When readers put it into perspective that the “tragedy of the commons” described in G.T. Miller’s book, “Living in the Environment,” juxtapose his description of the “three issues of sustainability.” It is this juxtaposition that implicates long-term failure for sustainability in societies and ecosystems that experience growth, without at some point experiencing some sort of inhibiting factor, resisting its ability to grow.
The “tragedy of the commons” in the simplest of definitions: is using up a form of renewable energy faster than nature can replenish the source, (Miller, 2013). But the only real difference in non-renewable and renewable forms of energy is the variance of time. In terms of energy, and energy renewal, every form of energy is renewable. This is explained by the laws of thermodynamics. Some sources of energy are just replenished faster than other sources. It takes, for instance, the Earth longer to convert fossils into crude oil then it does to convert photons into cellulose, and eventually into fossils, into oil. But if the first law of thermodynamics holds true, no energy is created or destroyed, it is only converted into different forms.
Miller describes ecosystem services as “processes in nature.” He uses references such as “pollination, purification of air and water, and renewal of top soil, that supports life and human economies.” Another way to describe ecosystem services is to use the laws thermodynamics as a parable, or a metaphor.
The first law of thermodynamics states that energy is never created nor destroyed. The parable to ecosystems services explains that nothing in nature, in its base atomic form, is ever created or destroyed.
The second law of thermodynamics states that energy continually changes form from high to lower concentrations. The parable exists here with the Earth’s ecosystems services, because in nutrient cycling elements change from substances of higher energy values, into substances of lower energy values. The parable between thermodynamics and the Earth’s ecosystems services is explained another way, by understanding the concepts of Miller’s “three issues of sustainability.”
The first and most important component of these three issues is solar energy (Miller, 2013). Solar energy can be found in many forms, it heats the planet, causing wind and water to circulate through the atmosphere. It drives the photosynthetic process in plant life, forcing growth and even eventually decomposition.
The second component of the three issues of sustainability is biodiversity (Miller, 2013), or facilitation. Facilitation is the act of one plant species facilitating the needed properties of life to another plant species (Callaway, 2011). Whether that’s in shading from dangerous ultraviolet radiation, or sequestering and sharing sequestered water supplies for later use. Plant facilitation is found in every ecosystem. Facilitation, in the same respect, occurs in the animal kingdom. When one animal species conducts activities that inadvertently aid the life cycle of a plant or another animal species, the plants and animals are said to be in facilitation. A dung beetle as a prime example recycles the chemical refuse of the elephant. Another example of recycling and facilitation is found in the interaction between parasites and/or lichens and their host organisms.
Recycling is the third law of sustainability, (Miller, 2013). The planet has recycled it base chemicals for millions of years. The water cycle, the carbon cycle, and mineral cycle are just a few examples. Like energy that can neither be created nor destroyed, the essential building blocks of the world are neither created nor destroyed. They combine and separate, then form different essential substances while losing energy values as they change from one form to another.
For this recycling effect, and for the ecosystems services, and thermodynamics to work properly, the conversion process must then function in the opposite direction. Substances are converted from a lower to a higher form of energy value. The conversion process from a lower state to a higher state of energy or nutrient enrichment, is slower than its reciprocal. But the laws of thermodynamics and ecosystem services state that over time, in one way or the other lower values need to be converted to higher values. These higher values are then consumed by biota in the troposphere. The biotas convert these substances to nutrients and minerals of lower energy values as they descend the food chain, for example, and sooner or later the process begins again. But as depicted by “Daisy World,” (Watson 1983) overpopulation of a certain biota can cause a rippling effect that could end in extinction for it and other biota. Miller calls this the “tragedy of the commons.”
Overpopulation and its impacts are not detail contrasted nor can they be compared using developed and underdeveloped countries. There are inherent differences that make contrast and comparison difficult. For instance impoverished African countries use up their natural resources. These populations cut down all the trees or rainforests, (Cook, 2004) and eat up all the food on a local variance. It is estimated that over 1.5 billion people have no electricity services, and that nearly 3 billion individuals still cook with tree-wood or biomass fuels. Most of these individuals live in the remote regions of Africa, India, and China (Zerriffi, 2011). They remain poor financially and underdeveloped as compared to the rest of the world. But they are not yet contributing to the “tragedy of the commons” on a global scale, like the developed countries contribute to this global scale tragedy. This, however, is reported to occur in the coming years.
