural capital provides humans with goods and services (e.g., nutrient cycling, pollination, water purification, food, fuel, timber, etc.) that are generally referred to as ecosystem services. This idea has been expanded on by seminal thinkers in the field of Ecological Economics such as Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, Herman Daly, and Robert Costanza.

The idea of conceptualizing the natural world as “Natural Capital” that produces “Ecosystem Services” in a manner similar to how financial capital produces interest income was originally intended as a critique of the dominant neoliberal economic paradigm. The idea is that economic valuation of natural capital and ecosystem services could then be used as a mechanism to point out how profoundly undervalued the natural world is within the modern capitalist system. In addition, economic valuation could be used to inform trade-offs with respect to potential land-use decisions related to urban planning, agricultural expansion, and ecosystem preservation. In some cases, economic valuation could be used in schemes called “Payments for Ecosystem Services”. An example is “carbon sequestration” where a landowner might be paid to steward his land in such a manner as to sequester carbon from the atmosphere to help alleviate climate change. Proponents of economic valuation of natural capital and/or ecosystem services are usually cautious about using the term “monetization” to avoid being perceived as using valuation as a means of commodification (Costanza et al., 2014). The term “valuation” is generally preferred to monetization or commodification for a variety of reasons. Critics have often argued that the earth is “infinitely valuable” and that any attempt to economically value the earth is an “underestimate of infinity” (Toman, 1998). Ironically, the idea of natural capital, ecosystem services, and economic valuation originated as a critique of the neoliberal economic order; however, some critics (e.g., George Monbiot) are now suggesting that the valuation of ecosystem services is an inappropriate tool of neoliberalism (Monbiot, 2014).

The idea of Natural Capital is an extension of the economic idea of economic capital. For example, a healthy ecosystem can provide a sustainable flow of goods and services; however, overuse, abuse, or overharvesting of those resources will lead to a potentially irreversible decline in the quality and quantity of services provided. Natural capital provides humans and nonhumans with essential services, like water catchment, erosion control, and crop pollination by insects, which in turn ensure the long-term viability of other natural resources and of life itself (Video 6.2). All life depends on a continuous supply of ecosystem services. Anthropogenic changes to the earth’s environment have reduced the value of ecosystem services by at least $22 trillion a year since the mid-1990s (Costanza et al., 2014). This is of increasing concern and is directly related to the size, distribution, and behavior of the human population.

6.3 Ecosystem Services

Ecosystem services are those benefits that people receive from functioning ecosystems. Some disciplines prefer that the ecosystem services concept be partitioned into ecosystem goods and ecosystem services. Ecosystem goods are stock-flow resources that can be materially transformed into what they produce, be used at variable rates, and can be stockpiled or used up in many cases (Daly & Farley, 2004). Some examples of ecosystem goods are food, fiber, and wood. Ecosystem services are fund-service resources that generate a flow of resources over time at a rate that cannot be changed significantly (e.g., photosynthesis or nutrient cycling). Regardless of how we choose to define ecosystem services, the dominant economic worldview fails to regard either of these ecosystem concepts as scarce resources. For example, Dasgupta states “I have professional colleagues who believe that the services nature provides amount to at best to 2–3% of the economy’s output.” (Dasgupta, 2008). In stark contrast, Ecological Economists provide estimates that suggest the value of ecosystem services is greater than the entire global market economy (Costanza et al., 2014).

One way to understand this discrepancy involves identifying and classifying these services and assessing their value in terms of dollars. Herman Daly suggests that scale (e.g., the limits to growth, carrying capacity, resource constraints) should be price determining rather than having prices determined and that we should consequently set limits on resource use based on ecological and ethical considerations. Another concern is that monetary valuation attributed a disproportionate benefit to those with the most purchasing power, which in essence gifts something that ostensibly belongs to the public to a very small fraction of the world’s population. This is a problem if valuation serves the purpose of commodification; it is not the case if valuation serves the purpose of heightening awareness and changing the allocation of public dollars increasingly toward stewardship and preservation of our commonly shared resources including the oceans and atmosphere.

Many of our commonly shared resources are open access regimes in that anyone can use them to any extent (e.g., harvesting fish from the open oceans or emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere). Valuation of ecosystem services in terms of dollars is often seen as a response to our failure to limit resource use based on ecological and/or ethical considerations. Conservative estimates of the economic value of the world’s ecosystem services conducted by ecological economists are significantly larger than the entire global market economy (Costanza et al., 2014). This presents a profound challenge for our current economic system.

6.3.1 Classification of Ecosystem Services

As stated previously, human existence fundamentally depends on functioning ecosystems. The world’s ecosystems are the myriad biological communities of interacting organisms and their physical environments (e.g., coral reefs, boreal forests, savannas). Functioning ecosystems produce the very oxygen we need to breathe through the process of photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is also the source of virtually all the food we eat. Ecosystem services are those elements of ecosystem function that provide benefits to humans. Ecosystem services have also been called “Nature’s Contributions to People” (de Groot et al., 2018). A more nuanced view of ecosystem services suggests that there are market services that benefit individuals, public services that benefit the human community, and ecosystem services that benefit the biotic community of which humans are a part (Farley & Kish, 2021). There are myriad ways that the natural world supports human existence, human civilization, and the human economy. These include but are not limited to the following: Climate stabilization, pollination of our crops, purifying our water supplies, recycling our wastes, protecting us from storms, and providing fuel, food, and timber. Academics, scientists, and scholars have developed a basic classification scheme for ecosystem services based on how the services are received or used (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Figure 1). These include:

Provisioning services: food, materials, and energy that are directly extracted and used by people. (e.g., fish, timber, biodiesel)

Regulating services: those that cover the way ecosystems regulate other environmental media or processes. (e.g., pollination, water purification, carbon sequestration)

Cultural services: those related to the cultural or spiritual needs of people. (e.g., recreation, tourism, education, aesthetic experiences, spiritual enrichment)

Supporting services: ecosystem processes and functions without which the other three types of categories of services would not be available. (e.g., oxygen production, nutrient cycling, soil formation, provision of habitat)

[figure number=Figure 6.1 caption=Classification of Ecosystem Services filename=Fig_6.1.jpg]

6.3.2 Evolution of International Political Recognition of Ecosystem Services

The phrase “Sustainable Development” was coined by the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987 as “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987). The United Nations held a conference in Rio de Janeiro (aka The Rio Summit, 1992) that intended to create an agenda and blueprint for international action on environmental and developmental issues that would support and inform international cooperation and development policy in the 21st century. “Agenda 21” was a significant result of this summit, which provided a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally, and locally toward the goal of sustainable development. As the goal of “sustainable development” gained purchase, many environmental issues obtained increasing attention including climate change (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]), desertification (United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification [UNCCD]), biodiversity (Intergovernmental Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services [IPBES]), and ecosystem evaluation (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MEA]).

The MEA was called for by the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2000. The primary objective of the MEA was to assess the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being and the scientific basis for action needed to enhance the conservation and sustainable use of those systems and their contribution to human well-being. The MEA involved the work of more than 1,360 experts worldwide. Their findings, contained in five technical volumes and six synthesis reports, provide a state-of-the-art scientific appraisal of the condition and trends in the world’s ecosystems and the services they provide (e.g., clean water, food, forest products, flood control, and natural resources) and the options to restore, conserve or enhance the sustainable use of ecosystems (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Early works on the idea of ecosystem services (Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997) undoubtedly contributed to the motivation for the MEA, which led to the establishment of the IPBES in 2012.

6.3.3 Ecosystem Services as a Market Failure

Ecosystem services and the natural capital from which they are derived suffer from many market failure properties. Market failures are situations in which markets produce an inefficient distribution of goods and services. Classic examples of market failures include monopolies, externalities, unclear property rights, open access regimes, and public goods. Ecosystem services present many overlapping market failure properties including positive and negative externalities, unclear property rights, and open access regimes. In addition, ecosystem services are often public goods in and of themselves (Sutton, 2014). An externality is a cost or benefit caused by an economic actor that is not accounted for by that economic agent. Climate change is an example of an externality resulting from fossil fuel combustion in which the costs of climate change are imposed upon many humans and nonhumans not involved in profiting from fossil fuel combustion. An example of problems associated with property rights and open access regimes is fisheries. Fisheries are a significant “provisioning” ecosystem service, while the fish themselves are an ecosystem good. Most of the world’s fisheries are depleted and/or degraded for both fishery harvests and as waste absorbers because of property rights/open access regime problems (Global Ocean Commission, 2014). Public goods are a market failure in that the benefits exceed the costs, but markets will not produce them because they are nonrival in consumption and nonexcludable. Nonrivalrous goods are goods that are consumed by people but whose supply is not affected by people’s consumption (e.g., fresh air, lighthouse). In other words, when an individual or a group of individuals use a particular good, the supply left for other people to use the good remains unchanged. Nonrivalrous goods can be consumed over and over again without the fear of depletion of supply. A nonexcludable good is a good where it is not possible to prevent people from using the good, thus making it difficult to restrict access to the good. Climate stability, protection from UV radiation, and flood regulation are all examples of nonrival, nonexcludable, public goods. At a most fundamental level, the dominant neoclassical economic system depends on unsustainable growth in material and energy use to function. Past growth in material and energy throughput has exceeded the biocapacity of the planet to support human civilization as it is currently practiced, or, as others have stated, our economic system has caused us to exceed our planetary boundaries (Rees, 2020; Rockström et al., 2009; Ward et al., 2016).

