The Reykjavik Conference on the Environmental Future

What was new at the Conference?

The first question one might ask is whether any new information actually emerged. The answer is, very little, but this does not detract from its importance, for one detected among its very eminent and influential participants, a radical and important change in attitude to basic environmental issues.

The first issue was methodology. It was generally felt that our problems could not be understood exclusively in terms of the present reductionist approach, in particular it was repeated over and over again, the accent must shift away from quantification. The knowledge on which to base policy decisions need not be precisely quantified. Often it is logistically impracticable to do so.

Often too the important variables, by their very nature, are not quantifiable. Modern science has not really adapted itself to dealing with the behaviour of complex systems. Professor Hare, a member of the Canadian Environmental Council, pointed out that this was why climatologists had failed to predict current climatic changes:

"We were caught napping. This was because of our professional weakness ... we neglected to consider the effects of chemicals at low levels on the atmosphere ... we underestimated the complexity of chemical changes ... We have been wearing blinkers, and need a fundamental reordering of our own discipline. What is more, I fully expect to hear similar confessions of inadequacy from other disciplines."

Professor Reid Bryson, of the School of Environmental Science, University of Wisconsin, fully agreed.

"We are bad forecasters. There is only one group that can beat us and that is the economists."

The trouble with complex self-regulating systems is that they can be disrupted by very small changes - if these are of a nature that they have not previously encountered. Very small changes, as Reid Bryson pointed out, have shifted rainfall patterns causing whole cultures to disappear. As Dr. Letitia E. Obeng of UNEP also noted, an increase in temperature of 2 percent above average, in tropical waters, can totally disrupt a marine ecosystem, while a 3 percent change can eradicate most of the economically important fish in the tropics.

Can the behaviour of complex systems be fully understood with the aid of computers? Professor Flohn thought not. To take all the complicated processes involved in order to predict future weather changes "goes much beyond the capacity of our computers to handle completely."

Besides, climatically important events, like the eruption of volcanoes, are largely unpredictable. It is the general principles involved that are important. One such principle is that if we are ignorant of what we are doing to our environment, then we must step more carefully.

Despair

A further change in attitude was one of growing despair. The problems we face are much worse than we thought they were. This was clearly the case with regard to man-made global climatic changes which now seem inevitable. Four years ago only Reid Bryson seemed to accept the principle that current weather changes were largely due to human activities. When he explained the drought in Sahelia in those terms [The Ecologist Vol. 3 No. 10, October 1973], he was bitterly criticised by many of his colleagues.

Today the mood has changed. Of the climatologists present, Professors Herman Flohn, ex-Director of the Meteorological Institute of Bonn University, Kenneth Hare of the Canadian Government's Environmental Council and John Malone of the Holcomb Research Institute of Minneapolis all agreed that man's activities are affecting climate, and will increasingly do so. As Flohn said:

"We are just on the fringe when man-made changes are on the same level as natural ones."

The most important man-made cause of climatic change, according to Flohn, is the carbon dioxide we are releasing into the atmosphere. Since the beginning of the industrial age we have increased its content by 13 percent and it may rise to 20 percent or 30 percent (400 parts per million instead of 290 ppm.). What is more

"Recent investigations (Wang et al, 1976) have indicated that the "greenhouse effect" of CO2 is further enhanced by other man-made trace gases, such as the halocarbons (freons) with an atmospheric residence time of 40-70 years N2O (from fertilisers), CH4 and NH3."

If the further use of freons is prohibited, Flohn maintained,

"the combined warming effect of these gases will nevertheless reach about 50 percent of the CO2 alone. Due to long residence-time of the infra-red absorbing gases and their fairly rapid mixing, they will soon take the leadership in the anthropogenic impacts on climate on a global scale."

A further important fact is deafforestation; its effect is to cause a considerable decrease of albedo. What is more, it reduces the capacity of forests to absorb the carbon dioxide emitted by our activities. Forests in fact, rather than being a sink for carbon dioxide, are rapidly becoming a source of it. The same of course, is happening to oceans. In normal conditions, as much as 50 percent of the carbon dioxide we generate, is absorbed by them but their capacity to do so is being reduced, partly because they are being warmed and partly too, because of their acidification by man-made pollutants.

At what point will the combined effect of all these different factors lead to a climatic catastrophe? The answer is that nobody really knows. However, Flohn pointed out that on at least six occasions, in the history of our planet, very sudden climatic changes occurred on a time-scale of one generation of 100 years. His feeling was that

"climatic catastrophe can only be avoided if energy problems can be controlled."

Which means, though he did not say it, that we must considerably reduce the level of our industrial activities. How did the other climatologists react to this? "I have no desire to challenge this apocalyptic vision", was Hare's reaction. And nor, as it turned out, did any of the others.

Could massive reafforestation, it was asked, reduce atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide? According to Malone, one would have to "treble the total biomass of the world forests to take care of the extra CO2".

The mood of despair also prevailed during the discussion on the future of terrestrial ecosystems when Professor Fosberg came to read his keynote address on this subject. He warned the participants to expect

"more of the gloom and doom that they had already heard that day. Everywhere, exponentially increasing degradation is the rule."

