Black Carbon

Black carbon is produced from incomplete combustion of organic matter. It comes in a range of forms from soot to charcoal. The aim of this post is to outline the environmental impacts from black carbon; these include both climate and health effects.

Highwood and Kinnersely (2006) suggest 4 ways in which black carbon can impact climate:

1. Direct effect: Black carbon absorbs solar radiation affecting the earth’s albedo. This reduces the solar radiation that reaches the surface and contributes to global dimming and surface fluxes of heat and moisture.
2. Indirect effect: Black carbon within other aerosols affects the microphysics of clouds, changing droplet size and frequency of precipitation
3. Semi-direct effect: Studies of the Indian ocean and South America indicate black carbon increases the atmospheric heating rate and alters humidity. This then affects whether clouds can form and persist
4. Indirect surface albedo effect: Deposition of black carbon on snow and ice can cause them to melt and lead to warming, particularly in the northern hemisphere. The deposits darken the surface and decreases reflectivity i.e. increasing absorption and accelerating melting of ice and snow cover.  

The World Health Organisation reported on the health effects of black carbon in 2012:

• Ischaemic heart disease
• Adult on-set of asthma
• Atherosclerosis
• Heart rate variability
• Arrhythmia
• Blood pressure
• May reduce air quality, causing heavy smog and carrying toxic chemicals to the lungs, defence cells and systemic blood circulation (Highwood and Kinnersely, 2006) – e.g. the Great Smog of London, which lead to an approximated upper bound of 10,000 premature deaths

Black carbon is widely thought to have contributed to global warming and many premature deaths. Thus, there has been a demand for cleaner air quality and less black carbon emissions. Next post we will begin to look at the economic implications of one method of controlling such emissions.  

Emerging Markets of the Anthropocene

Various earth system processes have different planetary boundaries, as stated by Steffen et al. (2015), which may have harmful, irreversible impacts, should they be exceeded. In the table below, the various boundaries to each process are illustrated.

  

The two key core planetary boundaries that are focused on are climate change and biosphere integrity. Climate change has a fundamental importance for earth systems as it affects them all. Biosphere integrity increases resilience to abrupt and gradual change from global processes such as climate change, and is thus of vital importance.  

Steffen et al. also note that the ‘anthropogenic perturbation levels’ of 4 of the earth system processes, already exceed the proposed planetary boundary. These are: climate change, biosphere integrity, biogeochemical flows, and land system change. Therefore, these processes are seen as priorities to focus policies on. Tom Bawden states that the nine threats to life on earth are: biodiversity loss, deforestation, climate change, eutrophication (nitrate/phosphate in water), ocean acidification, freshwater consumption, chemical pollution (e.g. plastics), aerosol pollution and stratospheric ozone depletion. These are key contemporary issues and are also seen as environmental priorities. 

New markets being invested in include alternative energy fuels such as solar power, nuclear power, wind power and geothermal energy. Though they all have their pros and cons, alternative energy sources are being increasingly invested in. There is also an increasing market for cars with lower carbon footprints and electric cars.  Carbon credits are also a dynamic market as a result of the Kyoto Protocol. There are also investments in innovative new methods and initiatives as part of climate intervention, otherwise known as Geoengineering.

For example, projects such as the SPICE project which aims to inject particles into the stratosphere as an attempt to manage and manipulate climate.  The project is now defunct, however there is a widening market for initiatives such as SPICE. However, even if geoengineering is successful to the extent that human activity has little effect on the earth systems, it is only a matter of time until we run out of resources, such as fossil fuels and fish. This has led to issues such as biodiversity loss, which has opened up new markets for fishery management, and driving up the price for certain fish species that are no longer in abundance. 

Whilst new markets may be emerging to combat climate change, I don’t believe any markets will fully disappear within the next decade. It is not in human nature to give up on a practice that harms the earth; instead, we tend to find new, innovative ways to continue to enjoy luxuries. Therefore, I believe markets will only emerge and develop here on, and we will see a growth in aggregate demand and thus the global economy.

Population Growth: The Key to Stabilising the Economy?

Steffen et al. (2015) debates whether the Great Acceleration can continue. They argue that the history of economic growth has consisted of periods of recession and boom; otherwise known as the business cycle trend. However, they then draw on Costanza et al.’s (2012) suggestion that the stabilisation of population may lead to a stabilisation of economic growth. I however, am not convinced in the slightest.