6.3.4 Ecosystem Service Valuation

The development of the idea of ecosystem services and their economic valuation likely resulted from our collective failure to appreciate and value our fundamental dependence on the natural world. Despite myriad warnings from a broad spectrum of scientists, economists, artists, and activists ranging from Carson (1961/2002) to Schumacher (1973) to Leopold (1886–1948/1949) and even to Dr. Seuss (1971), human activities continue to degrade our natural environment. Evidence of human degradation of the environment is mounting (Ripple et al., 2017). David Attenborough is a beloved figure and celebrated naturalist who warns about this degradation as manifested via climate change in his movie, A Life on Our Planet. This Attenborough quote was posted throughout the COP26 Climate Summit in Glasgow: “It is important, it is true, it is happening, and it is an impending disaster” (Attenborough, 2022).

Attenborough and most of the world’s earth scientists are concerned not only about climate change but also about many other human impacts on our environment that interact with the climate and one another in complex ways many of which do not bode well for the future of human civilization (Rees, 2020; Ripple et al., 2017). To wit, we are experiencing the 6th mass extinction in Earth’s history and it is caused by humans (Ceballos & Ehrlich, 2018). Since 1950, humans and their actions have been responsible for the loss of half of the world’s coral reefs (Eddy et al., 2021). Humans and domesticated animals (e.g., cows, sheep, pigs) account for 96% of mammalian biomass on the planet (Bar-On et al., 2018). There is growing consensus that the triumph of a neoliberal world order characterized by unregulated capitalism is driving environmental degradation (Hickel, 2021; Sutton, 2022). This failure of the neoclassical economic worldview has motivated some ecological economists to engage in economic valuation of ecosystem services as a criticism of the prevailing economic system (Costanza et al., 1996). Nonetheless, some environmental economists would argue that the goal of monetary valuation is to internalize externalities, hence all of nature, into market decisions, which is ultimately only a parlor trick that validates rather than critiques the neoliberal perspective (Spash, 2008). Ecological economics views the economy as a part. The part cannot internalize the whole (Vatn & Bromley, 1994). Instead, the economic system must be internalized into the global ecosystem.

The first estimate of the total global economic value of ecosystem services suggested that their value is almost twice as large as the entire global market economy (Costanza et al., 1997). It is difficult, if not impossible, to internalize the $122 trillion of ecosystem services into an $80 billion market economy. Making such estimates of the world’s ecosystem services is not a vehicle for internalizing external costs. It merely demonstrates the need for a new system of value that includes rather than internalizes ecosystem services. To do this, we must address the difficult stewardship tasks associated with mapping the spatial distribution and extent of ecosystem services (Burkhard & Maes, 2017). Changes to the earth’s land surface in the past three decades (including the loss of roughly half of the world’s coastal wetlands) have resulted in annual losses of ecosystem services valued at over $22 trillion (Costanza et al., 2014).

Economic valuation of ecosystem services provides a way of demonstrating that our current economic system is failing to internalize the benefits of the natural environment appropriately. There are literally tens of thousands of peer-reviewed academic journal articles documenting the value of a variety of ecosystem services (Costanza et al., 2017). Some of the methods of valuation are complex. For example, a study of the storm protection value of coastal wetlands involved the analysis of decades of disaster data in conjunction with global land cover, population, and economic data that changed over those decades. This study estimated that coastal wetlands worldwide prevent roughly $500 billion in damage every year; in addition, coastal wetlands save roughly 5,000 human lives annually (Costanza et al., 2021). Ecosystem service valuation can also involve much simpler approaches, such as, market valuation. A market value of real estate in New York City provides an example of the urban ecosystem services provided by Central Park.

One assessment of the cultural value of the many ecosystem services provided by Central Park in New York City used the market value of Central Park as developable real estate as a representative measure of the value of the natural capital constituted by Central Park (Sutton & Anderson, 2016). $500 billion is a reasonable estimate of the market value of Central Park as developable real estate. Furthermore, the cash proceeds of a sale of this $500 billion of natural capital could earn a 5% annual return ($25 billion per year). This is a minimum estimate of the value of annual ecosystem services provided by the 341 hectares that constitute Central Park. This is over $70 million per hectare per year, which is more than 100 times higher than the estimated value of ecosystem services provided by the most valuable biomes of previous estimates (Costanza et al., 1996). This value is undoubtedly an underestimate because the people of New York do not want to sell off Central Park even based on their limited understanding of the ecosystem services that Central Park provides. The very high value of the ecosystem services provided by Central Park results from an interaction of social, natural, human, and built capital (Figure 6.2). These important interactions are poorly understood by the dominant economic worldview that governs social and environmental policy today.

[figure number=Figure 6.2 caption=Interaction of Social, Human, Built, and Natural Capital filename=Fig_6.2.jpg]

Regardless of whether ecosystem services are valued in monetary terms or not, our civilization is fundamentally dependent on them. These valuation efforts are not designed to enable the commodification of ecosystem services but to help clarify how essential they are and perhaps to inform assessments of trade-offs as we plan for the future. Alarmingly, the estimated $20 trillion loss of annual ecosystem services between 1997 and 2014 (Costanza et al., 2014) is comparable to wiping out one fifth of today’s global annual economic activity. The long-term consequences of such losses are yet to be fully experienced by humans and these are staggering losses that will take great effort and sacrifice to recoup. Some economists and philosophers have ridiculed this type of assessment because some ecosystem services are literally invaluable (Toman, 1998). It could be argued that water is infinitely valuable to any living human; however, no one can pay an infinite amount of money (or even all of their income) for the water they use. Many find it conceptually difficult to put dollar values on the environment (Hutchinson et al., 1995). The finite number in the aforementioned estimates sometimes seems too low, while infinite valuation seems useless. We argue here, however, that conceptualizing the benefits we derive from nature as ecosystem services makes explicit that human well-being and our economy are dependent on those goods and services and that valuing them can be a beneficial exercise that serves to highlight the urgent need to safeguard nature.

6.3.5 Incompatibility of Neoclassical Economic Paradigm and Sustainability

Pollination is one ecosystem service that many people find easy to understand. Insect pollination is a classic ecosystem service. Bees, birds, bats, mice, and other creatures pollinate our crops for free. If bees and/or other pollinators were to go extinct, humans would either experience a vastly different diet (one that is much blander) or we would have to find ways to pollinate flowers ourselves. This is one approach for estimating the value of these services—replacement cost. A survey of studies of crop pollination services states that global estimates of total value range from $267 to $657 billion annually (Porto et al., 2020).

Consider our theoretical army of human crop pollinators. If bees were to be driven to extinction and be replaced with paid human pollinators, it would be a “win-win-win” scenario from a strictly economic perspective because it would increase gross domestic product while creating jobs and generating tax revenue. Hopefully, even the most rational economist would not want to live in a world with no pollinators. However, a Nobel Prize–winning economist, William Nordhaus, once stated that agriculture only represents 3% of GDP; therefore, even if climate change were to wipe out agriculture our economy could still survive (Nordhaus, 1992). This deeply flawed reasoning supports the idea that we need to develop worldviews that are broader than the dominant neoclassical economic one in which we are currently trapped (Dhara & Singh, 2021).

There are many ways to associate value with ecosystem services. Assessing value in terms of dollars is regarded as useful because it makes their value more tangible rather than abstract. This is particularly difficult for nonrival resources. The value of a rival resource is the highest value a single individual would pay for the last unit. The value of a nonrival resource is the sum of marginal benefits to all users. Economic valuation of ecosystem services should not be misconstrued as an argument for the commodification or privatization of these services. Abstract appeals to preserve nature for its intrinsic value or spiritual value have failed. Many ecosystem services are best regarded as public goods or common property; nonetheless, we still need ways to associate a value (not a price) to them so that society recognizes the value of their essential and fundamental supporting role to civilization.

The profound threat to environmental resources such as a stable climate, ecosystem services, and biodiversity suggests that humanity is facing perhaps its greatest challenge for survival (Ericksen et al., 2009). “Saving the environment” should be given higher priority than “saving the economy” (Stern, 2008). If it is not, we will continue down the environmentally destructive road that we have been on for the past 200 years. Ironically, if we continue down this “business as usual” path, the economy may continue to grow while overall ecosystem health and human well-being decline (Ward et al., 2016). Ecological economics is shifting the paradigm of neoclassical economics in a manner similar to the Copernican revolution (Nigam, 2010). Thought revolutions take time and many of the advocates of the new worldview are ignored and/or ridiculed. Nonetheless, this revolution must be won, and time is of the essence. Valuing ecosystem services may provide a worldview that will help us chart a path to a just, equitable, sustainable, and desirable future. We have begun the task of charting a path to a sustainable future by developing our understanding of biogeochemical cycles and the ways human activities have impacted these flows of energy and matter.

6.4 Biogeochemical Cycles

Biogeochemical cycles are the pathways by which the chemicals that make up the earth travel and are transformed by physical, chemical, and biological processes. Matter and energy flow through the earth’s ecosystems; energy enters as sunlight (aka shortwave radiation) and leaves primarily as infrared radiation (aka longwave radiation). The energy from the sun is transmitted, absorbed, reflected, and refracted in myriad ways. All life on earth (apart from some deep-sea chemoautotrophs) depends on this continuous flow of sunlight. The matter that living organisms are made of is conserved and recycled through a variety of nutrient-cycling processes. The six most common elements associated with organic molecules—carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur—exist in myriad compounds some of which are produced by living organisms and others that are produced by geologic processes. These compounds may exist for long periods in the atmosphere, on land, in water, or beneath the Earth’s surface. Geologic processes (e.g., weathering, erosion, water drainage, plate tectonics) contribute to this recycling of materials. Visualization of biogeochemical cycles via infographics can be somewhat overwhelming—there are lots of boxes and arrows and numbers to keep track of. The infographics developed for these purposes often only focus on one element or compound to enable our understanding of the process. The global water cycle alone involves soil moisture, snowpack, ice sheets, rivers, lakes, rain, groundwater, and much more (Figure 6.3).

