Rankings, Remedies and Requiems

Bluey here,

In eight appointments with my seven specialists, I've had six disappointments. But what an incredible experience. Humbling to my inner core—I'd never realised how committed doctors were to unveiling the true state of my health. It's not just been about doctors though, I've learnt about myself and most importantly, all my biotic inhabitants down on my surface, especially humans.

When I met Dr Steffen three months ago, I figured I had a slight temperature and possibly a few other ailments. If I'd known about my PBs then, I would've ranked them as follows according to 'Three-months ago'. I now rank them according to 'Today':

Rank:	Three-months ago:	Today:
1	Climate Change	Climate Change
2	Ocean Acidification	Biodiversity
3	Stratospheric Ozone Depletion	Freshwater Use
4	Land-system Change	Biogeochemical Flows
5	Freshwater Use	Land-system Change
6	Biodiversity	Ocean Acidification
7	Biogeochemical Flows	Stratospheric Ozone Depletion

The urgency of addressing Biodiversity, Freshwater Use and Biogeochemical Flows—especially—mustn't be underestimated or swept under the Climate Change rug. Nor should Land-system change—especially with respect to maintaining temporal/boreal forest coverage—or ignoring the state of my 'Great Barrier Teeth'.

Just as Dr Schlesinger is sceptical of the utility of 'Planetary Boundaries' as a concept (I met him yesterday and will discuss his opinion shortly), it's important not to get too carried away with amorphous 'rankings', but they are illustrative. Above all, I've come to appreciate how interrelated each PB is with one another. For example, Land-system Change has deep ties to Climate Change and Freshwater Use is intimately connected with Biodiversity, as highlighted by the devastating decline in my freshwater vertebrate species. Biogeochemical Flows of phosphorous/nitrogen impact freshwater biodiversity and catalyses terrestrial-coastline eutrophication, Stratospheric Ozone depletion subtly affects climate, while recent Ocean Acidification is a product of increased CO2 in my atmosphere, which also drives the recent flux in climate. Future remedies, if they ever come, must address all of these PBs collectively.

Another emerging theme has been the regional-global dynamic of many of my PBs. For example, I've learnt that problems associated with my Biogeochemical flows could be averted if fertilisers were distributed across my surface in a less concentrated fashion. Similarly, at the regional level, Freshwater Security could be enhanced by alleviating stress in highly-volatile downstream regions, just as regional biodiversity could be protected by respecting the proper functioning of freshwater ecosystem services. I also learnt that non-linear change has been somewhat overstated in the Land-system Change PB, which is mostly regional, with little evidence of global teleconnection.

The elephant in the room throughout all this, of course, has been that this diagnosis has been more about humans than it has been about me. As mentioned in previous posts, I should be fine. But having sat through specialist after specialist, I've a vested interest in how humans manage me from here. Why? Three main reasons:

1. Runaway climate change: No offence to Venus.
2. Human nuclear event: Not keen on a Permian-Triassic extinction event or worse. We've all come too far. Water security and climate change must be abated to decrease potential political tensions.
3. Biodiversity bottlenecks: Humans are inherently solipsistic.

Dr Schlesinger questions the value of thresholds, warning the "setting of boundaries is fine, but waiting to act until [humans] approach these limits merely allows [humans] to continue with [their] bad habits until it's too late to change them". However, from my planetary perspective, I believe they are of great value as humans can relate to thresholds. Unlike the narratively impaired PB of Climate Change, I've found my metaphor.

Emergency Operations?

I've heard the rumours and Dr IPCC even mentioned it recently. So for the record, if given the choice between Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), I'd prefer neither. Humans beware. But if it comes to it, and something tells me it might, BECCS does seem to be the least invasive.

Yours for awhile,
Your Pale Blue Dot

Specialist #7: I Have a Big Mole on My Bottom (Stratospheric Ozone Depletion)

Bluey here,

They say that you should save the best news for last.

Today's specialist appointment was with Dr Solomon and Nurse Fahey-Hegglin. It was breath of fresh air. Who would be a climate or biodiversity specialist when you could be an ozone specialist!?

