Life Sciences in a New Climate

You asked me to speak on some very big subjects, life, science, climate and the human prospect. So I shall try to do so. Let me begin by recalling that the long history of life is full of ups and downs, adaptations and extinctions, and an ever-evolving global ecosystem of unknowable complexity.

Where are we now, and is anything different? We tend to assume that the current balance, the one that nurtured current human civilization, is the norm. But the relationship between living organisms and their environment is subject to a new hazard. The problem lies with one species: our own.

Let me refer you to a Declaration made by over a thousand scientists from the four great global research programmes at Amsterdam in July 2001. There it stated squarely that

"Human activities have the potential to switch the Earth's System to alternative modes of operation that may prove irreversible and less hospitable to humans and other life… the Earth's System has moved well outside the range of the natural variability exhibited over the last half million years at least… the Earth is currently operating in a no-analogue state".

"The accelerating human transformation of the Earth's environment is not sustainable. Therefore the business-as-usual way of dealing with the Earth's System is not an option. It has to be replaced - as soon as possible - by deliberate strategies of management that sustain the Earth's environment while meeting social and economic development objectives".

So the problem is both real and pressing. It is also on a vast geological scale. No wonder that the Nobel prize winner Paul Crutzen with his colleague Eugene Stoermer should have named the current epoch the Anthropocene in succession to the Holocene.

The Anthropocene began with the industrial revolution a quarter of a millennium ago. Since then living conditions for most people, measured in terms of material wealth and longevity, have greatly improved. But all change has been at a price. While we have been increasing output of goods of all kinds, we have been running down, despoiling and often wasting the resources from which they are derived. If our animal species among millions of others is to survive and prosper, we need to use our unique capacity to think.

The British Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin Rees, has recently published a book in which he rates the chances of our civilization surviving to the end of the century at no more than 50 percent. The main threats he sees arise from misuse of science through inadvertence, folly and even criminality. Examples of such misuses are the possible results of genetic manipulation, nano-technology and nuclear experiments.

For the moment there are six main things for us to think about:

• human population increase;
• degradation of land and accumulation of wastes;
• water pollution and supply;
• climate change;
• energy production and use;
• and destruction of biodiversity.

Of these factors population issues are often ignored as somehow too embarrassing or mixed up with religion and the ideology of development; most people are broadly aware of land and waste problems, although far from accepting the remedies necessary; water issues have had a lot of publicity, and already affect most people on this planet; climate change is also broadly understood, apart from by those who do not want to hear about it; how we generate energy while fossil fuel resources diminish and demand increases is another conundrum; but damage to the diversity of life of which our species is a small but immodest part has somehow escaped most public attention. All these issues are interlinked, and all concern the future of humanity.

I would commend to you a recent series of articles in Science magazine, dealing with our planetary prospects. The series begins with the effects of human population increase and of damage to biodiversity with the global ecosystem. Taking the case of biodiversity, Martin Jenkins wrote: "With the harvest of marine resources now at or past its peak, terrestrial ecosystems will bear most of the burden of having to feed, clothe and house the expanded human population". Already nearly half of the Earth's land surface has been transformed by direct human action, and the indirect effects are beyond calculation.

The result with big regional variations is almost bound to be conversion of more land to crops, with increasing loss of forests and natural habitats, and degradation of land, particularly in tropical countries. This means continued, even accelerating loss of natural ecosystems, and their replacement by less diverse, often intensively managed systems of non-native species. Here CABI is an unrivalled world authority on both analysis and prognosis.

It might be thought that with more and more wild species sacrificed to short-term human needs that we would at least preserve the domestic species upon which we currently rely. Yet there is a continued loss of animal domestic breeds. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization warned last month that of around 6300 registered breeds, 1350 are threatened by extinction or are already extinct. The trend is the same for crops. We also have the problem of invasive species, at present far more serious in their effects than those of genetically modified organisms. Again CABI's work through invasive species management is simply the best there is.

At some point, Martin Jenkins wrote, some threshold may be crossed, with unforeseeable but probably catastrophic consequences for humans. These consequences could be brought about by a variety of factors, such as abrupt climate shifts, albeit ones in which ecosystem changes might have played a part. This has of course happened many times in the past.

Climate change is indeed a major hazard. Successive reports from the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, which brings together the vast majority of the world's experts on the subject, show that the human contribution is now having a significant if not decisive effect. Working Group I (Science) of the Intergovernmental Panel concluded in 2001 that

"... in the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the [human-induced] increase in greenhouse gas concentrations".

How warm would a warmer world be? According to the same group, "the globally averaged surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4ºC to 5.8ºC over the period 1990 to 2100". This is a considerable increase on the 1.0ºC to 3.5ºC rise suggested in its previous report of November 1995. It covers a wide range of local variations. But overall,

"the projected rate of warming is much larger than the observed changes during the 20th century, and is very likely to be without precedent during at least the last ten thousand years... "

Uncertainties remain. What is certain is that average world surface temperature is rising; six of the hottest years of the 20th century occurred during the last decade. Although confidence in the modelling has increased, there remain many uncertainties which make it difficult to quantify the risks involved, or the regions most likely to be affected.