[figure number=Figure 6.3 caption=The Global Water Cycle filename=Fig_6.3.jpg]

“CHNOPS” is a mnemonic device used to remember the six most common elements that are used by organisms in a variety of ways. Carbon (“C”) atoms form chains (e.g., gasoline is a mix of carbon chains of varying length) and rings (e.g., sugars, benzene). Hydrogen (“H”) is part of almost all organic molecules (thus the term “hydrocarbons”). Hydrogen is also the H in H2O (water). Nitrogen (“N”) is an essential component of nucleic acids and proteins. Proteins are chains of amino acids. Oxygen (“O”) is the O in H2O and the oxygen (O2) in our atmosphere, which is produced by the biological process of photosynthesis. Phosphorus (“P”) is an essential component of nucleic acids that make up DNA and the phospholipids that comprise biological membranes (e.g., semiporous cell walls). Sulfur (“S”) controls the shape that proteins manifest as (proteins are chains of amino acids that bend, twist, and fold into a variety of shapes, and the shapes they assume are an important feature of their function). These elements (CHNOPS) flow through systems in many interconnected ways. For example, flows of water are critical for leaching sulfur and phosphorus into rivers, which can then flow into oceans to be incorporated into living organisms such as phytoplankton. Minerals cycle through the biosphere between the biotic and abiotic components and from one organism to another.

Ecological systems consist of numerous biogeochemical cycles operating as a part of the larger earth systems. Examples of these earth systems include the water cycle, the carbon cycle, the nitrogen cycle, and the phosphorus cycle. All these chemical elements manifest in living things that are part of these biogeochemical cycles. These elements also cycle through abiotic systems in water (hydrosphere), earth and soil (lithosphere), and/or the air (atmosphere). The biotic components of the earth are referred to collectively as the biosphere. All these elements—carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur—are used in ecosystems by living organisms as part of a closed system. With the minute exception of meteors and other material falling to the earth from space, there is no matter entering or leaving the earth system. Therefore, these chemicals are recycled rather than used up and replaced. This is why the earth is regarded as a closed system with respect to matter.

The flow of energy for the earth is an open system. The sun bathes the earth in sunlight energy, which is reradiated from the earth as infrared radiation after some of this energy travels through a variety of trophic levels of food webs. Carbon is used by plants and animals to make carbohydrates, fats, and proteins. Sunlight is required for the process of photosynthesis which is the only way we know to create chemical energy from light that can be eaten by humans. There are some unusual creatures in the deep sea that can obtain energy from sulfur compounds. Hydrogen sulfide near hydrothermal vents is used by organisms such as the giant tube worm. In the sulfur cycle, sulfur can be forever recycled as a source or carrier of energy. Photosynthesis is nonetheless the primary mechanism by which sunlight is converted to chemical energy that can be utilized by most life forms.

6.4.1 Anthropogenic Impact on Biogeochemical Cycles

Human activities have a growing influence on biogeochemical cycles. It should be noted that H. sapiens is not the first organism to profoundly change the earth’s biogeochemistry. Approximately 2.7 billion years ago, the earth’s atmosphere was “oxygenated” by cyanobacteria (aka blue-green algae; Biello, 2009). Life, as we know it today, would not exist were it not for this profound global change caused by cyanobacteria. This flourishing of cyanobacteria is known as the “Great Oxygenation Event,” which caused a mass extinction that dramatically changed the populations and distributions of life forms on the earth including a dramatic drop in the population of the cyanobacteria themselves. Phil Plait provides an interesting comment on this event and its parallels to the earth today:

The dominant form of life on Earth, spread to the far reaches of the globe, blissfully and blithely pumping out vast amounts of pollution, changing the environment on a planetary scale, sealing their fate. They wouldn’t have been able to stop even if they knew what they were doing, even if they had been warned far, far in advance of the effects they were creating. (https://slate.com/technology/2014/07/the-great-oxygenation-event-the-earths-first-mass-extinction.html)

Human activities have dramatically changed the carbon cycle, the nitrogen cycle, the phosphorus cycle, and the methane cycle. These changes are contributing to climate change, ocean acidification, and other processes we may have not yet identified. Human mobilization of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus from the Earth’s crust and atmosphere into the environment has increased 36, 9, and 13 times, respectively (Schlesinger & Bernhardt, 2013). These numbers are relative to the rate of geological processes from preindustrial times. Fossil fuel burning, landcover change, cement production, and the extraction and production of fertilizer to support agriculture are major causes of these increases. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most abundant of the heat-trapping GHGs that are increasing due to human activities, and its production dominates the atmospheric forcing of global climate change. Yet CO2 is not our only concern with respect to climate change and global warming. Methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) cause more warming per molecule than CO2. Methane and nitrous oxide are both also increasing in concentration in the atmosphere primarily due to agricultural activities. Changes in biogeochemical cycles of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and other elements are changing our climate. These changes can also change the earth’s atmospheric composition in ways that affect how the planet absorbs and reflects sunlight. The following is a summary of some of the biogeochemical cycles that have been impacted by human activities.

6.4.1.1 The Carbon Cycle

Human activities have increased atmospheric carbon dioxide by about 40% over preindustrial levels from 275 ppm in 1700–420 ppm in 2022. We have doubled the amount of nitrogen available to ecosystems. Similar trends have been observed for phosphorus and other elements, and these changes have major consequences for biogeochemical cycles and climate change. Scientists distinguish the fast carbon cycle from the slow carbon cycle. Most of the earth’s carbon is stored in rocks. The slow carbon cycle is related to chemical reactions that result from tectonic activity and other earth processes that human activity does not influence significantly. The slow carbon cycle moves carbon into the atmosphere primarily through volcanic activity. On average, the slow carbon cycle moves 10–100 million metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year. The fast carbon cycle is driven by plants and phytoplankton. Human activities (primarily the combustion of fossil fuels) are an increasing component of the fast carbon cycle. The slow carbon cycle motivates or moves 10–100 times more carbon per year than the slow carbon cycle (Figure 6.4). Without human interference, the carbon in fossil fuels would leak slowly into the atmosphere through volcanic activity over millions of years in the slow carbon cycle. By burning coal, oil, and natural gas, we accelerate the process, releasing vast amounts of carbon (carbon that took millions of years to accumulate) into the atmosphere every year. By doing so, we move the carbon from the slow cycle to the fast cycle. Humans moved 8.4 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere in 2009 by burning fossil fuel.

[figure number=Figure 6.4 caption=The Fast Carbon Cycle filename=Fig_6.4.jpg]

Historically, the United States was the world’s largest emitter of CO2 from 1950 until 2007. China is now the country with the highest CO2 emissions. The United States currently accounts for roughly one fifth of global CO2 emissions. Marine and terrestrial ecosystems sequester carbon. Many are in equilibrium and cannot be counted on to serve as carbon “sinks” to draw down additional carbon from the atmosphere. In North America, there has been a large and relatively consistent increase in forest carbon stocks over the last two decades because forests are growing back from historic forest harvesting. The largest rates of disturbance and “regrowth sinks” are in southeastern, south-central, and Pacific northwestern regions (Williams et al., 2012). Nonetheless, emissions of CO2 from human activities based in the United States are still increasing and exceed ecosystem uptake of CO2 by more than three times. Consequently, North America remains a net source of CO2 into the atmosphere by a substantial margin.

6.4.1.2 The Nitrogen Cycle

Nitrogen exists in several forms on the earth. Roughly 78% of the earth’s atmosphere is N2 a very stable diatomic molecule that consists of two nitrogen atoms triple bonded to one another. N2 gas is regarded as nonreactive nitrogen. Reactive nitrogen refers to nitrogen in forms that are more accessible to biogeochemical processes (NH3, NH4⁺, NO, NO2⁻, HNO3, N₂O, and other nitrogen compounds). The term “nitrogen fixation” is about breaking the N2 triple bond so that nitrogen can exist in other more biologically accessible forms such as ammonium ions (NH4⁺), nitrite ions (NO2⁻), and nitrate ions (NO3⁻). A great deal of nitrogen fixation results from a symbiotic relationship between rhizobia (nitrogen-fixing bacteria) that are hosted in nodules on the roots of plants known as legumes (e.g., alfalfa, clover, soybeans, and other plants). The biological availability of N, P, and K (potassium) is of considerable economic importance because they are the major plant nutrients vital to agricultural production.

Nitrogen is the key building block for amino acids, which are in turn the building blocks of protein molecules upon which all life is based. Nitrogen is also an essential component of the protoplasm of plants, animals, fungi, and microorganisms such as bacteria. Many human activities have a significant impact on the nitrogen cycle. Burning fossil fuels and the use of nitrogen-based fertilizers can dramatically increase the amount of biologically available nitrogen in an ecosystem. Because nitrogen availability often limits the primary productivity of many ecosystems, large changes in the availability of nitrogen can lead to profound alterations in the nitrogen cycle in both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems (Bernhard, 2010). Eutrophication of lakes and streams is often the result of an oversupply of nutrients, which can result in harmful algal blooms, dead zones, and fish kills. Industrial nitrogen fixation has increased dramatically since the 1940s, and human activity has more than doubled the amount of global nitrogen fixation (Vitousek et al., 1997). Our ability to fix nitrogen via industrial processes harkens back to World War I when Fritz Haber (Videos 6.4 and 6.5), a German chemist, developed what is now known as the Haber–Bosch process by which hydrogen (H2) and nitrogen (N2) are subjected to high pressure in the presence of catalysts to produce ammonia (NH3). The process was originally developed to help make gunpowder for the German war effort but is now still used at a massive scale to produce soil inputs for agriculture. Roughly half of the world’s current human population would not exist without the nitrogen provided by the Haber–Bosch process (Erisman et al., 2008).