The first concept I learnt in economics was that of the basic economic problem: scarcity. The nature of being human is that we always want more. There is always something more we could have, and we strive to achieve this maximum level of happiness through the acquisition of goods. Resources are finite and are thus insufficient to satisfy all human desires. Due to this, the population may begin to stabilise, but human aggregate demand, may not fall. In fact, demand may increase, as there are fewer people to distribute GDP to. Therefore, GDP per capita would be higher (as I’ve stated in a previous post), encouraging people to spend more and fuelling economic growth.

Assets would continue to increase in value, as the economy booms, until such a time when the ‘asset bubble’ bursts, and prices fall dramatically. These exogenous variables have a detrimental effect on the economy, which often leads to a recession. The economy then recovers and the cycle continues. My view is therefore that, regardless of whether or not population is stable, declining, or increasing, the business cycle will continue. By collating UN data, I have created a graph showing population growth and GDP growth for Hungary between 1992 and 2014.

From this graph, it is clear that population growth has been negative since 1992, demonstrating Hungary’s population decline. However, in 1992, GDP growth is shown to be at -3.06%, and in 2004, it is shown to be at 4.79%. This demonstrates that though population is declining, the nation continues to undergo periods of boom and recession, i.e. the business cycle.

So, human population growth rates will not necessarily affect aggregate demand unless population declines significantly enough. The magnitude of effect that human activity is having on earth systems however, may lead to investment and indeed the development of different markets. Next post will discuss emerging markets of the Anthropocene with the focus of prioritising planetary boundaries.

An Introduction to the Emerging Climate-Economy System

Looking at past trends, one may conclude that global CO2 emissions and economic growth indicate a highly positive correlation. The reason for this is of course that most CO2 emissions are being produced by fossil fuel combustion. Kellie-Smith and Cox (2011) however, assert that there may be a limit to which these two variables have a positive correlation. Damages due to the subsequent effects of fossil fuel exhaustion – I’m referring to global warming, in case you hadn’t guessed – may in fact now begin to hinder economic growth. Thus, it is even possible that CO2 emissions and economic growth will flip from a positive to a negative correlation.

After some rather lengthy mathematical derivations, Kellie-Smith and Cox, arrive at a complex set of formulae, which predict the critical rates of global CO2 emissions growth that will induce dampened or long-term boom-bust oscillations in human wealth. They assert that presently, at the climate-economy system’s climate equilibrium state, economic growth rates are counteracted by the impacts of climate change on the economy. In this climate state, economic growth rate = rate of decarbonisation. Due to this, it is essential to mitigate to ensure long-term sustainable growth. However, Kellie-Smith and Cox find that decarbonisation may not be enough to mitigate these effects. Conclusively, they argue that more effort needs to be invested in not only mitigation, but also adaptation and perhaps lower but more sustainable rates of economic growth.

So… what affects economic growth? Well, it depends.

Firstly how do we measure economic growth? For the purpose of the rest of the blog, let’s assume the measure is GDP/capita at Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). The reason I choose GDP/capita at PPP is simply because I wish to measure average incomes. Although inequalities and extremities will not be accounted for, this measure will provide some insight into how much the average consumer earns in a country, and thus, how much the average consumer spends relative to the prices of goods in their country; this then contributes to economic growth.

Secondly, there are just so many variables that could affect economic growth including:

• Demand & Supply of all markets and industries
• Interest rates, investment & savings
• Business and consumer confidence
• Government spending, regime and structure – corruption?
• War, Famine, Disease, Drought, Natural Hazards
• Trade openness
• Infrastructural & other development
• Post-colonial power relations
• Access to healthcare, sanitation

When there are so many compounding factors affecting economic growth, I think it is fair to say that it may be incredibly hard to predict future global growth rates. We would have to first assess the magnitude of each variable’s effect on economic growth in different countries, and then further assign weights to countries for how much they could potentially contribute to global economic growth. However, there are some variables, which are quite clearly very important predictors of economic growth, such as aggregate demand. Next post, we shall look at the future of such predictors and what they imply for the future of economic growth.

