Chapter 1 ~ Ecosystems and

Humans
Environmental Science and Its Context
Every one of us is sustained by various kinds of natural resources – such as food,
materials, and energy that are harvested or otherwise extracted from the environment.
Our need for those resources is absolute – we cannot survive without them. Moreover,
the same is true of all other species – every organism is a component of an ecosystem
that provides the means of subsistence.

Collectively, the needs and activities of people comprise a human economy. That
economy operates at various scales, ranging from an individual person, to a family, to
communities such as towns and cities, nation-states (such as Canada), and ultimately
the global human enterprise. While an enormous (and rapidly growing) number of
people are supported by the global economy, a lot of environmental damage is also
being caused. The most important of the damages are the depletion of vital natural
resources, various kinds of pollution (including climate change), and widespread
destruction of natural habitats to the extent that the survival of many of the natural
ecosystems and species of Earth are at grave risk.

These issues are of vital importance to all people, and to all life on the planet. Their
subject matter provides the context for a wide-ranging field of knowledge called
environmental studies, an extremely broad field of knowledge that examines the
scientific, social, and cultural aspects of environmental issues. As such, the subject
matter of environmental studies engages all forms of understanding that are relevant
to identifying, understanding, and resolving environmental problems. Within that
context, environmental science examines the science-related implications of
environmental issues (this is explained in more detail in the following section). The
subject matter of environmental science is the focus of this book.

Issues related to environmental problems are extremely diverse and they interact in
myriad ways. Despite this complexity, environmental issues can be studied by
aggregating them into three broad categories:

1. the causes and consequences of the rapidly increasing human population

2. the use and depletion of natural resources
3. damage caused by pollution and disturbances, including the endangerment of
biodiversity

These are extremely big issues – their sustainable resolution poses great challenges to
people and their economy at all scales. Nevertheless, it is important to understand that
the study of environmental issues should not be regarded as being a gloomy task of
understanding awful problems – rather, the major goal is to identify problems and find
practical ways to repair them and prevent others from occurring. These are
worthwhile and necessary actions that represent real progress towards an ecologically
sustainable economy. As such, people who understand and work towards the
resolution of environmental problems can achieve high levels of satisfaction with their
contribution, which is something that helps to make life worth living.

Typical questions that might be examined in environmental science include the

following:

1. How large is the human population likely to be in Canada, or on Earth, in 50 or

200 years?
2. How can the use of fossil fuels be integrated into a sustainable economy, in
view of the fact that they are non-renewable resources that do not regenerate?
3. How can we harvest renewable resources (which do have the potential to
regenerate) in ways that do not degrade their stocks, such as cod in Atlantic Canada,
wild salmon in British Columbia, wheat and other grains in the Prairie provinces, and
forest resources across much of the country?
4. What ecological damages are caused by various kinds of pollution, such as acid
rain, ozone, pesticides, and sulphur dioxide, and how can these effects be prevented
or repaired?
5. Are human influences affecting global climate, and if so, what are the causes
and consequences of this effect?
6. Where and how quickly are species and natural habitats becoming
endangered or extinct, and how can these calamities be prevented?

Image 1.1. Planet Earth. Earth is the third closest planet to the Sun, and it is the only
place in the universe that is definitely known to sustain life and ecosystems. Other
than sunlight, the natural resources needed to sustain the human economy are
restricted to the limited amounts that can be extracted on Earth.
Specialists examining these and other questions related to environmental issues may
come from many specific areas of study, each of which is referred to as a discipline.
However, the various ways of understanding each issue may be integrated into
comprehensive studies of the subject matter – this is why environmental studies is
referred to as interdisciplinary field. For environmental science, the most relevant of
the disciplinary subjects are atmospheric science, biology, chemistry, computer
science, ecology, geography, geology, mathematics, medical science, oceanography,
physics, and statistics. This is illustrated in Figure 1.1, which suggests that all fields of
scientific knowledge are relevant to understanding the causes, consequences, and
resolution of environmental problems.
Figure 1.1. Environmental science has an interdisciplinary character. All scientific
disciplines are relevant to the identification and resolution of environmental issues.
However, the work requires an interdisciplinary approach that engages many
disciplines in a coordinated manner. Thisintegration is suggested by the overlapss
 among the disciplinary fields.

This book deals with the key subject areas of environmental science. To some degree,
however, certain non-science topics are also examined because they are vital to
understanding and resolving environmental issues. These non-science fields include
ethics, philosophy, and economics.