 

Human impact on the nitrogen cycle is enormous and unequivocal (Fowler et al., 2013). Global nitrogen fixation contributes 413 million metric tons of fixed nitrogen to terrestrial and marine ecosystems annually (Video 6.6). Anthropogenic activities are responsible for roughly half which is estimated to be 210 million metric tons of fixed nitrogen derived primarily from the Haber–Bosch process. Most of the uses of fixed nitrogen are on land and have ended up in soils and vegetation from nitrogen fertilizers used in agriculture. In terrestrial ecosystems, the addition of nitrogen can lead to nutrient imbalance in trees, changes in forest health, and reductions in biodiversity. Increased nitrogen availability often correlates with a change in carbon storage, thus impacting more processes than just the nitrogen cycle. In agricultural systems, fertilizers are used extensively to increase plant production; however, unused nitrogen, usually in the form of nitrates, often leaches out of the soil, entering streams and rivers. Some of this can end up in our drinking water and cause a variety of human health problems.

Nitrogen is an important nutrient in regulating primary productivity and species diversity in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems (figure 6.5). Microbially driven processes such as nitrogen fixation, nitrification, and denitrification constitute the bulk of nitrogen transformations and play a critical role in the fate of nitrogen in the Earth’s ecosystems. As human populations continue to increase, the consequences of our activities continue to threaten our resources and have significantly altered the global nitrogen cycle.

[figure number=Figure 6.5 caption=The Nitrogen Cycle filename=Fig_6.5.jpg]

6.4.1.3 The Methane Cycle

Methane (CH4 aka natural gas) is the most abundant non-CO2 greenhouse gas. Methane is 20–30 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 over a 100-year time horizon. Methane accounted for 9% of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions in the United States in 2011 (EPA, 2013). The atmospheric concentration of methane today is more than twice that of preindustrial times. Methane has an atmospheric lifetime of about 10 years before it is oxidized to CO2; nonetheless, it has about 25 times the global warming potential of CO2. An increase in methane concentration in the industrial era has contributed to warming in many ways. The burning of methane from gas-flaring at petroleum facilities is a significant source of CO2 emissions and can be observed using nighttime satellite imagery (Elvidge et al., 2009). Despite the value of methane as a fuel, many oil refineries lack the infrastructure to store methane and simply burn it off in gas-flaring devices.

The methane budget refers to the budget for all emissions and removals of CH4 (Figure 6.6). Most methane emissions (~97%) are offset by natural removals within the atmosphere by hydroxide radicals (OH). Consequently, the growth rate of CH4 is really a small imbalance between emissions and a huge natural sink from OH radicals. Roughly 60% of methane emissions come from anthropogenic sources derived from agriculture (e.g., livestock and rice paddies) and fossil fuel production and use (e.g., coal, gas/oil extraction). The other 40% comes from natural emissions, the largest part associated with decomposing organic matter in swamps and estuaries. Biofuel and biomass burning are both natural and human-induced sources of methane emissions. Other natural sources (e.g., geological processes, lakes, rivers, termites) are also important, but these sources are not currently well understood and are not likely to be controlled by human-originated policies. These natural sources existed before the industrial Era and were in equilibrium with removals by hydroxide radicals. Natural sources are only of concern for future climate change if they are perturbed and increase in response to global environmental drivers. This is the case for wetlands and biomass burning, which can increase or decrease in response to shifts in climate and hydrology. The biggest concern and the biggest unknown is whether the currently small CH4 emissions in the Arctic will increase in the future as thawing permafrost appears inevitable in the next decades (Anthony et al., 2016)

[figure number=Figure 6.6 caption=The Global Methane Budget filename=Fig_6.6.jpg]

6.4.1.4 The Phosphorus Cycle

Phosphorus (“P”) is required by living organisms as it is a vital component of DNA, RNA, and other essential biological molecules. The phosphorus cycle is the biogeochemical cycle that describes the flows of phosphorus through the lithosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere (Video 6.7). The atmosphere does not play a significant role in the flow of phosphorus because phosphorus and phosphorus-based compounds are typically solids in most circumstances on Earth. Plants absorb and assimilate phosphorus as phosphate and incorporate it into organic compounds. Phosphates move quickly through plants and animals; however, the processes that move them through the soil or ocean are very slow, making the phosphorus cycle overall one of the slowest biogeochemical cycles (Oelkers et al., 2008). On the land, phosphorus gradually becomes less available to plants over thousands of years since it is gradually lost as runoff. Low concentration of phosphorus in soils reduces plant growth and slows soil microbial growth. Soil microorganisms act as both sinks and sources of available phosphorus in the biogeochemical cycle. Short-term transformation of phosphorus is chemical, biological, or microbiological. In the long-term global cycle, however, the major transfer is driven by tectonic movement over geologic time. However, humans have caused major changes to the global phosphorus cycle through the shipping of phosphorus minerals, and the use of phosphorus fertilizers. Phosphorus also flows simply from the shipping of food from farms to cities where it is lost as effluent through our sewage systems.

There is nascent concern about “Peak Phosphorus.” Peak phosphorus is the idea that there will be a point in time when humanity reaches the maximum global production rate of phosphorus as an industrial and commercial raw material. There was concern that peak phosphorus was in the not too distant future. Exact reserve quantities remain uncertain as do the possible impacts of increased phosphate use on future generations (Edixhoven et al., 2013). Phosphorus is a finite nonrenewable resource that is widespread in the Earth’s crust and in living organisms; however, it is relatively scarce in concentrated forms and these deposits are not evenly distributed across the Earth. The top five countries with respect to economically minable phosphate rock are Morocco (including reserves located in Western Sahara), China, Egypt, Algeria, and Syria. Needless to say, there is some concern that phosphorus reserves may be a growing geopolitical resource concern in the future (Video 6.8). This concern is fostering interest in the recycling of urine. Separating urine from the rest of the sewage could mitigate some difficult environmental problems and provide a way to save phosphorus from a diluted fate in the effluent of our sewerage (Wald, 2022).

[figure number=Figure 6.7 caption=The Phosphorus Cycle filename=Fig_6.7.jpg]

6.4.2 The Earth as a System of Biogeochemical Cycles

Human actions are making profound changes to the earth’s biogeochemical cycles, which presents myriad uncertainties and threats to the viability of human civilization going forward. Scientists are becoming increasingly concerned that we are collectively unable to appreciate the magnitude, severity, significance, and immediacy of the challenges we face as a civilization with respect to our environment and how the economic systems we have embraced are damaging both the planet and our own well-being. In addition, there is growing concern that our current political systems are not up to the task of correcting the situation, particularly in light of inevitable changes to our economy and environment that are baked in at this point in time. The abstract of the article titled: Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future summarizes these concerns (Bradshaw et al., 2021):

We report three major and confronting environmental issues that have received little attention and require urgent action. First, we review the evidence that future environmental conditions will be far more dangerous than currently believed. The scale of the threats to the biosphere and all its lifeforms—including humanity—is in fact so great that it is difficult to grasp for even well-informed experts. Second, we ask what political or economic system, or leadership, is prepared to handle the predicted disasters, or even capable of such action. Third, this dire situation places an extraordinary responsibility on scientists to speak out candidly and accurately when engaging with government, business, and the public. We especially draw attention to the lack of appreciation of the enormous challenges to creating a sustainable future. The added stresses to human health, wealth, and well-being will perversely diminish our political capacity to mitigate the erosion of ecosystem services on which society depends. The science underlying these issues is strong, but awareness is weak. Without fully appreciating and broadcasting the scale of the problems and the enormity of the solutions required, society will fail to achieve even modest sustainability goals.

In this book, we present an overview of several of the earth’s biogeochemical cycles to emphasize that human activity is significantly changing the earth system as a whole. However, most people are not aware of biogeochemical cycles or systems thinking at all. Next section explores some of the more familiar ways people recognize the damage that human actions are having on the environment, nonhuman forms of life, and our natural resources.

6.5 State of the Planet

Concern about degraded environments has likely existed for much of human history. Ancient nomadic peoples are believed to have migrated to other places once their wastes had piled up (Pazoki & Ghasemzadeh, 2020). Malthus’ 1798 essay took a more systematic and quantitative approach to concerns about limits related to differing rates of growth of population and food production (Malthus, 1798). Prehistoric human impacts on the environment (e.g., megafaunal extinctions in South America, North America, and Australia) did not likely result in a call for a collective response from humanity to minimize damage and strive for better stewardship of local, regional, or global environments. Early environmental writing can be found in the likes of Henry David Thoreau’s “Walden Pond”; however, broader awareness of, and concern for, global environmental issues did not strongly manifest until the 20th century. It could be argued that calls for a more general collective human response to environmental challenges took place somewhere around the middle of the 20th century.