What would a warmer world look like? Here the uncertainties, region by region, multiply. Efforts have been made by Working Group II (Impacts) of the Intergovernmental Panel to assess possible impacts by continent, but the results are inevitably sketchy. However interpreted, they suggest a different world and a correspondingly different distribution of human activity as people and the living organisms on which they depend try to adapt to change. Such change includes new patterns of rainfall and drought, different vegetation, changes in food supply and human health, and, perhaps most serious of all, rising sea levels.

How are humans to react to these changes, cumulatively bigger than any faced in preceding generations? It has been suggested that humans have three biological characteristics which dominate their behaviour. First is their propensity to use and exploit whatever resources they can find as if there were no limit. Other species may share this propensity, but none has anything like ever increasing human technical skills in doing so. In short humans are too clever by half. On this reckoning we are a malignant maladaptation in the corpus of living organisms, and behave and reproduce like a virus out of control.

Our second characteristic is our curiosity and love of play which tends to transform every activity, whether politics, war or science, into games which induce self-absorbed behaviour, sometimes beneficial in the short term, but often out of touch with the long term realities of the environment.

Our third characteristic is our intellectual predilection for putting subjects into compartments, thereby missing their connections and inter-relationships. As a result we fail to see, let alone comprehend the big picture. Yet it is only through seeing the big picture that we can hope to draw sensible conclusions, and take decisions consistent with the circumstances in which we find ourselves together with the other millions of organisms affected by human activities.

Then there is the way in which we treat each other. There is a widening gap between the world's rich and the world's poor, and disproportionate consumption of the Earth's resources. At present about 20 percent of the world's people consume between 70 percent and 80 percent of its resources. That 20 percent enjoy about 45 percent of its meat and fish, and use 68 percent of electricity (most generated from fossil fuels), 84 percent of paper, and 87 percent of cars. The dividing line between rich and poor is not only between countries but also within them. There are the globalized rich and the localized poor, and according to the latest report from the United Nations Development Programme the gap between them is ever widening.

So what on Earth- a familiar phrase - are we going to do next? The first serious cries of alarm came in the 1960s. In 1972 the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment took place: it was followed by the creation of the United Nations Environment Programme. Over the next 20 years the size and scope of the problems, particularly over climate change, became clearer. Preparations for the 1992 Conference on Environment and Development began in my office in New York when I was British Ambassador to the United Nations. The ensuing Rio Conference produced a variety of important results, ranging from the Framework Convention on Climate Change to Agenda 21 (or an agenda for this century).

By contrast the Johannesburg Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 was a disappointment. It produced a political Declaration which said very little new: indeed it was a triumph of repackaging. There was a 54-page Plan of Implementation. Only time will tell its value. But it has already been described as, "many trees, but little wood". Then came an assembly of so-called partnerships. Finally many targets were set but none that was legally binding.

In general the participants generally left wiser, sadder and - let us hope - better aware of their many shortcomings. One issue was singled out of particular importance: water. But the subsequent Third World Water Forum in Kyoto achieved little and was virtually ignored in the build up to the Iraq war.

There have been some successes. For instance, on 31 March 2004, 12 countries and the European Union ratified the international treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture which will enter into force in June this year. The objectives of this legally binding Treaty are the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits derived from sustainable agriculture and food security. Thus far 48 countries have ratified the treaty. In other areas of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation little progress has been made. Indeed most participants seemed to have gone home from Johannesburg as if it had never happened.

There are wide differences in national attitudes. They range from determination to do something about at least some of the issues (a succession of British Prime Ministers has pursued climate change with results for the future of British energy policy), to crass refusal even to acknowledge that the problems exist. Here the position of the present US Administration is particularly regrettable. On climate change the United States is the villain of the piece: with only 4 percent of the world's population, it emits 24 percent of the world's carbon dioxide.

But even those who accept the premise of the need for change have very different priorities. For what it is worth, my own priorities are as follows:

We need to take urgent action on climate change. So much has been said on this that I will not repeat it. Let me say simply that I do not think that technical wheezes - mirrors in space, windmill extractors, iron sprays in the oceans and the rest - could ever do the trick, and would probably create more problems than they solve.

We need to take better care of the Earth and its living systems. Hence the importance of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment due to report next year, and, in the next ten years, the Tree of Life project to demonstrate relationships between organisms by descent. At present our understanding of how nature works is astonishingly poor, particularly in the field of micro-biology. We need to assess more accurately the human capacity for harm to ourselves as well as to other organisms.

Finally we need to rethink of most current economic theory. It simply does not take proper account of sustainable development. We should ask ourselves what value we place on the environment. I do not think that anyone would disagree with the statement by a well-known economist that "the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment". In short without a healthy environment, there can be no healthy economy.