Of all of the academic disciplines, ecology is the most relevant to environmental

science, and in fact the terms are often confused. Ecology may be defined simply as
the study of the relationships of organisms with their environment. Ecology is itself a
highly interdisciplinary field of study – it mostly involves biology, but knowledge of
chemistry, computer science, mathematics, physics, geology, and other fields is also
important. Geography is another interdisciplinary field that is central to environmental
science. Geography can be simply defined as the study of natural features of Earth’s
surface, including climate, soil, topography, and vegetation, as well as intersections
with the human economy. Obviously, ecology and geography are closely related
fields.

Increasing numbers of scientists are studying human (or anthropogenic) influences on

ecosystems, occurring as a result of pollution, disturbances, and other stressors.
Examples of the major subject areas are:

1. The extraction, processing, and use of non-renewable resources, such as fossil

fuels and metals, in ways that do not cause unacceptable environmental damage,
 while also moderating their depletion to some possible degree (for example, by re-
cycling certain materials)
2. The harvesting and management of biological resources, such as those in
agriculture, fisheries, and forestry, in ways that allow them to fully regenerate so
their stocks can be sustained into the future
3. The growth of renewable sources of energy, such as the various forms of solar
energy (including biomass fuels, hydroelectricity, photovoltaics, and wind), as a way
of replacing non-renewable fossil fuels and thereby making the energy economy
more sustainable
4. The prevention and repair of ecological damages, such as those related to
endangered biodiversity, degraded land or water, and the management of
greenhouse gases

An environmental scientist is a generalist who uses science-related knowledge

relevant to environmental quality, such as air or water chemistry, climate modelling,
or the ecological effects of pollution. Several well-known environmental scientists
who have worked in Canada are: William Rees of the University of British Columbia,
who studies ecological economics and footprints, David Schindler of the University of
Alberta, who studies the effects of pollution and climate change on lakes, Bridget
Stutchbury of York University, who examines factors affecting bird conservation, and
Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria, who studies the causes and
consequences of climate change.

Another group of people, known as environmentalists, is also involved with these

sorts of issues, especially in the sense of advocacy. This involves taking a strong
public stance on a particular environmental issue, in terms of the need to address the
problem. David Suzuki is perhaps the most famous environmentalist in Canada,
because he has so effectively influenced the attitudes of people through books,
television, and other media. Elizabeth May is another well-known Canadian
environmentalist, who has worked to deal with many issues as the director of the
Sierra Club of Canada, and more recently as the head of the Green Party of Canada
and a Member of Parliament. A final example is Paul Watson, a direct-action
environmentalist who has worked through the Sea Shepherd Society. He has been
involved in non-governmental “policing” actions, such as the sabotage of vessels
engaged in illegal whaling and fishing.

However, any person can be called an environmentalist if they care about the quality
of the environment and work towards changes that would help to resolve the issue.
Environmentalists may work as individuals, and they often pursue their advocacy
through non-governmental organizations (NGOs; see Chapter 27 for an explanation of
the role of NGOs in Canada and internationally).
Canadian Focus 1.1. David Suzuki – A Canadian Environmentalist
David Suzuki was born in Vancouver in 1936. In 1964, he became a biology professor
at the University of British Columbia, where he studied the genetics of fruit flies.
Beginning in the mid-1970s, Suzuki became engaged in media ventures designed to
popularize knowledge about scientific issues important to society, most notably
through the Quirks and Quarks (radio) and Nature of Things (television) series of the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

Through these media efforts, as well as his many books, magazine and newspaper
articles, and public lectures, Suzuki has been instrumental in informing a broad public
in Canada and other countries about the gravity of environmental problems, including
their scientific and socio-economic dimensions. This is not to say that everyone agrees
with his interpretation of environmental issues. Such issues are always controversial,
and there are people who believe that some environmental problems – even climate
change and the effects of pesticides – are not important. But despite this disagreement,
David Suzuki is a highly respected spokesperson on a wide range of environmental
topics. His work is now being advanced through the activities of the David Suzuki
Foundation, an advocacy and research organization founded in 1990 with the aim of
enhancing progress toward an ecologically sustainable human economy
(see http://www.davidsuzuki.org/). Suzuki has built a worldwide following of a broad
constituency of people concerned about environmental damage and social equity. By
doing this, he has contributed greatly to the identification and resolution of
environmental problems in Canada and the world.

Earth, Life, and Ecosystems

The universe consists of billions of billions of stars and probably an even larger
number of associated planets. Our Earth is one particular planet, located within a
seemingly ordinary solar system, which consists of the Sun, eight planets, three
“dwarf” planets, and additional orbiting bodies, such as asteroids and comets.