The Great Acceleration

Back to economic implications of the Anthropocene… two posts ago we came across Steffen et al.’s socio-economic trends graph (featured below). Upon first glance, it really is quite clear that since the beginning of the Global Acceleration in 1950, the economy has boomed (hence the name I guess). Population has increased exponentially, augmenting aggregate global demand, giving rise to all of these wonderfully booming economies (and the not so wonderful climate change).

 So what to make of all of this data? Well, lets start with talking about population growth, a very controversial issue. You may have come across the UN population predictions graph below based on data, which can be seen here:

The medium fertility assumption is based on projections using the Bayesian Hierarchical model. The high and low variant projections are based on +/- 0.5 of the medium fertility rate assumptions respectively. The wide consensus, including Steffen et al., tends to assume that of medium fertility assumptions. Steffen et al. assert that humanity has passed ‘peak child’, and thus suggest exponential population growth will soon come to a standstill. Assuming population growth has a significant positive correlation with economic growth, if population growth stagnates, will economic growth and all linked socio-economic trends stagnate as well?

On the other hand, rapid urbanisation may initially counteract the effect of levelling of population growth on economic growth. Over 50% of the global population now live in urban areas (Seto, 2010). We are no strangers to the fact that urbanisation leads to more materialistic appetites. In such a society, people (including you, yes you) crave the latest iPhones and other luxuries; this may in itself be enough to sustain economic growth until such a time where these materialistic industries and business stop growing. Urban costs of living are also higher, meaning people may choose to have fewer children, further reducing fertility rates; we may actually see slight population decline as projected by the low UN variant. Coupled with rapid urbanisation, population decline is likely to actually lead to increasing GDP per capita.

As we have exploited resources to the n^th degree, some of the finite resources are already beginning to stagnate. For example, Shah et al. (in Molden, 2007) posit large dam construction in the last decade has begun to level off, as there are only a finite amount of large rivers we can dam! This can also be seen in the socio-economic trends ‘Large Dams’ graph. Other resource usage however, has been noted to be on the rise e.g. fertiliser consumption, paper production and water use (also seen in the above graphs). 

However, due to such open trade, it is often found that one country’s economy is inextricably linked to the entire worlds. In 2008, when the Global Financial Crisis hit, it was so detrimental due to globalisation-induced openness of economies and trade. As one country spiralled, all trade partners soon followed. Seven years on, I'm feeling old and the global economy has mostly recovered. However, now we have a different type of global crisis: Climate change. If you’ve watched the videos in my last post, or if you’re somewhat aware of the current global situation, you will know that mitigating and adapting to the effects of anthropogenic climate change requires a global effort. Otherwise, like the financial crisis, all countries will suffer, not just one.

Many social scientists tend to approach this topic by thinking about what needs to be done to avoid damaging Earth Systems further. However, there are so many ideas on the table, I want to consider what these ideas mean for the global economy – will the Great Acceleration continue throughout the Anthropocene? Throughout the next posts I will be exploring the emergent dynamics of the new climate-economy system in the Anthropocene… I hope you’re as excited as I am!

#EarthToParis

This post is not of incredible relevance to the angle of climate change my blog is tackling, however, here are a couple of short videos I wanted to share with you on the upcoming COP21 Paris Conference... I hope you found them as inspiring as I did to get involved!

Origins of the Anthropocene: Once upon a Timeline

Today, I want to travel back in time.

Let’s begin by creating a timeline of possible GSSPs…

~13,800 years BP: Smith and Zeder posit that Megafaunal predation and vegetation occurred around this time. Whilst this possible GSSP has a secondary marker of charcoal in lacustrine deposits, Maslin and Lewis argue that it a specific start date cannot be ratified from this GSSP as this change came about diachronously over 40,000 years. However, it did have both regional and global reach. Globally, 4% of all mammalian species were lost. Different continents and regions were affected on various magnitudes; Africa lost 18%, Eurasia 36%, N America 72%, S America 83% and an astonishing 88% was lost in Australia.

~11,000 years BP: Initial domestication of plants and animals through farming. Whilst the primary marker has been identified as fossil pollen or phytoliths, and auxiliary markers have also been identified, it is hard to pinpoint a GSSA using this GSSP. The advent of origins of farming is too diachronous.

~8,000 years BP: Alternatively, the arrival of extensive farming could be used as a primary marker. This caused CO2 levels to hit a trough in, however, the CO2 record lacks a distinct inflection at this point of time, and thus a GSSA cannot be determined.