He deplored in particular, the refusal of Governments throughout the world to respond actively to the problems we face.

"I have visited the majority of the larger nations of the Earth, and many of the smaller ones. In almost none of them have I seen much in the way of intelligent and effective long-term concern for the habitat of their citizens. Lip service in unlimited amounts, ill-conceived manipulation or exploitation of the environment for short-term advantages, and frantic activity to convert as much as possible of the resource-base into money in the shortest possible time: these are the patterns which I have seen almost everywhere."

The irresponsibility of international agencies in this respect was also emphasised. Dr. Buchinger, from Argentina, pointed out, for instance, that the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) was financing a DDT plant in Bolivia and the World Bank was financing a factory in the Argentine to manufacture aerosols.

Fosberg deplored the fact that man continued to behave as a pioneer species rather than as a climax one, if he continues to do so two things are clearly predictable, he warned:

"We will modify our habitat so that it will no longer support us, then a population crash, from whatever direct or immediate cause, will follow. If this comes by atomic war, it may wipe out the species. If it comes by famine or disease a few may survive to continue the existence of Homo Sapiens. If this happens and a few wretched survivors are left in an unfavourable and hostile environment, a severe process of natural selection will ensue."

Dr. Ray Dasmann, ex-Chief Scientist of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and an associate editor of The Ecologist, carried on in the same vein. "I cannot criticise Professor Fosberg's paper," he said, "because I agree with it." Dasmann then presented a highly stimulating, but equally despondent paper prepared by Professor Borgstrom, who was unfortunately unable to attend the conference.

Among other things, Borgstrom pointed out that in order to understand the full extent of world over-population, we must not only take into account the population of human, but also of non-human, animals. It is their combined impact which ecosystems must be able to sustain. Borgstrom coined the notion of "population equivalents" (PE units) in which the impact of livestock is reduced to human equivalents.

If one does this, one finds that the globe is currently not inhabited by 4.2 billion humans but by 21 billion "consumers". This is a more correct estimate of the "feeding burden" that green plants must carry. As Borgstrom pointed out,

"Close estimates swirling around as to the ultimate limit of the earth's feeding capabilities and arriving at figures of 15, 25, 40 up to 147 or even 900 billions, are mostly computed with little recognition of the fact that the world, in protein terms, already carries a feeding burden exceeding 21 billion."

Seen in this light, New Zealand, often regarded as very thinly populated, is in fact almost as highly populated as the United Kingdom, especially if we subtract from the latter's livestock population that proportion of it that is fed on imported food and that is thereby causing ecological damage elsewhere. Also seen in this light, the increment to world population of a billion people, expected in the next ten years, should read "five billion population equivalents". This problem is increasingly serious in view of the growing ratio of livestock to man, which is now 4.2 world-wide.

Borgstrom, like many other participants emphasised the terrible destruction that modern agriculture is causing to the soil. In his words:

"Making deserts bloom is one of technology's masterpieces. Yet man has, at the same time created a five times larger acreage of deserts or some 1.2 billion hectares, whether through negligence, ignorance or sheer pressure of numbers in man and livestock. This transcendence of ecological limits is an on going process."

Another terrible illusion is that we can go on finding ever more land to put under the plough. As Professor Kuenen noted:

"The fact that there are some big areas left to exploit for agricultural use implies that there is something wrong with them."

The material supplied by Dasmann, Borgstrom and others amply justified this apparently cynical observation. Indeed the world's remaining tropical forests cannot be turned into viable farmland. Their soil is very thin and totally unsuited to agriculture. All this is, of course, common knowledge, yet, as Professor Kuenen points out in spite of it,

"the destruction still goes on. What has developed in millions of years, and what has been the natural basis for the existence of Man for tens of thousands of years, is disappearing in a few decades because, at present, we seem to have no proper alternative, at least in the minds of the politicians and big business. And soon the next problem will arise because there will not be enough fertiliser to keep the soils productive. Particularly phosphorus, which is as essential for life as any other minerals, may pose a serious problem because no mineable reserves are at present known, which will carry us much further than a few decades."

The position of Third World leaders

There were only a few representatives of the Third World leadership present at the conference. Some, in particular the Indian delegate, Professor Misra, one of India's leading ecologists, and until recently President of the University of Benares; and Mr. Gaekwar, formerly the Gaekwar of Baroda and now a member of the Indian Parliament, fully understood the seriousness of our problems and also fully appreciated the many unpleasant implications. Others, however, insisted on maintaining what has become the Third World's general line on these matters. As Fosberg puts it,

"Although a few of the more far-sighted citizens of Third World nations are very aware of the dangers we are all facing, this cannot be said of many of their leaders and people in positions of power. We hear, in International forums, biting criticism of those who, after getting rich through exploitation of their own national resources, would like to retard others from doing the same thing. Most international attempts at environmental protection founder in this sea of protest and righteous indignation - perhaps territoriality is a better term.