According to my GP, Dr Steffen, my skin's stratospheric ozone layer (SOL) plays a vital role in protecting my terrestrial and marine organisms from the Sun's most harmful ultraviolet radiation, especially UV-B. Therefore, when human scientists discovered over 30 years ago that ozone was depleting globally and a 'hole' was forming over my Antartica in the Austral Spring, there was widespread consternation. But meanwhile, some industrious humans—such as Mario J. Molina and F. Sherwood Rowland—were busy trying to uncover what was actually causing the depletion. Soon enough, they discovered that the proliferation of a small number of human manufactured chemicals—now called ozone-depleting substances (ODSs)—were the culprits.

My Ozone Depleting Substances (Source: Ozone Assessment 2010)

Today's appointment centred on assessing my current ozone levels globally with particular emphasis on the extent of my Antarctic 'Ozone Hole'.

Dr Solomon used a variety of instruments as well as local and remote techniques to gauge my current ozone condition. Using a contemporary Dobson spectrophotometer and special balloons, she was able to collect local data at my South Pole station and picked up remote trends using a Solar Backscatter Ultra-Violet satellite. Very impressive. While Dr Solomon collected her final pieces of data, Nurse Fahey-Hegglin explained concepts relating to how (and why) ozone is distributed unevenly across my surface, its 90% predominance in my stratosphere compared with my troposphere and more information about ODSs generally. The Nurse referred to my ODSs as 'manufactured halogen source gasses' such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons (e.g. Halon-1211) in order to differentiate them from 'natural halogen source gasses' such as methyl chloride (CH3Cl).

Annual distribution of total ozone (Source: Ozone Assessment 2010)

Dr Solomon and Nurse Fahey-Hegglin's full results:

Medical Report #7: Stratospheric Ozone Depletion

Dr Solomon convinced me through pure data that my overall ozone levels had stabilised and my ozone hole was slowly 'closing', despite variability to do with seasonal fluctuations in temperature, transport dynamics and "volcanic aerosol chemistry". By using a comprehensive range of data sets and comparing 'September' trends from 1980 - 2000 with 2000 - 2014, Dr Solomon showed a clear decreasing trend in my 'Ozone Hole' extent:

Ozone Hole Trends (Source: Science)

What struck me especially about my ozone levels was its ability to fluctuate year on year depending on different variables. For example, the large 'holes' in 2011 and 2015 have been attributed to my Chilean eruptions of Puyehue-Cordón Caulle and Calbuco respectively. The size of the 2015 hole was estimated to have been a whopping 4.4 million km2 larger because of the eruption of Calbuco!

Another fascinating fact I discovered was the relative success of the human-created Montreal Protocol that prescribes limits on ODSs. Due to Kyoto Protocol's abject failure, I thought that 'top-down' human agreements were always under-achievers. It was timely to learn that humans could actually come together and solve a big problem. At current trends, the Montreal Protocol will likely have reduced ODSs to pre-1980 levels by as early as 2050.

Yours for awhile,
Bluey

Human Population: The Mother of Them All?

Bluey here,

I've been thinking about something that seems plain enough to me but hasn't been talked about much down on my surface by humans; at least not to my knowledge... I haven't discussed it with my GP yet, but I think it's important to bring up.

Why is it that human population is not a Planetary Boundary? Moreover, why is it not the Planetary Boundary?!

I went searching for the stirrings of an answer. This recent article acknowledged that human population was the 'elephant in the room'—and even mentioned GP Steffen—but failed to discuss its planetary boundary credentials. Though it did point to a 2012 UNEP report, called One Planet, How Many People? A Review of Earth’s Carrying Capacity. I found it similarly inconclusive, however an 8 billion figure emerged as an approximate 'carrying capacity'.

'Carrying Capacity': 65 estimates (Source: UNEP)

I must admit, when I read that one study put my 'carrying capacity' at 1,024 billion, I did have some immediate concerns around its veracity. However, the report was able to maintain its integrity, admitting that agreeing upon "a static ceiling for sustainable human population seems destined to uncertainty", and blaming some of the more 'exponential' studies on methodology and assumption differences.

