February 12, 2013 — One of the unfortunate truths of the climate crisis we’re in is that when we finally stop making things worse, it won’t suddenly make things better. The carbon dioxide we’ve put into the atmosphere and the oceans will persist for hundreds, even thousands of years; temperatures will remain high; many ecosystems will be permanently disrupted; and species driven to extinction—well, they’ll still be extinct. The eventual return to a planetary equilibrium won’t happen on anything approaching a human timescale.
This isn’t a story we like to hear. The heroic narrative of fighting global warming implies that victory will mean getting back the Earth we know and love. But the reality of the situation is that significant damage has already been done; putting a stop to carbon emissions still leaves us with a planetary mess.
It’s useful to consider the alternatives we’ll have when the time comes to start the cleanup. It may seem premature to be talking about what to do after we’ve put an end to using the atmosphere and ocean as a carbon dump, but it’s often useful to consider one’s eventual destination even when still trying to figure out the map. When that time comes, we’ll face a choice between trying to accelerate the return to the equilibrium the world has known for millennia, trying to adapt ourselves and our environment to the new normal, or simply adapting ourselves and letting the new environmental conditions evolve on their own. It’s a sobering set of options.
Accelerating the return to equilibrium would mean, at a minimum, direct intervention to reduce atmospheric and oceanic carbon loads; it would also likely require some effort to moderate temperatures at a planetary scale (aka geoengineering). A true return to equilibrium would come to depend on programs such as Stewart Brand and Ryan Phelan’s proposal to revive extinct species, and would necessitate extraordinary research into the nature of re-creating ecosystems, including everything from pollinating insects to soil microbes. It would be a massive undertaking and, to be clear, would not result in a return to pre-Anthropocene (or even pre-Industrial Age) conditions—too many species have been lost, and too many ecosystem changes are irreversible. Call this the “(Re)Terraforming” future—using every tool at our disposal to make the Earth Earth-like again.
None of these scenarios should sound especially appealing. We left the appealing scenarios behind decades ago.
Less ambitious (in comparison, at least) would be to attempt large-scale adaptation of environmental and human systems to high-temperature conditions. This would mean reimagining the nature of cities and buildings, a transformation of the typical diet and—most profoundly—the genetic manipulation of many plants and animals to better withstand higher temperatures and persistent drought. Any reintroduction of extinct or near-extinct plants and animals would demand close scrutiny of ecological requirements and genetic options; it’s likely we’d see large-scale experiments in the creation of novel, even unprecedented, ecosystems. We could call this one the “Anthropoforming” future—using our tools to make the Anthropocene easier to survive.
Finally, there’s the hands-off approach, sometimes called “re-wilding.” Human adaptation would take place in ways that parallel the previous scenario, but natural ecosystems are left to themselves. Certainly, permitting the return of the wild by pulling back the boundaries of civilization has some visceral appeal. It’s letting nature take over again, and puts explicit limits on the human footprint. What often goes unsaid, however, is that the new wild would bear little resemblance to what had been there previously; with the impacts of changing temperatures and corresponding ecosystem disruption, we’re more likely to see the quick dominance of opportunistic, invasive species. We’d call this the “Hands-Off” future, although re-wilding through abandonment might also be thought of as the “rats and kudzu” future.
Thinking now about these options would let us focus our research accordingly. Do we undertake extensive study of how ecosystems operate, and what can be done to create them? Do we attempt a planet-wide genome map as the first step in adaptive modification? Or do we focus our attention on human adaptation to a world with greatly constrained resources and minimally diverse ecosystems?
None of these scenarios should sound especially appealing. We left the appealing scenarios behind decades ago. But these three do sketch out the possibilities that await us. Getting control of global carbon emissions isn’t the end of the story—it’s just the beginning of the next chapter.
Editor’s note: The views expressed here are those of the author and not necessarily of Ensia. We present them to further discussion around important topics. We encourage you to respond with a comment below, following our commenting guidelines, which can be found here. In addition, you might consider submitting a Voices piece of your own. See Ensia’s “Contact” page for submission guidelines.
Ensia shares solutions-focused stories free of charge through our online magazine and partner media. That means audiences around the world have ready access to stories that can — and do — help them shape a better future. If you value our work, please show your support today.
Yes, I'll support Ensia!
I wish we had more appealing scenarios, but I'm feel like we're going to business as usual until we accidentally end up in the Rats and Kudzu Invasion Scenario. 'RaKIS, Dune, desert planet and all that.
And I hope rats and kudzu are the winners. Beats out, say, crazy wasps and siafu ants and the like.
We are far too ready to go from "life will be different" to "the end of the world" with no possible stops in between. In fact, civilization in Cairo, Egypt is already beyond "civilization as we know it" for someone from the slums of Glasgow, Scotland. Global warming generally means that climate zones move a few hundred miles Northwards at the worst. The climate of Paris will be more like that of Marseilles, the climate of Rome will be more like that of Marrakesh, the climate of New York will be more like that of Atlanta, and the climate of Las Vegas will be more like that of Phoenix. This is not a life-threatening disaster -- it's hardly even a problem for people and armadillos and fire ants, but it could mean extinction for Redwood trees and other species that can't migrate as fast, or for isolated populations that happen to be trapped on a "sky island" with no more cooler heights left beyond their peaks.
Then, when we begin planning to "restore" these altered ecosystems, we will need to regenerate biodiversity by introducing new species into the vacated ecological niches in the same way that mammals and birds repopulated the niches that were vacated by the dinosaurs 90 million years ago. Those restoration efforts will be imperiled by biotechnology patent trolls such as Monsanto who will claim ownership of the genes for every temperature-resistant variant of critical cellular molecules, even when they arise via non-proprietary processes such as natural crossbreeding in the field. These companies are willing to make the world into a desert unless they are paid their royalties.