Mark Lynas Seminar Media

Posted on Tuesday, April 3rd, 02012 by Austin Brown
link Categories: Announcements, Seminars   chat 0 Comments

This lecture was presented as part of The Long Now Foundation’s monthly Seminars About Long-term Thinking.

The Nine Planetary Boundaries: Finessing the Anthropocene

Tuesday March 6, 02012 – San Francisco

Video is up on the Lynas Seminar page for Members.


Audio is up on the Lynas Seminar page, or you can subscribe to our podcast.


The Quantified Planet – a summary by Stewart Brand

“About 74,000 years ago,” Lynas began, “a volcanic event nearly wiped out humanity. We were down to just a thousand or so embattled breeding pairs. We’ve made a bit of a comeback since then. We’re over seven billion strong. In half a million years we’ve gone from prodding anthills with sticks to building a worldwide digital communications network. Well done! But… there’s a small problem. In doing this we’ve had to capture between a quarter and a third of the entire photosynthetic production of the planet. We’ve raised the temperature of the Earth system, reduced the alkalinity of the oceans, altered the chemistry of the atmosphere, changed the reflectivity of the planet, hugely affected the distribution of freshwater, and killed off many of the species that share the planet with us. Welcome to the Anthropocene, our very uniquely human geological era.”

Some of those global alterations made by humans may be approaching tipping points—thresholds—that could destabilize the whole Earth system. Drawing on a landmark paper in Nature in 2009 (“A Safe Operating Space for Humanity,” by Johan Rockström et al.) Lynas outlined the nine boundaries we should stay within, starting with three we’ve already crossed. 1. Loss of biodiversity reduces every form of ecological resilience. The boundary is 10 species going extinct per million per year. Currently we lose over 100 species per million per year. 2. Global warming is the most overwhelming boundary. Long-term stability requires 350 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; we’re currently at 391 ppm and rising fast. “The entire human economy must become carbon neutral by 2050 and carbon negative thereafter.” 3. Nitrogen pollution. With the invention a century ago of the Haber-Bosch process for creating nitrogen fertilizer, we doubled the terrestrial nitrogen cycle. We need to reduce the amount of atmospheric nitrogen we fix per year to 35 million tons; we’re currently at 121 million tons.

Other quantifiable boundaries have yet to be exceeded, but we’re close. 4. Land use. Every bit of natural landscape lost threatens ecosystem services like clean water and air and atmospheric carbon balance. “Already 85% of the Earth’s ice-free land is fragmented or substantially affected by human activity.” The danger point is 15% of land being used for row crops; we’re currently at 12%. 5. Fresh water scarcity. Increasing droughts from global warming will make the problem ever worse. In the world’s rivers, “the blue arteries of the living planet,” there are 800,000 dams with two new large ones built every day. The numeric limit is thought to be 4,000 cubic kilometers of runoff water consumed per year; the current number is 2,600. 6. Ocean acidification from excess atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasingly lethal to ocean life such as coral reefs. The measure here is “aragonite saturation level.” Before the industrial revolution it was 3.44; the limit is 2.75; we’re already down to 2.90. 7. The ozone layer protects the Earth from ultraviolet radiation. One man (Thomas Midgley) invented the chlorofluorocarbon coolant that rapidly reduced stratospheric ozone, and one remarkable agreement (Montreal Protocol, 1987) cut back on CFCs and began restoring the ozone layer. (In Dobson units the limit is 276; before Midgley it was 290; we’re now back up to 283.)

Two boundaries are so far unquantifiable. 8. Chemical pollution. Rachel Carson was right. Human toxics are showing up everywhere and causing harm. Coal-fired power plants are one of the worst offenders in this category. (Lynas added that nuclear waste belongs in this category but “the supposedly unsolved problem of nuclear waste hasn’t so far harmed a single living thing.” 9. Atmospheric aerosols—airborne dust and smoke. It kills hundreds of thousands of people annually, the soot causes ice to melt faster, and everyone wants to get rid of it. But one beneficial effect it has is cooling, so Lynas proposes “we could move this pollution from the troposphere where people have to breathe it up to the stratosphere where it can still cool the Earth and no one has to breathe it. That’s called geoengineering.”

Lynas proposed that the goal for the future should be to get the whole world out of poverty by 2050 while staying within the planetary boundaries. Among the solutions he proposed are: clean cookstoves for the poor (they cause 1.6 million deaths a year); better GM crops for nitrogen efficiency and concentrated land use; integral fast reactors which run on nuclear waste (a recent calculation shows the UK could get 500 years of clean energy from its present waste, and the resulting IFR waste is a problem for 300 years, not for thousands of years); international treaties, which are crucial for dealing with global problems; carbon capture (everything from clean coal to biochar); and ongoing “dematerialization,” doing ever more with ever less, including more intense farming on less land. “Peak consumption,” Lynas noted, has already arrived in much of the developed world.

Subscribe to our Seminar email list for updates and summaries.

  • 5ecular4umanist

    Great talk, and the follow-up conversation. too. Mark Lynas makes a lot of sense. As a UK resident, I remember being taken in by the anti-GM propaganda in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Even the BBC Radio 4 “Farming Today” programme did nothing to inject any scientific sense into the debate. Now my views have turned around and I am all for GM, in the right context… I’m no expert but I certainly don’t have irrational anti-GM views.

  • tp1024

    Nothing against fast reactors, but sodium isn’t the kind of coolant that should be deployed on a large scale. Lead is simply better both in terms of being compatible with water and air (making it infinitely easier to cool and deal with in general in any kind of emergency) and having a much higher boiling point.

    Large sodium cooled reactors are liable to form sodium-gas bubbles in some rare accident conditions, if you don’t take some extra technical fixes into account. (Like using flywheels to keep powering coolant pumps in case of a total power outage at full power.) Fully passive systems are definitively preferable – which is somethning lead can do.

    I specifically don’t talk about liquid salt reactors, because there have only been one or two prototypes, and even those weren’t fast reactors. Lots of potential, no question. But I’m fed up of people claiming I’m talking about pie-in-the-sky technology. Lead cooled reactors have been used to power nuclear submarines, problems have been had and solved. No reason not to develop liquid salt reactors though. (Especially since you can potentially remove fission products in operation. What isn’t in the reactor can’t get out in an accident.)

Next Article navigateright