Historical World Population (Source: UNEP)

Eventually, I found what I was looking for. A paper by Population Matters. Human population was overtly mentioned in the same sentence as planetary boundaries:

"Although population is not one of the nine planetary boundaries, the rising level of human population undermines our efforts to limit human development to the above-mentioned nine planetary boundaries."

I think undermines should be replaced with sabotages personally. According to last year's report by the UN, population is growing at 1.18% per year, expected to tip 10 billion just after 2050 and 11 billion 40 years later. My Africa region is expected to witness the bulk of growth, while my Europe and even my China regions are expected to decline. India will soon surpass China as my most populous region!

Lastly, let's touch on the other 'elephant in the room' that's emerged: human consumption. Mathis Wackernagel and colleagues think humans began exceeding my regenerating capacity in 1980 and now use 1.5 of me! While their concept of a human 'ecological footprint' has been contested, it's another very interesting perspective which I plan to look into in the future.

One thing's for sure, I will be pressing GP Steffen about why human population—and it's partner in crime, human consumption—has not been made a PB at our next appointment.

Yours for awhile,
Bluey

Specialist #6: I’ve Had a Few Minor ‘Plumbing’ Issues of Late (Freshwater Use)

Bluey here,

This morning was about assessing whether my plumbing was in good working order now and into the future. Yes, for you humans, but also the infinite freshwater species and ecosystems that call my body home.

Once again, I had the privilege of having two specialists: Dr Pekel et al and Dr Mekostra (short for Mekonnen-Hoekstra). Nurse Vörösmarty also attended but was collecting biodiversity data for the fist half of the session, so joined us a little late.

At my initial GP appointment, Dr Steffen corrected my former GP's much-criticised focus on my aggregate totals of freshwater. While one might think that aggregate totals provide a telling metric alone, river-basin metrics are a better way of integrating 'my problems' with regional human 'problems' by measuring "maximum rates of blue-water withdrawal by humans along rivers" in order to "avoid regime shifts in the functioning of flow-dependent ecosystems".

Dr Pekel put me through the MRI scanner and as I appeared out the other side he looked surprised at the results. According to Dr Pekel, my total surface freshwater was greater than he'd expected, covering almost 3% of my entire body mass. But what he was most surprised about was not the extent but the change—between 1984 and 2015, there had been "striking patterns of surface water occurrence change".

Dr Mekostra complemented Dr Pekel perfectly, as his area of expertise was the seasonal fluctuations of human water consumption, and its availability, rather than the holistic perspective offered by his colleague. While more human-centric than Dr Pekel, I was well-attuned to perspectives proffered by doctors like Dr Mekostra. His main finding was that 'blue' water scarcity was a fact of yearly life for about 71% of my human population. By comparing his results with previous medical records, water scarcity has increased overall—a stark reality given Dr Pekel's finding that aggregate surface freshwater has increased! Thanks to Dr Mekostra's insistence to conduct variability testing throughout a year, as opposed to annually, a theme has emerged that can't be ignored by humans.

My results in full:

Medical Report 6: Freshwater Use

Additional information:

• Global PB: Maximum amount of consumptive blue water use.
• Basin PB: Blue water withdrawal as percent of mean monthly river flow. Low-flow months (Low-F), Intermediate-flow months (Int-F), High-flow months (High-F)

____

Overall, it seems my endorheic lakes have increased considerably, while my North America—which accounts for 52% of my permanent surface water—and Asian regions have had permanent water gains. Worryingly however, over 70% of my net permanent water loss has been in five concentrated regions: my Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Dr Pekel used the example of the Aral Sea as the gravest reminder about what can happen when unregulated withdrawal of blue water and transboundary policy issues clash; in this case, from the flow of the Syr and Amu rivers:

The Aral Sea is just one of a number of prominent examples alongside Lake Urmia and Lake Chad, where freshwater environments can quickly lose volume, become hyper-saline and decimate local freshwater biodiversity.