5,020 years BP: Methane levels from wet rice agriculture (Fuller et al., 2011) - finally, a GSSP that has a potential date! The lowest value recorded of CH4 in the GRIP ice core, was 5,020 years BP.  This had regional impacts in Southeast Asia, where it originated from, though consequences were seen globally. However, of course, there is an issue… the auxiliary markers of stone axes and fossil domesticated ruminant remains, only provide weak correlations to changes in Earth System processes, and alas, according to Maslin and Lewis, this cannot be used. *Sigh*. Not to worry, we still have a few more to consider, I’m sure we’ll amble across something viable.

~2,000 years BP: Smith and Zeder suggest the alteration of the Earth’s surface by human civilisations, seen through anthropogenic soils. However, a GSSA cannot be determined from anthropogenic soils and they are not very well preserved, faltering on the 7^th criterion of GSSPs.

1610 AD: Migration of large populations to different continents (Europeans to the Caribbean) led to opening of trade networks and the ‘New-Old world collision’. The GSSP global marker was the atmospheric low of CO2 in 1610, shown in the Law Dome ice core. Possible auxiliary markers range from cross-ocean range extensions of the fossil record to decreases in atmospheric methane and changes in pollen and oxygen. These markers all have strong correlations with changes in Earth System processes. Maslin and Lewis term this irreversible commencement of exchange between continents as the ‘Orbis Spike’. So, finally we have seen the first GSSP, which meets all 7 criteria… Hallelujah!

1760 AD to 1880 AD: The Industrial Revolution! When Crutzen and Stoermer termed this new age the Anthropocene, they linked these new anthropogenic changes to Earth’s climatic systems and processes to the start of the industrial revolution. The population began to expand exponentially, leading to rapid urbanisation and industrialisation through the exploitation of fossil fuels. They argue that extensive use of fossil fuels have lead to shifts in the Earth’s atmospheric composition. The primary stratigraphic marker in this instance would be fly ash from coal burning. However, there are so many markers that could be used, none of which provide clear GSSP global markers.

1945 AD: The detonation of nuclear weapons, in particular of the surface Atomic bombs, caused a global spread of artificial radionuclides. Distinct levels of peak radioactivity were captured by stratigraphical markers ranging from ice cores and tree rings to lake/salt marsh sediments and speleothems (cave formations). The clearest and hence the most viable of these to use, as a primary marker is the peak of ¹⁴C recorded in tree rings and glacial ice. Although captured in Northwest Europe, the effects had global reach and auxiliary markers, such as changes in plutonium isotopes, also indicated defined changes in Earth Systems. Meeting all 7 criteria of GSSPs, this can also be seen as a potential GSSP (Yay)!

1950 AD to present: Due to the Great Acceleration, we have increasingly seen the manifestation of persistent industrial chemicals in ice cores, tree rings and sediments. Peaks have been observed in compounds such as sulphur hexafluoride. Steffen et al., proposes the beginning of the Great Acceleration, as the GSSA of the Anthropocene. Below are the graphs observed by Steffen et al., who conclude there is an irrefutable correlation between mid twentieth century socio-economic trends and functions of the Earth System. However, there are so many effects of the Great Acceleration, it is hard to pick just one to represent the GSSP of the Anthropocene; some even consider the spread of radionuclides as a possible GSSP. It is not possible to use peaks in industrial gases and compounds, as they are all far too recent and there may be peaks soon to come!

 

…And that concludes the timeline (thankfully)! As you will probably have noticed, the two possible GSSPs, fulfilling all 7 criteria, are in turquoise – the Orbis spike and the radioactivity from the A-bombs.

So the big debate is ‘Stage vs. Epoch’. Is the Anthropocene a new stage within the Holocene Epoch or is it the Epoch following the Holocene? Whilst I probably won’t be the defining party on this matter, I personally think the tenable GSSPs we have just come across have shown a tremendous shift in the functionings of our Earth! If the Anthropocene is not worthy of a new epoch, surely there shouldn’t be stratotypes to suggest otherwise? So that’s my philosophy on the subject, what’s yours?

Next post, I will be looking at Steffen et al.’s socio-economic trends graph in greater depth, to finally start understanding what the Anthropocene implies for the economy!