The Kyoto Protocol allowed industrialized countries to buy “Carbon Credits” from underdeveloped countries. When these and other transactions occurred they shifted funds from developed to underdeveloped countries. This did nothing to mitigate overall fossil fuel emissions on a global level, (Erickson, et al., 2014). It only appears to escalate the tragedy. This is understood when the factors and implications of growth are considered. In essence, with the funds provided by developed countries for “Carbon Credits,” the underdeveloped populations developed fossil fuel powered electricity facilities, (Erickson, et al., 2014). These facilities are the global growth of a function that add more greenhouse gas emissions, globally, to the atmosphere.
British Petroleum reported in 2011 that if business as usual remains on its present course, in 2030, 81-percent of the world’s energy demand will still be met by burning fossil fuels. This energy production is purported to boost carbon dioxide emission from 30 billion tons in 2010, to 40 billion tons a year, and beyond by 2030, (BP, 2011).
In order to meet the problem of greenhouse gas emissions head-on “market-based” technologies “ensuring a net decrease and/or avoidance of global greenhouse gas emissions,” must be created or revived (Erickson, et al., 2014). This histrionic-- creating the ideal world--was stated during the Kyoto conference’s sixteenth session, or the Cancun Agreements.
The ideal world would supply as many people as possible with conveniences that are found in developed countries. It would supply these people with luxuries without the side effects of large-scale electricity production. But Gross Domestic Product does not improve the quality of life, (Cook, 2004). At a global scale the consequences of providing these luxuries would facilitate unimpeded growth.
On a global scale when the population of a plant or animal society does not have a factor limiting its growth to a certain number of individuals, it outgrows the confines of its habitat. When this happens it uses its needed resources faster than they are recycled back into a usable form by the Earth. This is when the tragedy of the commons juxtaposes the three issues of sustainability. The tragedy does this by limiting one, or all of the three issues of sustainability. When they are stressed to a certain point, the issues of sustainability become incapable of functioning. This is the tragedy of the commons, because other species will suffer when this occurs.
“It is difficult to foresee what concentrations will lead to unacceptable consequences,” (Cook, 2004). But one consensus is that the need to stop using resources faster than they are made available, is a foreseeable concern.
Bibliography:
BP. (2011). BP Energy Outlook 2030. 60 years BP statistical review. Washington DC. 26 April, 2001. Pg. 3, 7. Web. Accessed 06 Feb. 2015. http://www.eia.gov/conference/2011/pdf/presentations/Finley.pdf
Cook, D. (2004). The natural step towards a sustainable society. Green Books. Arrowsmith Ltd, Bristol, UK. Schumacher briefing no. 11. Pg. 22, 35. Moodle. University of Montana. Web. Accessed Feb. 06, 2015.
Erickson, P. Lazarus, M. Spalding-Fecher, R. (2014). Net climate change mitigation of the Clean Development Mechanism. Energy Policy 72, pp. 146-154. Elsevier.
Miller, G.T. (2013) Living in the Environment. (There was no cite information included in the Moodle article 14th-17th edition?) 13th edition. Chapter One. What are some principles of sustainability? Moodle. University of Montana. Pg. 2, 8. Web. Accessed, Feb. 06, 2015.
Callaway, R. Personal conversation. University of Montana. University Center. Dec. 07, 2011.
Watson, A.J.; J.E. Lovelock (1983). "Biological homeostasis of the global environment: the parable of Daisyworld". Tellus B (International Meteorological Institute) 35 (4): 286–9. Bibcode:1983TellB..35..284W. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0889.1983.tb00031.x.
Zerriffi, H. (2011.) Innovative business models for the scale-up of energy access efforts for the poorest. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 3(4), 272-278. Science Direct. Elsevier. DOI 10.1016/j.cosust.2011.05.002.