Dr Mekostra's reinforced Dr Pekel's appeal suggesting humans should place caps on blue-water consumption per river basin and revisit transboundary cooperation policies. Also, by focussing on my most susceptible regions such as my India, Pakistan, Libya and Somalia, Dr Mekostra demonstrated the importance of pursuing sustainable solutions in my highly populated and traditionally volatile body parts. Dr Mekostra's results also drove home—for humans—the importance of sustainable freshwater use to ensure their maintenance of global security on my surface.

When Nurse Vörösmarty finally arrived with his results, he brought a real sense of enthusiasm to the room. Synthesising two different perspectives—river biodiversity and water scarcity—the nurse provided 'threat maps', including the one below, to schematically represent my body parts most at risk. According to the nurse's figures, Africa and central Asia are experiencing dual threats. My Ethiopia, for example, "contains 150 times less reservoir storage per capita than my North America":

Human Water Security / Biodiversity Threat (Source: Nature)

In terms of biodiversity, the nurse describes freshwater biodiversity as in a "state of crisis", citing four general drivers: catchment disturbance, pollution, resource development and biotic factors. When read next to the Living Planetary Index statistic that 81% of "Freshwater species populations have suffered an 81% decline", the nurses data becomes all the more sobering.

As a final point, Nurse Vörösmarty stressed that humans must conduct integrated water resource management and embrace technological innovation/investment to "reconfigure exposure to threats". Wrong audience I thought, but I noted it down.

Personally, I'm not as worried about water scarcity as I am about biodiversity. As I left the appointment I couldn't help but agree with a quote I'd recently come across: "Freshwater ecosystems may well be the most endangered ecosystems in the world". Yes, my PB was technically 'safe' but I think this is a severe misrepresentation of the facts at hand.

Thanks for the insights Dr Pekel et al, Dr Mekostra and Nurse Vörösmarty. 

Yours for awhile,
Bluey

Doughnut Economics

Bluey here,

The strangest thing happened this morning. I was about to send Saturn an email, when all of a sudden, I fell down an internet rabbit hole and came across this TEDx. Listen for when human, Kate Raworth, mentions my GP, Dr Steffen, and my former GP, Dr Rockstrom, at 8.50 minutes!

It seems my 'Planetary Boundaries' are becoming increasingly integrated with other, more obscure human disciplines like human economics. Promising—I think. Despite not being medical or scientific in definition, Raworth's 'life support system' provides a novel way of thinking about my various illnesses and an interesting model for humans—and their so-called 'finance ministers'—to integrate Earth Science into their decision making apparatus. It's just a pity Doughnut Economics—which I learnt is going from a ‘doughnut’ to a book soon—hasn't had all that much attention: only 14,394 views on YouTube.

'The Doughnut' (Source: Doughnut Economics)

Raworth situates the ideal human economy between two circles. The outside of the doughnut, she labels the ‘environmental ceiling’; the inside, the ‘social foundation’. The doughnut, itself, represents ‘the safe and just space for humanity’. I can't help but think that 'the safe and just space for humanity' looks about as thin as my atmosphere and as likely as the sun not rising tomorrow. Nevertheless, I'll watch Raworth's Doughnut with interest and be sure to raise the chemical pollution and atmospheric aeresol loading aspects (upside down and at the bottom in the diagram above) with my GP, Dr Steffen. Why? Because I'm positive he never raised these as issues at our original consultation.

Yours for awhile,

Bluey

Specialist #5: My Growth Stimulants P & N Are Causing Me Problems (Biogeochemical Flows)

Bluey here,

I haven't spoken about specialists besides Dr Barnosky for weeks! So when I found out that Dr Barnosky was figuratively history—having had him for my last two appointments—I was happy. When I discovered I didn't just have one, but two new specialists, I was ecstatic. Dr Brush & Dr Carpenter Bennett came highly regarded, as did their eccentric nurse, Nurse Withers et al.