How to measure wealth, well-being and economic success is currently the subject of much debate. Use of Gross National Product or Gross Domestic Product is of only limited value and can be highly misleading. The same goes for most indices of economic growth. In China the objective is to achieve clean or green growth, and establish xiaokang or a balanced and prosperous society. How this can best be done is still being worked out. But it is clear as anything can be that market economics alone cannot set priorities or measure what we think of as progress.

In my view we need to redefine development and recognize the very different needs - and strengths - of different countries. Many global prescriptions lack reality. It is local experience and potentiality which have most importance. If we are to reappraise economics and measures of progress, we need to look closely at the thinking and work of current global financial institutions. The World Bank has made some steps to introduce environmental accounting, but the International Monetary Fund has a lot to learn in the advice it gives indebted countries.

At present there is a serious imbalance in international institutions covering the three interlinked issues of trade, environment and sustainable development. The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization are powerful centralized institutions armed with real enforcement mechanisms. By contrast there is a multiplicity of environmental bodies, conventions and agreements, which create confusion and the risk of institutional conflict. Options for resolving the problems that could arise, and still more so in the future, include the upgrading of the United Nations Environment Programme, or probably more effectively, the creation of an umbrella organization such as a World Environment Organization responsible for the environmental dimension of sustainable development.

The role of science and technology is crucial. Human knowledge is advancing all the time, but the bridges into technology and politics are notoriously rickety and can sometimes lead in the wrong direction. Technological fixes can create as many problems as they solve, and politicians often look for certainties which do not exist. Yet successful application of technology is the hallmark of our society. It needs to be much better explained and understood. We need not only to clear up the inadvertent mistakes of the past, but also to choose and develop the technologies of the future.

The current public debate, mostly in Europe, over genetically modified organisms has highlighted the issues. They are very relevant to this conference. During 2003, 18 countries grew genetically modified crops on 68 million hectares. The United States was far ahead of any other country, and was followed by Argentina, Canada and Brazil. Argentina has already had an unfortunate experience with its genetically modified soya. Unfortunately the emotions which have been generated over the whole issue have created a kind of fog over the subject.

At one end of the spectrum are those who object in principle to genetic modification or animals or plants. They call it playing at God, and are not open to discussion on the subject. They point to the dangers of leakage from genetically modified to other organisms, to the contamination this could cause in the form of superbugs or superweeds, to the vulnerability of mono-crops to changing conditions, and to the commanding position that interested corporations could establish in world food markets to the detriment of ordinary farmers. Thus the results in the shape of what have been called Frankenstein foods, could eventually be worse than the effects of invasive species in new habitats.

At the other end of the spectrum are the big corporations which see nothing wrong in accelerating the processes of natural selection by lateral transfer of genes in one generation rather than by vertical transfer over many generations in the traditional processes of breeding. Countries addicted to the technological fix find it hard to understand the public uproar on the subject in Europe. After all lateral gene transfer does occasionally take place in nature. The dispute is now before the World Trade Organization. In the meantime a treaty to regulate trade in genetically modified organisms across frontiers - the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety - has been ratified by 90 countries, and is now in force. Unfortunately the signatories do not include the United States and Canada.

The British Government has tried to find a way through the problem through rigorous scientific testing over three years. The results just published found that genetically modified maize did little or no harm to the environment, but that beet and oil seed rape did not pass the tests. In allowing conditional development of genetically modified maize, the Government underlined that any issues of liability would be the responsibility of those who introduced genetically modified organisms. In the meantime public opinion remains sceptical or hostile.

So far most genetically modified crops can be found in industrial countries where they are least necessary. Countries where food security is at risk may come to feel differently. For example the introduction of salt tolerant or drought resistant crops could be a boon in some areas. Many important crops - such as pulses, vegetables, and fodder have so far been neglected.

Any rational person must conclude that there are certain dangers and certain benefits in the genetic modification of organisms. The path of wisdom must surely be to proceed slowly and carefully in strict respect for the science. Those who produce crops for export would be well advised to segregate modified from unmodified crops, as I believe is already being done in China.

Governments, business and civil society all need to work on new relationships if the vast range of problems I have discussed are to be resolved. We simply have to change our ways. We means everyone. I do not like to think what future generations will think of us as they pay for the consequences of our actions or inactions.

Change usually takes place for three main reasons. First we need leadership from above by institutions or individuals.

Secondly we need public pressure from below. The voice of civil society must be heard and listened to.

I am sorry to say that lastly we often need some useful catastrophes to jerk us out of our normal inertia; big but not too big; small enough but not too small; quick but not too quick; slow but not too slow. In each case big enough to demonstrate the point.

This is an agricultural occasion. Agriculture is the indispensable base of all modern society. Since the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago, there have been some 30 urban civilizations. All but ours have crashed sooner or later: sometimes as a result of climate change; sometimes through depletion of the resource base; sometimes following internal social, political and economic crisis; sometimes following external pressure from others; sometimes through a combination of these factors; but all following failure of the most important resource of the lot: reliable supply of food.

We do not have to go the same way as others. But as the first really global society, we face hazards as great, if not greater, than those which brought down our predecessors. Let us make sure we can understand as well as cope with whatever may arise.