Opinion: In Earth time and terms, we humans pack the punch of a massive nuclear explosion or a big asteroid hit.

In the past 70 years – a split second in Earth’s 4.5-billion-year life to date – our eight-fold increase in our greenhouse gas emissions has triggered lightning-fast changes in the planet’s climate and the rest of nature, our life support system.

Sure, we took the past couple of centuries to grow the population and build the energy, economic and technology systems that have triggered that eruption of emissions since 1950. Yet, even those few hundred years were but a blip in Earth time.

But we have done enough, fast enough, to cause profound changes in the five, inter-linked Earth systems: the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, cryosphere and geosphere.

Moreover, the speed of change of all five systems is accelerating, and the changes are feeding on each other in a reinforcing cycle.

Quite simply, nature is now changing far faster than we humans are – and that’s on a human time scale, not a planetary one.

Across all five Earth systems, nature is moving far faster than we modelled or are responding to. Examples are forest fires, biodiversity loss, ice loss, and, above all, ocean heating.

“Scientists are freaking out about ocean temperatures – it’s like an omen of the future,” the New York Times wrote this week.

Of course, we humans are a mere blip in Earth time. Climate change (triggered by nature, not by a species) about 75,000 years ago caused the entire human population of the planet to shrink to some 15,000 fertile adults worldwide, most of them confined to a high plateau that today we call northern Ethiopia.

“We’ve never been so close – in fact, one cannot be closer – to extinction,” wrote Johan Rockström and Mattias Klum in their 2015 book, Big World Small Planet. Rockström, a Swedish scientist, was one of the pioneers of the Earth Systems science discipline some 40 years ago.

One of the influential fruits of that science field is the Planetary Boundaries framework produced by the Stockholm Resilience Centre under Rockström’s leadership. These are the nine boundaries, physical and geochemical, within which humanity must live if we want a long future on this planet. But over the past couple of decades we’ve broken through all nine.

We still try to fool ourselves that our planetary impact is so small, or that the Earth will somehow adjust and recover in ways that will still suit us. So, we keep accelerating the rate at which we emit greenhouse gases, extract natural resources, degrade the biosphere, kill off species, and generally trash the planet, which is simply our life support system.

Science shows us how delusional we are. As does common sense. We can see, hear, feel, taste and smell the damage we’re doing.

Our impact is so enormous, we humans are now the biggest single driver of planetary change.

Thus, geologist have named a new geological epoch after us. We are now in the Anthropocene.

To identify each epoch and era in the geological history of the world, scientists find a unique marker detectable everywhere on the planet. For the Anthropocene, they chose a human-made radioactive isotope created in airborne nuclear explosions – the two bombs dropped on the Japanese and the 528 airborne nuclear tests to date.

The geologists set 1950 as the start of our epoch, just as airborne tests were proliferating. That was also the date when human activity began to rapidly ramp up after World War Two, as did our impact on the Earth.

Termed the Great Acceleration, this phenomenon of human progress and destruction is summarised in nine socio-economic measures since 1750 (the start of the Industrial Revolution), and nine markers of Earth Systems’ health.

While nature is racing away with profound systems change, we humans are tinkering with incremental change. That’s doubly dangerous.

We keep fuelling nature’s system changes which are increasingly intolerable for us; and we keep avoiding the radical human solutions that would ensure everything we do works with nature, not against it. In other words, actions that would give us a liveable future.

Of course, it’s hard to let go of the systems and technologies that have got us this far. In every field of human endeavour, we seek short-term gains. If we’re winners, we hang on to what we’ve got. If we’re losers, it’s hard to notch up wins of our own. Even harder to reform the systems.

So, true sustainability, in all senses of that word – economic, social, ecological, and cultural – eludes us.

Doing what we’re doing just a bit better or a tad faster dooms us to failure. For example, here in New Zealand we’ve been picking away at a bit more renewable electricity, a few electric cars, tentative steps in decarbonising industry and making farming slightly more sustainable.

Meanwhile, we’re faltering on housing affordability, inequality of income, wealth and opportunities, education, health, environmental measures, and other benchmarks of a thriving society.

We, along with the rest of humankind, must figure out how to achieve an utterly unprecedent speed of change, scale of change and complexity of change. Everything, everywhere, all at once – to borrow from the multiverse film that scooped last year’s Oscars. 

The first step is to own up to the crises we’re creating; the second is to admit the failure of our current ways of trying to fix them; and the third is to find ways to discuss, conceive, commit to and achieve rapid and deep systemic change that will give us a future.

But we can only do that if we transcend our short-termism and our social and political divides. That’s the new focus of this column, which henceforth will be longer and monthly as I embark on a big overhaul of my knowledge.