"What the protesters seem to want is not only the right to the benefits of modern technology, but the right also to learn the hard way - to make, all over again, the mistakes that the industrial nations have made and which have destroyed much of the best of their habitats. This, in my scale of values and definitions, is nationalism at its worst. It is not common-sense, which must very largely consist of the ability to observe the mistakes of others and avoid repeating them. There are people in every country that I have visited who desperately want to see their countries avoid what they observe in the wake of advanced technology. Unfortunately, few of these are elected to office or otherwise placed in positions of leadership. This is sad both for these nations and for the world."

The paper given by Mustapha Tolba, director of UNEP, showed that this is basically his position. In his lecture, presented by Dr. Letitia Obeng of Ghana, he explained the urgency of the world environmental situation and then made the usual exhortations which he, as well as everybody else knows, will not, and in fact cannot, be complied with, for basic social and ecological reasons.

Thus while Tolba admits that irrigation schemes have caused salinisation and the spread of water borne diseases, he still wants more of them, insisting that

"when ecological and environmental principles are applied from the planning stage, these hazards can be averted and the health, well-being and productive capacity of the population can be improved."

This is a pure act of faith based on nothing else than wishful thinking. There is no evidence of any large scale irrigation scheme in the tropics that has not caused these and other problems as well.

In the same way Tolba exhorts us to increase our ability to predict and anticipate the climate changes that everywhere are making agriculture increasingly more difficult and to increase our capacity to influence these changes. This is an equally vain exhortation. As Professor Flohn and others pointed out, climatic phenomena are too complex to predict with any sort of accuracy. Besides predictions are only useful if the situations predicted are of a nature that can be adapted to. The large-scale climatic upheavals that we can expect if our industrial activities continue to expand do not fall into this category and to predict them can be of academic interest only.

As for the notion that modern technology could conceivably succeed in neutralising these climatic trends, this belongs to the sphere of yesterday's science fiction. I doubt if even Hermann Kahn would dare make such a suggestion today.

Action

What then should be done? The situation indeed appears desperate. The notion that we can change something may indeed be wishful thinking, as Kuenen put it

"The general theme of this conference is that we know there is no solution and we are trying to believe that there is one."

However this is no reason for not acting. Kuenen reminded the conference of the words of William the Silent,

"II n'est pas point necessaire d'esperer pour entreprendre, ni de reussir pour perseverer."

["It is not necessary to hope in order to undertake, not to succeed in order to persevere."]

The first step is to reach agreement. Reid Bryson pointed out that it is not the politicians who are the main barrier to accepting basic realities but fellow scientists. How can politicians be expected to take the right action if their scientific advisers do not provide them with a single clear message? In this respect the Reykjavik conference was a triumph, for near unanimity was reached on all basic matters. Indeed our pathetic government experts would have been singularly out of place at this meeting.

Maurice Strong, ex-Director of UNEP and organiser of the famous Stockholm Conference on the Environment in 1972, called for political action on a world scale. Governments everywhere must commit themselves to a completely new set of priorities. "Conservation can no longer be a fringe activity," he declared, "but a central recurring theme around which everything else must revolve". The oceans, in particular, must be protected to prevent them from becoming "the ultimate cess pool of the world" for, among other things, they are a "vital component in the buffeting of atmospheric processes, without which life on earth would be insupportable."

Tropical forests too must be protected. Their exploitation

"for timber for the rich countries should be restrained and other ways found to help the developing countries to balance their financial budgets. As there is very little to be gained from agriculture on soil formerly occupied by rainforests, extension of agriculture in these areas should be abandoned as counterproductive."

The preservation of our environment, of course, also requires a reduction in pollution levels, and the conference called for " 'no release' policies for substances on the International Register of Potentially Toxic Substances."

All these measures, however, would clearly not be possible unless we also reduce the impact of man's activities on the environment. What is required, first of all, are stringent population-control measures. As the Declaration reads,

"To limit population growth will not in itself save the world from impending disaster, but it is an essential part of the solution and its importance cannot be over-emphasised."

The conference warned very dramatically that if population growth were not controlled,

"the deaths of a thousand million people from lack of food, some by outright starvation but mostly by disease caused by severe malnutrition, may well be the tragedy of the century."

The second measure required to reduce our impact on the environment is to abandon the goal of economic growth. The conference called for

"a fundamentally new approach to economic growth - new growth [a term proposed by Maurice Strong] ... new growth emphasises quality rather than quantity."

Its achievements must be compatible with reducing "the demand on the earth's resources and the risks to its life-sustaining systems to levels that are fully compatible with human survival and well-being." This means - among other things - basing our survival "almost entirely on renewable resources". And in the case of energy,

"The transition to renewable resources must be achieved within the next thirty years not only for reasons of conservation but also to protect the environment from damage that might prove catastrophic."

The conference recognised that

"This effort will require major changes in the incentives and penalties that motivate the economic life of our societies."

These changes, however, were indispensable. Ecology, in fact, must become politicised - and this was also the theme of Kenneth Hare's summing up:

"I approve of political solutions. There are no others."

The Declaration concluded,

"We call upon all governments, all communities, all people, to take immediate action to avert the disasters which loom ahead."

Can the governments of the world really ignore these warnings? Do we not all secretly realise that they are justified and that the future of our planet may depend on decisions that must be taken today?