You state "Far too much environmentalism relies on another kind of despair: Apocalyptic visions of environmental destruction. Planetary boundaries are a case in point." I believe the work of climate scientist Dr. Johan Rockstrom on planetary boundaries and Earth's tipping points is based on solid research. Rockstrom's work is a strong argument for urgent climate action, to cut our global greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50% by 2030. Do you have any evidence to invalidate Rockstrom's research?
Hi Jim, it's not a matter of invalidating it. Rockstrom has his own perspective based on how he decides to interpret solid science, but other careful and thoughtful scientists disagree. Defining planetary boundaries unavoidably involves thorny assumptions, sometimes bordering on arbitrary. The purported climate boundary of 1.5C is, for example, chosen for political reasons as much as scientific ones (see Roger Pielke Jr.'s criticism). The link in that paragraph (apologies that it is German, but you can Google Translate) includes citations of criticism of Rockstrom analysis from people in various fields (e.g., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29126565/). Bloomquist et al. 2012 had their own reservations about an earlier iteration the planetary boundaries work.
The gist is that it takes a lot of subjective judgement calls to go from a hundred odd studies to the conclusions that Rockstrom gets to. Each boundary he has claimed is disputed. I mention one in the piece: pollinator biodiversity. We simply don't know the consequences yet to propose a tipping point for agricultural collapse. Moreover, people (including other scientists. See https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/62/6/603/249313?login=false) question the underlying story of nature as fragile and humanity as non-adaptable/resilient. Again, that goes back to the value assumptions that shape how we decide what these solid scientific studies imply for humanity dwelling on this planet. Rockstrom's interpretation isn't the only reasonable one.
Acknowledging Planetary Boundaries and Earth's tipping points is the only reasonable application of the Precautionary Principle. Citing Pielke, Jr. is not reassuring. As Joe Romm has written, Roger Pielke, Jr. is “probably the single most disputed and debunked person in the science blogosphere, especially on the subject of extreme weather and climate change.”
What strikes me as odd about this piece is that it buys into the “industry” idea and leaves out farmers. These are human beings, not corporations. Leaving out key voters and ignoring their lived experience seems like a problem in developing political consensus. Also there are substantial numbers of ag scientists who often aren’t asked about their views. What this does, at least in the US, is leave out farmers, ranchers, and their academic support network (ag scientists with the land grant institutions) from public discourse with the claim that “we know best”.. we being some academics and NGO’s .. and “what you know doesn’t matter.” A good way to sow division instead of food plants. IMHO.
Thanks for the comment. That's no doubt right that I didn't explicitly make room to include small farmers and ranchers not already represented by farm lobby groups. Things would be different in a fairer system, which, to be fair to me, I did point out in the piece. They would get their say, if we had a more direct system for them to register their interests regarding ag policy.
But, still, there's no way easy around the privileged position of business. Not even a coalition of ag scientists and small holders would be able to unilaterally set pesticide policy. We don't need consensus, fortunately, just policies that gives industry enough of a partial victory to make environmental progress for nearly everyone (including for farmers that want to use less pesticides) more likely.
From where I sit, ranchers are not privileged.. for example they did not support wolf reintroduction. I think when you call farmers and ranchers “business” or “industry” we lose something.. in fact many folks people think of as “agribusinesses”take advantage of farmers and ranchers in various ways.
As far as I know, there is no barrier to using fewer pesticides, is there?
Sorry that you came away with that interpretation. I'm talking about large agribusiness as being privileged, not farmers or ranchers per se. That's because agribusiness has an outsized influence on policy. And, indeed, that segment of agriculture is an industry, often resembling a factory more than a traditional farm.
If there were no barriers, people would already be doing it! The barrier can be simply lack of experience with alternatives, lack of access to advice or alt products, or worries about yields. Or they might feel "locked in" by years of pesticide use affecting soil health or sunk investments.
You state "Far too much environmentalism relies on another kind of despair: Apocalyptic visions of environmental destruction. Planetary boundaries are a case in point." I believe the work of climate scientist Dr. Johan Rockstrom on planetary boundaries and Earth's tipping points is based on solid research. Rockstrom's work is a strong argument for urgent climate action, to cut our global greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50% by 2030. Do you have any evidence to invalidate Rockstrom's research?
Hi Jim, it's not a matter of invalidating it. Rockstrom has his own perspective based on how he decides to interpret solid science, but other careful and thoughtful scientists disagree. Defining planetary boundaries unavoidably involves thorny assumptions, sometimes bordering on arbitrary. The purported climate boundary of 1.5C is, for example, chosen for political reasons as much as scientific ones (see Roger Pielke Jr.'s criticism). The link in that paragraph (apologies that it is German, but you can Google Translate) includes citations of criticism of Rockstrom analysis from people in various fields (e.g., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29126565/). Bloomquist et al. 2012 had their own reservations about an earlier iteration the planetary boundaries work.
The gist is that it takes a lot of subjective judgement calls to go from a hundred odd studies to the conclusions that Rockstrom gets to. Each boundary he has claimed is disputed. I mention one in the piece: pollinator biodiversity. We simply don't know the consequences yet to propose a tipping point for agricultural collapse. Moreover, people (including other scientists. See https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/62/6/603/249313?login=false) question the underlying story of nature as fragile and humanity as non-adaptable/resilient. Again, that goes back to the value assumptions that shape how we decide what these solid scientific studies imply for humanity dwelling on this planet. Rockstrom's interpretation isn't the only reasonable one.
Acknowledging Planetary Boundaries and Earth's tipping points is the only reasonable application of the Precautionary Principle. Citing Pielke, Jr. is not reassuring. As Joe Romm has written, Roger Pielke, Jr. is “probably the single most disputed and debunked person in the science blogosphere, especially on the subject of extreme weather and climate change.”
What strikes me as odd about this piece is that it buys into the “industry” idea and leaves out farmers. These are human beings, not corporations. Leaving out key voters and ignoring their lived experience seems like a problem in developing political consensus. Also there are substantial numbers of ag scientists who often aren’t asked about their views. What this does, at least in the US, is leave out farmers, ranchers, and their academic support network (ag scientists with the land grant institutions) from public discourse with the claim that “we know best”.. we being some academics and NGO’s .. and “what you know doesn’t matter.” A good way to sow division instead of food plants. IMHO.
Thanks for the comment. That's no doubt right that I didn't explicitly make room to include small farmers and ranchers not already represented by farm lobby groups. Things would be different in a fairer system, which, to be fair to me, I did point out in the piece. They would get their say, if we had a more direct system for them to register their interests regarding ag policy.
But, still, there's no way easy around the privileged position of business. Not even a coalition of ag scientists and small holders would be able to unilaterally set pesticide policy. We don't need consensus, fortunately, just policies that gives industry enough of a partial victory to make environmental progress for nearly everyone (including for farmers that want to use less pesticides) more likely.
From where I sit, ranchers are not privileged.. for example they did not support wolf reintroduction. I think when you call farmers and ranchers “business” or “industry” we lose something.. in fact many folks people think of as “agribusinesses”take advantage of farmers and ranchers in various ways.
As far as I know, there is no barrier to using fewer pesticides, is there?
Sorry that you came away with that interpretation. I'm talking about large agribusiness as being privileged, not farmers or ranchers per se. That's because agribusiness has an outsized influence on policy. And, indeed, that segment of agriculture is an industry, often resembling a factory more than a traditional farm.
If there were no barriers, people would already be doing it! The barrier can be simply lack of experience with alternatives, lack of access to advice or alt products, or worries about yields. Or they might feel "locked in" by years of pesticide use affecting soil health or sunk investments.