Global Environmental Change and the Transformation of the Earth System

2018 ◽  
pp. 207-228
Author(s):  
Karl Bruckmeier
Author(s):  
Erle C. Ellis

The challenge for the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) in 1999 was how to integrate the evidence of humans transforming Earth’s functioning as a system into a coherent overview of global environmental change. The IGBP report Global Change and the Earth System: A Planet Under Pressure (2004) identified a dramatic mid-20th-century step-change in anthropogenic global environmental change, which would come to be called ‘The Great Acceleration’. ‘The Great Acceleration’ outlines the complex, multi-causal, system-level set of processes that have altered the Earth system, from domestication of land to human alterations of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere. It also discusses tipping points that result in relatively rapid, non-linear, and potentially irreversible ‘step-changes’ in Earth’s climate system.


Author(s):  
Carole L. Crumley

Recent, widely recognized changes in the Earth system are, in effect, changes in the coupled human–environment system. We have entered the Anthropocene, when human activity—along with solar forcing, volcanic activity, precession, and the like—must be considered a component (a ‘driver’) of global environmental change (Crutzen and Stoermer 2000; Levin 1998). The dynamic non-linear system in which we live is not in equilibrium and does not act in a predictable manner (see Fairhead, chapter 16 this volume for further discussion of non-equilibrium ecology). If humankind is to continue to thrive, it is of utmost importance that we identify the ideas and practices that nurture the planet as well as our species. Our best laboratory for this is the past, where long-, medium-, and short-term variables can be identified and their roles evaluated. Perhaps the past is our only laboratory: experimentation requires time we no longer have. Thus the integration of our understanding of human history with that of the Earth system is a timely and urgent task. Archaeologists bring two particularly useful sets of skills to this enterprise: how to collaborate, and how to learn from the past. Archaeology enjoys a long tradition of collaboration with colleagues in both the biophysical sciences and in the humanities to investigate human activity in all planetary environments. Archaeologists work alongside one another in the field, live together in difficult conditions, welcome collaboration with colleagues in other disciplines—and listen to them carefully—and tell compelling stories to an interested public. All are rare skills and precious opportunities. Until recently few practitioners of biophysical, social science, and humanities disciplines had experience in cross-disciplinary collaboration. Many scholars who should be deeply engaged in collaboration to avert disaster (for example, specialists in tropical medicine with their counterparts in land use change) still speak different professional ‘languages’ and have very different traditions of producing information. C. P. Snow, in The Two Cultures (1993 [1959]), was among the first to warn that the very structure of academia was leading to this serious, if unintended, outcome.


Author(s):  
Steven Yearley

By the end of the old millennium, social movement organizations (SMOs) had become the most popularly acclaimed and, in many respects, trusted agencies advocating global environmental change. They had won widespread public admiration because of their daring and heroic undertakings, because of the verve and symbolic acuity of their actions and because they seemed to be in the vanguard of environmental change. Of course, commentators noted that governments and inter-governmental agencies might have more power to set and influence environmental standards, that companies might be making the greatest impacts on the environment, that it was often scientists who identified possible environmental problems which were ‘off the radar’ of environmental groups, and that the daily consumer choices of the industrialized world’s massed citizens and commuters might outweigh their efforts. All the same, social movements represented the quintessential environmental actor. In cultural terms, environmental organizations stood for the environment in a way which the Environment Minister, the collected scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or Shell simply could not. Moreover, those movement organizations which focused on issue of global environmental change seemed particularly successful; in the late 1980s through to the early 1990s—around the time of the Earth Summit— they were rewarded with disproportionately rapid growth and cultural cachet (see McCormick 1991: 152–5 who cites Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) in this regard). And their market prominence within the NGO sector has largely continued. At the same time, social movements commanded the attention of social scientists and commentators. For one thing, social movements and the associated movement organizations appeared to confound expectations. Far from politics as usual, social movements indicated how successfully and how enduringly people could be organized—or organize themselves —around non-conventional political objectives. Standard economic and political theories did not anticipate that people ‘ought’ to mobilize so successfully around a diffuse political objective such as global environmental improvement.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document