In my search for solutions, many people past and present will inspire me. Starting with those 15,000 or so human survivors trapped by extreme climate shifts in Africa 75,000 years ago. Their only solution was to move on in the hope that Nature would provide food and more benign conditions elsewhere.

It did. But it was some 50,000 years before, as Rockström and Klum write, “the Earth’s stormy climate tapered off, as we left the last ice age and entered a planetary state of natural harmony” in which humanity has flourished.

Then about 12,000 years ago, the climate became so benign and settled humans learnt how to be farmers rather than hunter-gatherers. More settled and secure, they figured out how to develop new social structures and technologies. Thus began our extraordinary ascent in knowledge and power.

Geologists named that epoch the Holocene. But that’s now over and Nature is changing dramatically once more. This time because of us.

We’ve caused the Anthropocene. It’s entirely on us whether we figure out how to survive it. If we don’t the Earth will carry on, vastly changed, without us.

Join the Conversation

6 Comments

  1. Unfortunately we have only just embarked on the first step, owning the crisis we have created, and many have not even done that. Even most of those who admit it is getting bad still don’t acknowledge the imminent catastrophic consequences of our actions, while others are still trapped in the paradigm of economic growth. How can we change?

  2. As I see it Rod any opportunities we have to collectively address our climate and biospheric crises are very limited, the corporate/elite forces railed against this are significant. It would seem that these people are fuelled by an all- powerful drug which urges ever onward the drive for more wealth. Already they have colonised the world’s resources and are showing zero signs of letting go. Look at the evidence of this; the insatiable exploitation of what remains, the staggering disparity of wealth and income, the immoral disregard for the environment and for other sectors of society. Where is democracy? Where do the politicians stand? Well, there is no democracy, the politicians largely act in the interests of the corporate/elites. Democracy was supposed to be an agreement between rulers and the general population, granting rulers the temporary right to govern on the condition that the people’s livelihoods and needs were adequately accounted for. It could be recalled if and when necessary to restore order. What we have instead with our so-called democracies worldwide is the situation where the rulers make promises they have no intention of keeping, all the while cementing the positions of the unelected corporate/elites. There is no pathway to restore order.

    One of the grave mistakes we make is falling for the ‘solution’ of ‘greening’ the economy. The reason this is a mistake is that the economy is a set, neoliberal one designed explicitly to enhance the wealth of the wealthy, and is inherently unsustainable due to the limitations of the resources of the biosphere. So the principle of ‘greening’ this monstrosity is an oxymoron, an incongruent confrontation of two opposing forces. No, we need to start somewhere else.

    There are two ways in which any sustainable change can be bought about, and the crises averted, as I see it. Two only. The first is that we collectively oust the corporate/elites from the role of governance, and restore democracy. There are all sorts of ways of doing this of course but the issue here is that we manage to get it done. From there we introduce a sustainable economy-a monumental sea change in the way of life for those of us currently enjoying the fruits of the biosphere. This will be a very arduous exercise but at least it will allow us some control over our own destinies, unlike option 2. Option 2 is for us to carry on as we are and ignore the warning signs that collapse is imminent. This method has us not needing to address our fantasies of a wealthy future but suffers from the fact that any sort of control in a new economic design is taken away from us. Even the elites will be powerless. This is where a sustainable economy will be forced upon us is by natural forces. Like the story of some 75,000 years ago on the high plateau of northern Ethiopia.

  3. If a journey begins with the first step…..Perhaps we should look inside ourselves – and then around us…. and decide where our riches lie?
    In the bank? Or in the air we breathe, the trees and flowers, the people we love? Is it so hard?
    Jane Gleeson-White – SIX CAPITALS – The revolution capitalism has to have – or, Can Accountants Save The Planet?

  4. We can see where the thrust of the global economy has become focused on growth – growth of exploitation of our ecospheres. This is just a continuation of the last maybe 10,000 years (since agriculture). But it can be seen that the end result of this is accumulation of wealth into greater amounts and fewer hands (the multi-billionaires, approaching trillionaires). A sort of ‘singularity’?

    How did this concept of a ‘singularity’ come to Stephen Hawking? Was it his originality? Or was there already an understanding in the collective subconscious of the human species /civilization which was working on us?

  5. Thank you Rod. I think humanity may survive because the survival impulse is so strong and, en masse, I expect it can bring about enormous change at enormous speed. I think climate change will kill huge numbers of us, myself included. Oddly this doesn’t worry me. I have enormous faith in the human spirit and believe that in this century we could be on the cusp of profound change for the better. I very much look forward to your new columns.

Leave a comment