Authors such as Rachel Carson (Silent Spring), Wendell Berry (A World Lost), E.F. Schumacher (Small Is Beautiful), Aldo Leopold (A Sand County Almanac), Paul and Anne Ehrlich (The Population Bomb), John Muir, Sylvia Earle, and Donnella Meadows (The Limits to Growth) were among many raising the clarion call regarding human caused environmental degradation and its impacts on both humans and nonhuman forms of life. These writers and many other writers, activists, scientists, and citizens made a difference. The number of “clarion calls” for action on a wide-ranging number of environmental issues ranging from climate change to loss of biodiversity to overfishing to ocean acidification to desertification to deforestation to water pollution to air pollution to plastics in our ocean is growing and coming from larger and larger institutions. Publications such as the United Nations Environment Program’s Global Environmental Outlook, The World Wildlife Fund’s State of the World report, and journal articles such as Our Future in the Anthropocene Biosphere authored by some of the world’s most renowned scientists suggest a growing collective awareness of the challenges we face. The question remains—will we face them effectively in time? The following is a very brief description of some of the more mainstream ways these human impacts on the environment are presented to the public.

6.5.1 Climate Change and Global Warming

Human activities are changing the chemical composition of our atmosphere and our oceans. One major change is the relative abundance of GHGs in our atmosphere and oceans such as carbon dioxide and methane, both of which are increasing. These gases are emitted into the atmosphere primarily through the burning of fossil fuels and agricultural activities. The main fossil fuels are coal, oil, and natural gas. The greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon for which the most common greenhouse gas is water vapor. Without the greenhouse effect, the planet would be 33°C colder and life as we know it would be impossible. Human activities have amplified the natural greenhouse effect which is unbalancing the climate. “Global warming” refers to the rise in global temperatures due mainly to the increasing concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere. “Climate change” is a more general term that refers to the increasing changes in the measures of climate over a long period of time—including precipitation, temperature, and wind patterns. The average air temperature at the surface of the earth has increased by 1.2 °C since 1900. Future emission scenarios of the latest IPCC report predict that this increase will reach between 2 and 5 °C by 2100. During the last ice age 20,000 years ago, the average air temperature was only 5 °C lower than today and it took up to 10,000 years to warm the earth to current temperatures. According to the IPCC reports, the breakdown of GHG emissions by sector is as follows: 15% from transportation, 20% from building sector, 25% from agriculture (mostly as methane), and 40% from the industry sector. Half of the carbon dioxide we emit every year is absorbed by carbon sinks: one fourth by vegetation via photosynthesis and one fourth by the oceans. The remaining half remains in the atmosphere. These gases change the earth’s radiation budget so that the earth absorbs more energy from the sun than it releases as infrared radiation. This radiative forcing represents the difference between the energy that reaches the earth each second and the energy that is released from the earth each second. It is currently rated at 2.8 W/m². The anthropogenic greenhouse effect is 3.8 watts/square meter; however, anthropogenic aerosols actually have a negative effect of −1 W/m². This radiative forcing is an excess of energy being absorbed by the earth. Many are surprised to find out that the atmosphere absorbs less than 10% of this energy. The oceans absorb 91% of the additional energy the earth is receiving from the increased greenhouse effect. The burning of fossil fuels is clearly changing the temperature of our atmosphere; however, other effects of fossil fuel burning are things such as rising ocean temperatures, melting glaciers, and ocean acidification, all of which present us with significant challenges.

6.5.2 Overfishing

Demand for fish grows with the growing human population. It is that simple. Fishing is one of the major drivers of declines in ocean wildlife populations and declining marine biodiversity. Catching fish is not inherently bad for the ocean; however, when the fishing industry catches fish at rates faster than fish stocks can replenish themselves you have a situation that is regarded as overfishing. The number of overfished stocks globally has tripled in the last 50 years and today over one third of the world’s monitored fisheries are currently exploited beyond their biological limits. Overfishing is often directly related to bycatch—the capture of unwanted sea life while fishing for a different species. This is also a major threat to marine biodiversity that causes the needless loss of billions of fish along with hundreds of thousands of sea turtles and whales. The damage done by overfishing goes beyond the marine environment. Billions of people rely on fish for their dietary protein and fishing is the principal means of securing an income for millions of people around the world. Overfishing is resulting in the loss of over $80 billion per year and these annual losses will grow if more fisheries are overexploited. Most of the plastic in the great Pacific garbage gyre is fishing net. There are increased efforts to establish and monitor more marine protected areas; however, enforcement of illegal fishing can be difficult. Real-time use of nighttime satellite imagery is being used to monitor illegal fishing in some marine protected areas (Hsu et al., 2019). Our fisheries are threatened. Collapses in our fisheries are a failure of governance.

6.5.3 Deforestation

As the human population grows, we cut down more trees and cause more deforestation. Deforestation is the intentional clearing of forested lands. Throughout history, forests have been cleared to make space for growing crops and pasturing livestock. We have also cut down trees to use the wood for buildings, fuel, and other purposes. Deforestation has significantly altered landscapes around the world. During the Roman Empire, it is believed roughly 80% of Western Europe was blanketed in forest lands. Today only 34% of Europe is forested. In North America, roughly half of the forests in the eastern part of the continent were cut down between the arrival of the pilgrims at Plymouth Rock in 1620 through to the United States Civil War in 1865. This clearing was done for timber and agriculture. China has lost great expanses of its forests over the past 4,000 years and now just over 20% of it is forested. Vast swaths of what is now the Earth’s farmland were once forests. Humans have cut down forests to grow food to feed a growing population. Today, the largest amount of deforestation is taking place in tropical rainforests. This is facilitated by extensive road construction into regions that were once almost inaccessible. Building or upgrading roads that penetrate into forests makes the forests more accessible for exploitation. Slash-and-burn agriculture is a big contributor to deforestation in the tropics. With this agricultural method, farmers burn large swaths of forest, allowing the ash to fertilize the land for crops. The land is only fertile for a few years; however, after which the farmers move on to repeat the process elsewhere. Tropical forests are also cleared to make way for logging, cattle ranching, and oil palm and rubber tree plantations.

Holistic or systems thinking is essential to understand the many ways humans are impacting the environment. Deforestation is connected to climate change, land degradation, soil depletion, and loss of biodiversity. Deforestation can result in more carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere. That is because trees take in carbon dioxide from the air for photosynthesis, and carbon is locked chemically in their wood. When trees are burned, this carbon returns to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. With fewer trees around to take in the carbon dioxide, this GHG accumulates in the atmosphere and accelerates global warming. Deforestation is also a threat to the world’s biodiversity. Tropical forests are home to enormous numbers of animal and plant species. When forests are logged or burned, these species can be driven to extinction. Extinction is forever. Clearing trees can leave soils exposed, which can make them more prone to erosion. This can cascade so the remaining plants become more vulnerable to fire as the forest shifts from being a closed and wet place to an open and dry one.

6.5.4 Desertification and Land Degradation

Human activities are driving climate change, which is in turn exposing more of the planet to the likelihood of land degradation or desertification. The growing human population is directly correlated with the expansion of land area dedicated to agriculture and ranching. Desertification is defined as the permanent degradation of land that was once arable (Video 6.12). Defining “desertification” has been somewhat contested; nonetheless, there is growing concern related to human-caused land degradation in areas with low or variable rainfall known as drylands: arid, semiarid, and subhumid lands. These drylands account for more than 40% of the earth’s land surface and are vital to the livelihood of many people of the world. According to the United Nations, the pace of land degradation is accelerating and is currently 30–35 times the historical rate. This degradation tends to be driven by several factors, including urbanization, mining, farming, and ranching. Overgrazing can result in animal hooves pounding the dirt and enhancing erosion potential and poorly practiced agriculture can deplete nutrients in the soil. The Savory Institute argues that holistic management and regenerative agricultural practices can make livestock raising a soil-building process (Video 6.13). Climate change also plays a significant role in increasing the risk of drought. Permaculturists and soil scientists believe that proper agricultural practices can build soil and remove carbon from the atmosphere to mitigate climate change moving forward.

Land degradation and soil erosion result in an inability for the land to retain water or regrow plants. Approximately 2 billion people live on the drylands that are vulnerable to desertification. This could displace an estimated 50 million people by 2030 and these people would be “climate refugees.” The stereotype of climate refugees is people who have been flooded out of their land by sea level rise. Too much water and too little water can both produce climate refugees. Desertification reduces the ability of land to support surrounding populations of people and animals. Desertification makes it more difficult to grow food, and water storage can become increasingly difficult. This often results in malnutrition, respiratory diseases caused by dusty air, and other diseases stemming from a lack of clean water. The United Nations established the UNCCD in 1994. Over 100 countries have committed to Land Degradation Neutrality targets, which are comparable to the climate agreements made at the Paris Climate Summit. These efforts involve working with farmers to protect existing arable land, restore degraded land, and manage water supplies more effectively. Land degradation is involved in complex interactions with climate change, agricultural expansion, and loss of biodiversity. Assessments of the impact of land degradation on the value of ecosystem services suggest that land degradation is costing humanity something on the order of $6–10 trillion per year in lost ecosystem services (Sutton et al., 2016).

6.5.5 Freshwater Depletion

A growing population demands a growing fraction of the world’s freshwater supplies. Despite the fact that water is a renewable resource, we are literally mining freshwater from underground aquifers and releasing it into the oceans where it instantly becomes saltwater. The rate at which we are converting freshwater to saltwater is concerning despite the fact that the hydrologic cycle creates freshwater from saltwater. Water covers 70% of our planet. Our vast oceans may lead us to think that they will always be plentiful, which in some sense they will. However, freshwater—the water humans need to survive—is incredibly rare. Only 3% of the world’s water is freshwater, and two-thirds of that is locked away in frozen glaciers (although many of these glaciers are melting and flowing into the world’s oceans). A sad reality is that over 1 billion people worldwide lack access to freshwater. Almost 3 billion people find water scarce for at least 1 month of the year. Inadequate sanitation is also a problem for almost 3 billion people. This results in exposure to diseases (e.g., cholera and typhoid fever) and other water-borne illnesses. Two million people, mostly children, die each year from diarrheic diseases alone. That is over 5,000 per day, or 230 per hour, or 3.8 per minute. Almost four people die every minute due to problems related to lack of freshwater.