My predilection for the 'growth hormones' Phosphorous & Nitrogen have become particular issues of late, having caused multiple unforeseen complications. Whilst I continue to overuse them excessively, the doctors were not judgmental—they even seemed to understand the addiction!

Hypoxia in the Chesapeake Bay (Source: Integration & Application Network)

The tests for Phosphorus proceeded first. Dr Carpenter sought to develop a more comprehensive exploration of my Phosphorous levels than those of my former GP Dr Rockstrom et al—but inline with my current GP Steffen et al—citing the need to examine both my global and local flows of Phosphorous. Dr Rockstrom had previously concentrated only on Phosphorous flows to my ocean which had fallen well below his proposed PB. I thought Dr Rockstrom's failure to acknowledge the local effects of my Phosphorous intake, particularly my 'eutrophication' at the freshwater level, was plain irresponsible. But it was reassuring to know that I now had expert specialists committed to thorough and broad examination.

On completion, Dr Carpenter handed his instruments to Dr Brush to carry out my Nitrogen tests. Before concentrating on a single body part called 'Chesapeake Bay' near my ribs, Dr Brush explained how an overdose of Nitrogen in coastal areas can cause a "proliferation of planktonic algal growth", just as with Phosphorous. Using the Chesapeake Bay system as her prime example, many coastal areas had "flipped from a benthic dominated system to a phytoplankton based pelagic system". As a result, the mass of decomposing planktonic algae were consuming a significant proportion of my O2, thus depleting what would otherwise be available other low-lying marine organisms to enable them to flourish. My full results:

Medical Report 5: Biogeochemical flows

Tg P = Teragrams or million tonnes of phosphorus.

Humans had their fingerprints all over this again; I knew it. I'd recently read Vaclav Smil's 'Detonator of the Population Explosion' about the Haber process and also his piece about "human interference in the nitrogen cycle being incomparably more massive than the perturbance of the carbon cycle" but having the results in front of me confirmed it all. Before considering the stark implications though, let's break down the drivers of eutrophication and hypoxia—words that were foreign to me until today.

This interactive map of my eutrophication and hypoxia zones, displayed to me by Nurse Withers, brings their full extent to life. According to the World Resource Institute, eutrophication is driven by indirect and direct drivers of which intensive fertiliser application and land use change are its primary culprits, along with the usual suspects of human population growth and economic growth. Climate change and over-fishing, unsurprisingly, also "exacerbate" eutrophication.

Interestingly, eutrophication and hypoxia are not the same—as I'd first thought. Eutrophication actually causes hypoxia or 'Dead Zones' to form. Human scientists explain Hypoxia here:

Should I be as worried as my Medical Report indicates? Dr Brush and Dr Carpenter believe recovery is possible, though didn't convince me fully of their arguments. According to Dr Carpenter, the recycling of Phosphorous and potential zoning techniques could solve dual problems: that of running out of Phosphorous and also reducing runoff into freshwater systems. Equally sanguine, Dr Brush cites denitrification of the watershed as something that "seems possible" if a system were designed to "mimic" past conditions, especially if remote sensing were optimised to identify good locations. All this—of course—assumes a change from the human status quo though.

Enter Nurse Withers and 'green chemistry'. The nurse was a revelation: design new food systems, refine livestock feeds, use biorefinery, promote circular economies, sustainably mine Phosphorous Rock (PR), reduce waste, and recycle! In his opinion, Phosphorous was too critical an element to leave to its own devices. It has no substitute so humans must "maximise the economic value of PR", recover it from secondary resources and "provide P governance" in the food chain. When? As a matter of urgency.

The specialists were stunned.

Yours for awhile,
Bluey

PS: I overheard the specialists discussing human PR mining effects on my Nauru. What a tragedy.

A Rational Pessimist, Realist or Optimist?

Bluey here,

Just calling in briefly to bring everyone's attention to this article about how humanity won't survive another 1,000 years. Apparently the warning comes from one of the 'smartest' humans on my surface:

Food for thought, but goes directly against a good book I've been reading lately: The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves.

I guess I'll get to see which 'theory' prevails...

Yours for awhile,
Bluey