Gradstein et al.'s Seven Criteria

Last post I argued that the Anthropocene warranted a new epoch, if and only if, both a GSSP and other auxiliary stratigraphical markers were identified. Zalasiewicz et al. state that these boundaries can be defined by a point of time in the Gregorian human calendar, known as a Global Standard Stratigraphic Age (GSSA). Stratotypes have been widely debated, and thus, so has the dating of the origins of the Anthropocene.

This post notes the 7 necessary GSSP characteristics, proposed by Gradstein et al.. These are:

1.     The global stratigraphical marker i.e. a principal correlation 

Accompanied by…

2.     Auxiliary stratotypes i.e. secondary markers

3.     Evidence of different scales of correlation i.e. regional and global

4.     Adequate depth of complete and continuous sedimentation (both above and below the marker)

5.     An exact location i.e. latitude, longitude, depth/height

6.     Accessibility

7.     Ability to be protected and conserved

Next post will look at possible GSSPs, auxiliary markers, the implied GSSAs, and whether or not they adhere to Gradstein et al.’s criteria.

Defining the Anthropocene

I’m sure by now you can’t help but wonder why there is any need to establish a new geological age. Why can’t we just stay in the Holocene? No one likes change that much… However, the Earth is changing due to human actions, and now that we’ve started it, we can’t seem to stop it.  So come, let’s explore; why is the Earth’s state so drastically different today as opposed to approximately 11,700 years ago?

Mark Maslin and Simon Lewis refer to an epoch as a ‘formal geologic unit of time’. They assert defining a new epoch, requires a global and auxiliary stratigraphical markers (e.g. rock, sediment, or glacier ice). Global markers are known as the Global Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP), and are more commonly referred to as global spikes.

Figure 1

11,700 years before present (BP), the Holocene began. Figure 1 (Maslin and Lewis, 2015), shows the factors that may indicate a new age has arrived. In graph (a), at the Pleistocene-Holocene boundary 11,700 years ago, atmospheric CO₂ reached 260 million ppm. In the formal definition and dating of the GSSP for the base of the Holocene, Walker et al., ratify the golden spike of the Holocene as the agreed compilation of  ‘deuterium excess values, accompanied by more gradual changes in ¹⁸O, dust concentration, a range of chemical species, and annual layer thickness’.

Graphs (b), (c) and (d), also show possible indications of a new age. Graph (b) shows Methane levels from the GRIP ice core reaching a trough 5,020 years ago at just above 550 ppb. Graph (c) shows a pronounced dip in atmospheric CO₂ levels, expressed in the Law Dome ice core. Graph (d) suggests the spread of artificial radionuclides produced by the atomic bombs as a golden spike. It can be seen through the analysis of annual black tree rings, which demonstrate a peak in atmospheric radiocarbon.

Now that I’ve briefly covered the stratigraphy of where the Holocene/Anthropocene debate has originated from, I would like to consider how it is characteristically different. How do we physically notice the stratigraphical changes in the world today? Ian Sample begins by helping us understand what the Holocene is.

The Holocene marked the beginning of an interglacial period, and the end of a glacial ice age, the Pleistocene. It largely refers to the onset of warmer and wetter climatic conditions, also encompassing global growth and impacts of Homo sapiens and technology. As the Holocene incorporates the effect of human activity, there is widespread debate as to whether a defined new age is necessary.

The Anthropocene however, focuses more solely on the significance of human impacts. It regards human activity as a force of nature. We now live in a world such that human activity is as natural a process as volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. It is inescapable, indispensible, and intricately critical to our way of living and the economies we depend so heavily on. An article in The Economist asserts that the Anthropocene will produce fossils containing compilations of materials, previously unseen in the geological record. The Anthropocene fossil record will thus show ‘a planetary ecosystem homogenised through domestication’. There will also be some organisms that are no longer seen, as they are now extinct, due to failure to adapt to such a human-dominated world.

I personally think there is a need to define a new age to encompass the extent to which human activity is influencing the natural foundation our world is built upon. Would you agree? Feel free to comment with your opinion!

Next post I will be looking at the disputed origins of the Anthropocene in more detail, focusing on the more human factors, which will (hopefully) provide a firm base to analyse the economic impacts of this new geological epoch. So please, stay tuned… it’s about to get very interesting!