Earth scientists have used hydrological models informed by satellite observations to study the changing distribution of freshwater throughout the world (Video 6.14). Many of the water systems that keep ecosystems thriving and feed a growing human population have become stressed (Video 6.15). Rivers, lakes, and aquifers are drying up or becoming too polluted to use. More than half the world’s wetlands have disappeared. Agriculture is the number one anthropogenic use of water and much of that water is wasted. Some countries such as Israel are pioneers in the efficient use of water for agriculture (e.g., drip irrigation). Many countries could benefit from adopting these sorts of agricultural practices. Climate change is altering patterns of weather and water around the world, causing shortages and droughts in some areas and floods in others. This situation is getting worse. By 2025, it is expected that two-thirds of the world’s population may face water shortages. Ecosystems around the world will suffer even more as people demand an increasing fraction of the available fresh water.

6.5.6 Plastic Waste

Plastics are an entirely human-made substance. Plastics are synthetic polymers made from oil or petroleum using chemicals to produce long-chained polymers. People make plastics. More people make more plastics. The very useful purpose for which many plastics are used (e.g., medical devices) combined with the fact that they are made from a nonrenewable resource we are using unsustainably mostly to provide energy and change our climate suggests we might want to change our ways. Nonetheless, plastics are accumulating throughout the planet in many places we do not want them. Globally we buy 1 million plastic bottles every minute. Five trillion plastic bags are used worldwide every year, which is almost 1,000 per person per year. Half of all plastic produced is designed for single-use purposes where it is used just once and then thrown away. Plastics and microplastics are now ubiquitous in our natural environment. They are becoming part of the Earth’s fossil record and a marker of the Anthropocene, our current geological era. A new marine microbial habitat called the “plastisphere” has recently been proposed. There are several gigantic ocean gyres of plastic trash (Video 6.16). There is growing recognition that our plastic waste is a global problem requiring improved governance of our commons. There are even some contested claims that the world’s oceans have more plastic in them than fish.

6.5.7 Water Pollution

Water pollution was not a global problem when the earth’s population was 1 billion people. As we approach a global population of 8 billion people, water pollution is a growing global concern. Water pollution is the contamination of water resources by a variety of materials that make the water unusable for drinking, cooking, cleaning, swimming, agriculture, and other activities. There are many things that can be regarded as water pollutants including chemicals, trash, and bacteria. Most pollution eventually ends up in water one way or another (see Section 6.5.6 on Plastic Pollution). Air pollution falls onto lakes and oceans (e.g., increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is acidifying the oceans). Land pollution can leach into groundwater and underground streams that flow into rivers and the sea. Trash dumped in a landfill can eventually pollute a water supply. Water pollutants may cause disease or act as poisons. Water supplies can be contaminated in rich countries as well as poor countries. To wit, Flint Michigan suffered tragic increases in lead in its municipal water supplies due to egregious malfeasance and yes, another example of failed governance (Video 6.17). Bacteria and parasites in inadequately treated sewage can enter drinking water supplies and result in digestive problems such as cholera and diarrhea. Hazardous chemicals, pesticides, and herbicides from industries, farms, homes, and golf courses can cause severe toxicity and immediate death. Water pollution in the Santiago River basin outside of Guadalajara, Mexico has caused chronic toxicity that has led to kidney failure in many local residents (Sutton & Camps, 2022). Water pollution can also lead to neurological problems or cancers. Water pollutants can be absorbed by humans when we use water for drinking and food preparation. Pollutants enter the digestive tract. From there, they can reach other organs in the body and cause various illnesses. Hazardous chemicals in water systems can also affect the animals and plants that live there. These organisms can survive with the chemicals in their systems, only to be eaten by humans who may then become ill or develop stronger toxic symptoms. Water pollution can manifest as algal blooms from excessive nutrient runoff from agricultural areas that can result in massive fish kills. Water pollution can manifest from heavy metal toxins. Mercury (Hg) pollution is an example that increases in concentration as you go up the food chain. Other forms of water pollution are oil spills, radioactive waste, and plastic trash (Video 6.18). The relationship between humans and water pollution is profoundly evident in the quality of the water of the Yamuna River before it enters New Delhi, India (population in 2022: 32 million; Video 6.19).

6.5.8 Air Pollution

Air pollution can be caused by natural phenomena such as forest fires triggered by lightning strikes; however, air pollution is now a global problem that is unequivocally associated with human activities. The worst air pollution “event” in the United States was the Donora Smog of 1948 in Donora Pennsylvania. Twenty-six people died when large clouds of polluted air descended on the town of Donora, PA (pop 14,000). The great smog of London in 1952 immediately caused 4,000 deaths but is believed to have resulted in over 10,000 deaths. The event prompted the British Parliament to implement the Clean Air Act of 1956. These “events” underemphasize the chronic and ongoing danger and threat of air pollution (Video 6.20).

Air pollution occurs in both indoor and outdoor environments when any chemical, physical, or biological agent modifies the natural characteristics of the atmosphere. Cookstoves, cars, trucks, factories, and forest fires are typical sources of air pollution. Particulate matter, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide are all common air pollutants that are of concern and are frequently measured. Outdoor and indoor air pollution causes respiratory and other diseases that cause impaired health and death. The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests that almost all of the global population (99%) breathe air that exceeds WHO guideline limits and contains high levels of pollutants, with low- and middle-income countries suffering from the highest exposures (Video 6.21). Air quality is directly linked to the earth’s climate and ecosystems. Policies to reduce air pollution represent a win–win strategy for mitigating climate change, improving human health, reducing health care costs, boosting economic productivity, and improving human health. What is taking us so long to execute these policies? The WHO estimates that over 4 million people die every year because of exposure to outdoor air pollution.

Differential exposure to air pollution based on economic status is another manifestation of social injustice. This article in the New York Times explores how Monu (a child who lived in a poor neighborhood of New Delhi) and Aamya (a child who lived in a wealthier neighborhood of New Delhi) are exposed to vastly different levels of air pollution (165.6 for Manu and 24.5 for Aamya). It is estimated that on average, living in New Delhi reduces one’s life expectancy by over 9 years and that the 3 days President Obama spent in New Delhi reduced his life expectancy by 6 h. Air pollution has negative consequences that have nothing to do with climate change; however, the role of air pollution is one of the many ways these “State of the World” problems interact in complex ways (Video 6.22).

6.5.9 Light Pollution

Light pollution is the inappropriate or excessive use of artificial light, which includes glare, sky glow, light trespass, and clutter. A common misconception is that light pollution is merely a nuisance for astronomers. This is not the case. Light pollution has serious human health consequences and also has negative impacts on a variety of ecosystem functions (Horton et al., 2023). Light pollution is adversely affecting our environment, our safety, our energy consumption, and our health. It is estimated that 80% of the world’s human population lives in light pollution (Falchi et al., 2016). There is a humbling awe that often takes place when one has the opportunity to see a beautiful natural night sky unblemished by light pollution. Our inability to see natural night skies may impair our connection to nature. This sort of awe and humility may need to be rekindled in the human species in order for us to become better stewards of this very precious planet that supports us. Sadly, over 90% of the people in the United States cannot see the Milky Way from where they live.

6.5.10 Noise Pollution

Stop reading this book for a moment and simply listen to the world around you. Noise pollution is unwanted sound. Many of us have become so used to unwanted sounds that we are unaware of the noise pollution we put up with on a regular basis. Silence becomes a rare experience for most human beings. Sound is unwanted when it interferes with normal activities such as sleeping, conversation, or disrupts or diminishes one’s quality of life. The fact that you cannot see, taste, or smell noise pollution may be the reason it has not received as much attention as other types of pollution, such as air pollution, or water pollution. We are surrounded by sounds yet most of us would probably not say we are surrounded by noise. Whether we consciously regard the sound around us as noise or not does not change the fact that noise pollution has impacts on our health. Noise pollution adversely impacts millions of people. Problems related to noise include stress-related illnesses, high blood pressure, speech interference, hearing loss, sleep disruption, and lost productivity. Noise-induced hearing loss is the most common health effect; however, research has shown that exposure to constant or high levels of noise can cause countless other adverse health effects.

Noise pollution can also impact the functioning of ecosystems. Consider a fox hunting in the dead of winter in Yellowstone National Park. Predators such as fox listen for mice and other prey burrowing under the snow. Too many snowmobiles buzzing around Yellowstone can cause the fox to not be able to hear the mice and possibly starve to death. This could also result in an overpopulation of mice. Noise pollution is another human impact on the environment that is often overlooked and minimized; nonetheless, its impacts can be quite significant both in terms of human health and ecosystem function including our marine ecosystems (Video 6.24).

6.5.11 Loss of Biodiversity

Five Mass Extinction events have taken place in the history of Earth. The evidence is becoming incontrovertible that we are beginning the 6th mass extinction (Kolbert, 2014; Video 6.25). All five of the previous extinctions were caused by natural phenomena (e.g., asteroids hitting the earth and the rise of cyanobacteria). This 6th extinction is caused entirely by humans. Skeptics of this proposition point to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s “Red List” which is a list of species that have gone extinct. This list is a very limited sample in that it focuses primarily on mammals and birds (Cowie et al., 2022). When we include insects, mollusks, and other less charismatic biota the picture is pretty stark.

Biodiversity loss is the deterioration or disappearance of biological diversity. Biological diversity (aka biodiversity) is roughly characterized as the variety of living things that inhabit the planet, the varying levels of biological organization, and their associated genetic variability. The IPBES and the United Nations presented an ambitious report (The Global Biodiversity Outlook) warning that of the 8 million species currently in existence on the planet 1 million of them are in danger of extinction.

Human civilization is failing to meet all the targets set for slowing down biodiversity destruction by 2020. This is the tragic and frightening finding presented in the fifth Global Biodiversity Outlook. The report not only warns of the alarming degradation of nature but points to it as a variable that increases the risk of future pandemics and other interrelated issues regarding the ability of humanity to survive on this planet. The Aichi Targets, part of the Strategic Plan for Biological Diversity established by the United Nations Environment Program were due to be met by the year 2020. We have not met the Aichi targets. This is a failure of governance that is increasingly difficult to correct with a growing population. Historically as the human population has grown the land area converted for human use has increased with an associated increase in the loss of biodiversity (Figure 6.8).

[figure number=Figure 6.8 caption=Population Growth and Biodiversity Loss filename=Fig_6.8.jpg]

6.5.12 Land Use and Cover Change

Human impact on the Earth’s land surfaces is widespread, inexorable, and unprecedented. Changes to the earth’s land cover and land use are among the most important. Changes to the surface of the earth are a significant cause, or forcing function, of global change. Land use is thus an essential component in all considerations of policy regarding environmental sustainability. Despite the fact that transforming the earth’s lands is one of the most ancient of all human-induced environmental impacts on the biosphere, land-change science was one of the last subjects to be formally established by the global environmental change science community. Satellite observations of the earth have enabled incredible assessments of the earth’s land use and land cover (Videos 6.27 and 6.28). A recent assessment of global land use change suggests that since 1960 land use change has affected almost one third of the world’s terrain (Winkler et al., 2021). A gross summary of global land cover change has been provided by Radwan et al. (2021). They found that while the broad categories of Agriculture, Forest, Natural Vegetation, Urban, and Bare Land generally experienced both losses and gains in total areal extent from 1992 to 2018, the net results were as follows: Agricultural areas experienced the largest net gains, forests experienced a net loss of areal extent, natural vegetation experienced a net loss of areal extent, urban areas increased and bare lands decreased. A summary of how these land use changes impacted ecosystem services was conducted by Costanza et al. (2014). Land cover change from the mid-1990s to 2010 resulted in the loss of over $20 trillion in ecosystem service value. The growing human population demands more food, which demands more land. This is regardless of the distribution of wealth. More people need more agricultural land. Land cover change is directly related to the growing human population.

Summary/Key Takeaways

This chapter explored how changes in human cognition likely enabled a seemingly ordinary primate (H. sapiens) to become the dominant species on the planet and dramatically change the planetary environment. There are many ways to look at how the earth has been transformed by human actions. We explored the idea of natural capital and the ecosystem services that natural capital generates. We explored valuing these ecosystem services and how we are decreasing the value of ecosystem services through our actions. We looked at the earth from a holistic systems perspective. We briefly examined some of the earth’s biogeochemical cycles and how human impacts are changing the earth at this very fundamental level. We finished the chapter with a brief summary of several of the typical ways we are exposed to human impacts on the environment: climate change and global warming, overfishing, deforestation, desertification, freshwater depletion, plastic waste, water pollution, air pollution, light pollution, noise pollution, loss of biodiversity, and land use and land cover change. This is a daunting and formidable suite of problems and a particularly important issue is the interrelatedness of these problems. They “interact.” These interactions can serve as multipliers that make the problems even more challenging. Consider the interactions between alcohol and some drugs. Mixing alcohol and drugs can be fatal in some cases. The good news is that effective policies to address some of these problems specifically result in co-benefits that mitigate other problems at the same time. A fundamental and controversial question we will tackle in Chapter 7 is related to whether or not the total size of the human population is a primary driver of these environmental challenges. There is no doubt that climate change has historically been driven by a small wealthy fraction of the world’s population; however, as we have just seen, climate change is not the only environmental challenge we face.

Comprehensive Questions

• What is the cognitive revolution?
• What are the relative rates of biological, cultural, and technological evolution, and provide some examples of problems that manifest when these rates are significantly different?
• What is Natural Capital and how is it used as a criticism of economic theory?
• Provide an analogy between financial capital and interest and natural capital and ecosystem services.
• What are ecosystem services and provide some examples?
• Describe several examples of “market failures” (e.g., monopoly, public goods, externalities, open access regimes).
• Describe three fundamental biogeochemical cycles and how humans have impacted them.
• Describe some anthropogenic impact on the hydrosphere, lithosphere, biosphere, and atmosphere.

References

Anthony, K. W., Daanen, R., Anthony, P., von Deimling, T. S., Ping, C.-L., Chanton, J. P., & Grosse, G. (2016). Methane emissions proportional to permafrost carbon thawed in Arctic lakes since the 1950s. Nature Geoscience, 9, 679–682. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2795

Attenborough, D., Sir David Attenborough addresses world leaders at COP26 [Video] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzM3D002dTU

Bar-On, Y. M., Phillips, R., & Milo, R. (2018). The biomass distribution on Earth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(25), 6506–6511. https://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506

Bernhard, A. (2010). The nitrogen cycle: Processes, players, and human impact. Nature Education Knowledge, 3(10), 25.

Biello, D. (2009). The origin of oxygen in Earth’s Atmosphere. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/origin-of-oxygen-in-atmosphere/

Bradshaw, C. J., Ehrlich, P. R., Beattie, A., Ceballos, G., Crist, E., Diamond, J., Ceballos, G., Crist, E., Diamond, J., Dirzo, R., Ehrlich, A. H., Harte, J., Harte, M. E., Pyke, G., Raven, P. H., Ripple, W. J., Saltré, F., Turnbul, C., Wackernagel, M., & Blumstein, D. T. (2021). Underestimating the challenges of avoiding a ghastly future. Frontiers in Conservation Science, 9, 615419.

Burkhard, B., & Maes, J. (Eds.). (2017). Mapping ecosystem services (374 pp). Pensoft Publishers.

Carson, R. (2002 [1907–1964]). Silent spring. Houghton Mifflin.

Ceballos, G., & Ehrlich, P. R. (2018). The misunderstood sixth mass extinction. Science, 360(6393), 1080–1081.

Combi, M. (2016). Cultures and technology: An analysis of some of the changes in progress—digital, global and local culture. In K. Borowiecki, N. Forbes, & A. Fresa (Eds.), Cultural heritage in a changing world. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29544-2_1

Costanza, R., Anderson, S. J., Sutton, P., Mulder, K., Mulder, O., Kubiszewski, I., Wang, X., Liu, X., Pérez-Maqueo, O., Luisa Martinez, M., Jarvis, D., & Dee, G. (2012). The global value of coastal wetlands for storm protection. Global Environmental Change, 70, 102328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102328

Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P., & van den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0

Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Braat, L., Kubiszewski, I., Fioramonti, L., Sutton, P., Farber, S., & Grasso, M. (2017). Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosystem Services, 28(Part A), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008

Costanza, R., De Groot, R., Sutton, P., Van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S. J., Kubiszewski, I., Farber, S., & Turner, R. K. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26, 152–158. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378014000685

Cowie, R. H., Bouchet, P., & Fontaine, B. (2022). The sixth mass extinction: Fact, fiction or speculation? Biological Reviews, 97, 640–663.

Daily, G. C. (1997). Nature’s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press. http://site.ebrary.com/id/2000980

Daly, H. E., & Farley, J. C. (2004). Ecological economics: Principles and applications.

Dasgupta, P. (2008). Nature in economics. Environ Resource Econ, 39, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9178-4

DeGrazia, D. (2020). Sentience and consciousness as bases for attributing interests and moral status: considering the evidence and speculating slightly beyond. In L. Johnson, A. Fenton, & A. Shriver (Eds.), Neuroethics and nonhuman animals (pp. 17–31). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31011-0_2

de Groot, R., Costanza, R., Braat, L., Brander, L., Burkhard, B., Carrascosa, J. L., Crossman, N., Egoh, B., Geneletti, D., Hansjuergens, B., Hein, L., Jacobs, S. J., Kubiszewski, I., Leimona, B., Li, B., Liu, J., Luque, S., Maes, J., Marais, C., Willemen, L. (2018). Ecosystem services are nature’s contributions to people: response to: Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science Progress, 359(6373), [ta]. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6373/270/tab-e-letters

Dhara, C., & Singh, V. (2021). The delusion of infinite economic growth. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-delusion-of-infinite-economic-growth/

Dr. Seuss (1971). The lorax. Random House.

Eddy, T. D., Lam, V. W. Y., Reygondeau, G, Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Greer, K., Palomares, M. L. D., Bruno, J. F., Ota, Y, & Cheung, W. W. L. (2021). Global decline in capacity of coral reefs to provide ecosystem services. One Earth, 4(9), 1278–1285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.08.016

Edixhoven, J. D., Gupta, J., & Savenije, H. H. G. (2013). Recent revisions of phosphate rock reserves and resources: reassuring or misleading? An in-depth literature review of global estimates of phosphate rock reserves and resources. Earth System Dynamics, 5(2), 491–507.

Elvidge, C. D., Ziskin, D., Baugh, K. E., Tuttle, B. T., Ghosh, T., Pack, D. W., Erwin, E. H., & Zhizhin, M. A. (2009). A fifteen year record of global natural gas flaring derived from satellite data. Energies, 2(3), 595–622. https://doi.org/10.3390/en20300595

Ericksen, P. J., Ingram, J. S., & Liverman, D. M. (2009). Food security and global environmental change: emerging challenges. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(4), 373–377.

Erisman, J. W., Sutton, M. A., Galloway, J., Klimont, Z., & Winiwarter, W. (2008). How a century of ammonia synthesis changed the world. Nature Geoscience, 1(10), 636–639. https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo325

Falchi, F., Cinzano, P., Duriscoe, D., Kyba, C. C., Elvidge, C. D., Baugh, K., Portnov, B. A., Rybnikova, N. A., & Furgoni, R. (2016). The new world atlas of artificial night sky brightness. Science Advances, 2(6), e1600377.

Farley, J., & Costanza, R. (2010). Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global. Ecological Economics, 69(11): 2060–2068.

Farley, J., & Kish, K. (2021). Ecological economics: The next 30 years. Ecological Economics, 190, 107211. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800921002706?dgcid=rss_sd_all

Fowler, D., Coyle, M., Skiba, U., Sutton, M. A., Cape, J. N., Reis, S., Sheppard, L. J., Jenkins, A., Grizzetti, B., Galloway, J. N., Vitousek, P., Leach, A., Bouwman, A. F., Butterbach-Bahl, K., Dentener, F., Stevenson, D., Amann, M., & Voss, M. (2013). The global nitrogen cycle in the twenty-first century. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 368, 20130164. http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0164

Global Ocean Commission. (2014). From decline to recovery: A rescue package for the global ocean. Global Ocean Commission.

Gorzelak, M. A., Asay, A. K., Pickles, B. J., & Simard, S. W. (2015). Inter-plant communication through mycorrhizal networks mediates complex adaptive behaviour in plant communities. AoB Plants, 7, plv050. https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/plv050

Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298, 1569–1579.

Hickel, J. (2021). Less is More: How degrowth will save the world. Windmill Books Penguin Random House.

Hockett, C. F. (1960). Logical considerations in the study of animal communication. In W. E. Lanyon & W. N. Tavolga (Eds.), Animals sounds and animal communication (pp. 392–430). American Institute of Biological Sciences.

Hsu, F. C., Elvidge, C., Zhizhin, M. N., Baugh, K., Ghosh, T., & Kroodsma, D. (2019, December). Fishery management from space: Matching VIIRS boat detection with VMS tracks. In AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 2019, pp. OS31B-15.

Hutchinson, W. G., Chilton, S. M., & Davis, J. (1995). Measuring non-use value of environmental goods and services using the contingent valuation method: Problems of information and cognition and the application of the cognitive questionnaire design methods. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 46, 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1995.tb00755.x

Jaynes, J. (1976). The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind. Houghton Mifflin.

Karalis, D. T., Karalis, T., Karalis, S., & Kleisiari, A. S. (2020). Genetically modified products, perspectives and challenges. Cureus, 12(3), e7306. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.7306

Kavanagh, C. (2019). New tech, new threats, and new governance challenges: An opportunity to craft smarter responses?

Kolbert, E. (2014). The sixth extinction: An unnatural history. Henry Holt and Company.

Leopold, A. (1949 [1886–1948]). A Sand County almanac, and Sketches here and there.

Malthus, T. R. (1798). An Essay on the Principle of Population, as it affects the Future Improvement of Society with remarks on the Speculations of Mr. Godwin, M. Condorcet, and Other Writers.

Mäthger, L. M., & Hanlon, R. T. (2006). Anatomical basis for camouflaged polarized light communication in squid. Biology Letters, 2, 494–496. http://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2006.0542

Mazzocchi, F. (2020). A deeper meaning of sustainability: Insights from indigenous knowledge. The Anthropocene Review, 7(1), 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019619898888

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Synthesis. Island Press. p. 137. Retrieved April 5, from https://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/About.html#:~:text=Initiated%20in%202001%2C%20the%20objective,contribution%20to%20human%20well%2Dbeing

Monbiot, G. (2014, July 24). Put a price on nature? We must stop this neoliberal road to ruin. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/natural-capital-neoliberal-road-ruin-george-monbiot-experts-debate

Narayan, M. (2021). Pollution likely to cut 9 years of life expectancy for 40% of Indians. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/india/pollution-likely-cut-9-years-life-expectancy-40-indians-2021-09-01/

Nigam, A. (2010). Capital myths and the ‘New Copernican Revolution’. Economic and Political Weekly, 45(38), 13–17. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25742086

Nordhaus, W. D. (1992). An optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases. Science, 258(5086), 1315–1319. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.258.5086.1315

Oelkers, E. H., Valsami-Jones, E., & Roncal-Herrero, T. (2008). Phosphate mineral reactivity: From global cycles to sustainable development. Mineralogical Magazine, 72(1), 337–340.

Pazoki, M., & Ghasemzadeh, R. (2020). Waste management. In: Municipal landfill leachate management (pp. 1–19). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50212-6_1

Porto, R. G., de Almeida, R. F., Cruz-Neto, O., Tabarelli, M., Viana, B. F., Peres, C. A., & Lopes, A. V. (2020). Pollination ecosystem services: A comprehensive review of economic values, research funding and policy actions. Food Security, 12, 1425–1442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-020-01043-w

Radwan, T. M., Blackburn, G. A., Whyatt, J. D., & Atkinson, P. M. (2021). Global land cover trajectories and transitions. Scientific Reports, 11, 12814. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92256-2

Rees, W. E. (2020). Ecological economics for humanity’s plague phase. Ecological Economics, 169, 106519.

Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T. M., Galetti, M., Alamgir, M., Crist, E., Mahmoud, M. I., Laurance, W. F., & 15,364 scientist signatories from 184 countries (2017). World scientists’ warning to humanity: A second notice. BioScience, 67(12), 1026–1028. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix125

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S. III, Lambin, E., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H., Nykvist, B., De Wit, C. A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P. K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Foley, J. (2009). Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 32. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/

Sayler, K. M. (2019). Defense primer: U.S. policy on lethal autonomous weapon systems. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved March 27, 2019, from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IF11150.pdf

Schlesinger, W. H., & Bernhardt, E. S. (2013). Biogeochemistry: An analysis of global change (3rd ed., 672 pp). Academic Press.

Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is beautiful; economics as if people mattered. Harper & Row.

Spash, C. L. (2008). How much is that ecosystem in the window? The one with the biodiverse trail. Environmental Values, 17(2), 259–284.

Stern, N. (2008). The economics of climate change. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 98(2), 1–37. https://www.jstor.org/stable/29729990

Sutton, P. C. (2014). Space matters: Exploring problematic spatial issues in the valuation of ecosystem services. In K. N. Ninan (Ed.), Valuing ecosystem services. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781955161.00017

Sutton, P. C. (2022). UN Climate Summit – COP26: ‘Much ado about nothing’ or ‘Nothing ado about much’? American Research Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 5(2), 14–16.

Sutton, P. C., & Anderson, S. J. (2016). Holistic valuation of urban ecosystem services in New York City’s Central Park. Ecosystem Services, 19, 87–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.04.003

Sutton, P. C., Anderson, S. J., Costanza, R., & Kubiszewski, I. (2016). The ecological economics of land degradation: Impacts on ecosystem service values. Ecological Economics, 129, 182–192.

Sutton, P. C., & Camps, S. P. (2022). A CIVIC duty for system change. Novel Research in Sciences, 12(3). NRS.000793. https://doi.org/10.31031/NRS.2022.12.000793

Toman, M. (1998). Why not to calculate the value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Ecological Economics, 25(1), 57–60.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2013). Inventory of US greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions

Vatn, A., & Bromley, D. W. (1994). Choices without prices without apologies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26, 129–148.

Vitousek, P. M., Aber, J. D., Howarth, R. W., Likens, G. E., Matson, P. A., Schindler, D. W., Schlesinger, W. H., & Tilman, D. G. (1997). Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: Sources and consequences. Ecological Applications, 7, 737–750.

Wald, C. (2022). The urine revolution: How recycling pee could help to save the world. Nature, 602, 202–206. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00338-6

Ward, J. D., Sutton, P. C., Werner, A. D., Costanza, R., Mohr, S. H., & Simmons, C. T. (2016). Is decoupling GDP growth from environmental impact possible? PLoS ONE, 11(10): e0164733. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164733

Wilson, E. O. (2016). Half-Earth: Our planet’s fight for life. Liveright Publishing Corporation, a division of W. W. Norton & Company.

Williams, C. A., Collatz, J. G., Masek, J., & Goward, S. N. (2012). Carbon consequences of forest disturbance and recovery across the conterminous United States. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 26, GB1005. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010gb003947

Winkler, K., Fuchs, R., Rounsevell, M., & Herold, M. (2021). Global land use changes are four times greater than previously estimated. Nature Communications, 12, 2501. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22702-2

Yong, E. (2018). The CRISPR Baby scandal gets worse by the day. Atlantic. Retrieved December 3, 2018, from https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/12/15-worrying-things-about-crispr-babies-scandal/577234/

New References

Costanza, R., Atkins, P. W. B., Hernandez-Blanco, M., & Kubiszewski, I. (2021). Common asset trusts to effectively steward natural capital and ecosystem services at multiple scales. Journal of Environmental Management, 280, 111801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111801.

Horton, K. G., Buler, J. J., Anderson, S. J., Burt, C. S., Collins, A. C., Dokter, A. M., Guo, F., Sheldon, D., Tomaszewska, M. A., & Henebry, G. M. (2023). Artificial light at night is a top predictor of bird migration stopover density. Nature Communications, 14, 7446. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-43046-z

Sutton, P. C., & Camps, S. P. (2022). A CIVIC duty for system change. Novel Research in Sciences, 12(3), NRS.000793. https://doi.org/10.31031/NRS.2022.12.000793