Earth is the third closest planet to the sun, orbiting that medium-sized star every 365
days at an average distance of 149 million kilometres, and revolving on its own axis
every 24 hours. Earth is a spherical body with a diameter of 12,700 kilometres. About
70% of its surface is covered with liquid water, and the remaining terrestrial area of
exposed land and rock is covered mostly with vegetation. With so much of its surface
covered with water, one might wonder why our planet was not named “Water” instead
of “Earth.”
The most singularly exceptional characteristic of Earth is the fact that certain qualities
of its environment have led to the genesis and subsequent evolution of organisms and
ecosystems. These favourable environmental factors include aspects of Earth’s
chemistry, surface temperature, and strength of gravity.

The beginning of life occurred about 3.5 billion years ago, only 1 billion years
following the origin of Earth during the formation of the solar system. It is not exactly
known how life first evolved from inanimate matter, although it is believed to have
been a spontaneous event. On other words, the genesis of life happened naturally, as a
direct result of appropriate physical and chemical conditions.

Aside from the musings of science fiction, Earth is celebrated as the only place in the
universe that is known to sustain life and its associated ecological processes. Of
course, this observation simply reflects our present state of knowledge. We do not
actually know that organisms do not exist elsewhere – only that life or its signals have
not yet been discovered anywhere else in the universe. In fact, many scientists believe
that because of the extraordinary diversity of environments that must exist among the
innumerable planets of the multitudinous solar systems of the universe, it is likely that
life forms have developed elsewhere. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Earth is the
only planet definitely known to support organisms and ecosystems. This makes Earth
an extraordinarily special place. We can consider the universe at various hierarchical
levels (Figure 1.2). The scale ranges from the extremely small, such as subatomic
particles and photons, to the fantastically large, such as galaxies and, ultimately, the
universe.
 Figure 1.2. Hierarchical Organization of the Universe.

Life on Earth occupies intermediate levels of this hierarchy. The realm of ecology
encompasses the following levels:

1. individual organisms, which are living entities that are genetically and
physically discrete
2. populations, or individuals of the same species that occur together in time and
space
3. communities, or populations of various species, also co-occurring at the same
time and place
4. landscapes and seascapes (collectively, these are ecoscapes), which are spatial
integrations of various communities over large areas
5. and the biosphere in its entirety, which is composed of all life and ecosystems
on Earth

Species and Ecosystems

A species is defined as individuals and populations that can potentially interbreed and
produce fertile offspring (see Chapter 7). The word ecosystem is a generic term that is
used to describe one or more communities of organisms that are interacting with their
environment as a defined unit. As such, ecosystems can be organized in a hierarchy –
they may range from small units occurring in discrete microhabitats (such as an
aquatic ecosystem contained within a pitcher plant or in a garden surrounded by
pavement) to much larger scales (such as a landscape or seascape). Even the biosphere
can be viewed as being a single ecosystem.

Ecological interpretations of the natural world consider the web-like connections

among the many components of ecosystems in a holistic manner. This ecosystem
approach does not view the system as a random grouping of individuals, populations,
species, communities, and environments. Rather, it confirms all of these as being
intrinsically connected and mutually dependent, although in varying degrees, and also
as having emergent properties (In Detail 1.1).

An important ecological principle is that all species are sustained by environmental

resources: the “goods and services” that are provided by their ecosystem. All
organisms require specific necessities of life, such as inorganic nutrients, food, and
habitat with particular biological and physical qualities. Green plants, for example,
need access to an adequate supply of moisture, inorganic nutrients (such as nitrate and
phosphate), sunlight, and space. Animals require suitable foods of plant or animal
biomass (organic matter), along with habitat requirements that differ for each species.

It is important to understand that humans are no different in this respect from other
species. Although this dependence may not always seem to be immediately apparent
as we live our daily lives, we nevertheless depend on environmental resources such as
food, energy, shelter, and water to sustain ourselves and our larger economies.
It follows that the development and growth of individual people, their populations,
and their societies and cultures are limited to some degree by environmental factors.
Examples of such constraints include excessively cold or dry climatic conditions,
mountainous or otherwise inhospitable terrain, and other factors that influence food
production by agriculture or hunting.

However, humans are often able to favourably manipulate their environmental

circumstances. For example, crop productivity may be increased by irrigating
agricultural land, by applying fertilizer, or by managing pests. In fact, humans are
enormously more capable of overcoming their environmental constraints than any
other species. This ability is a distinguishing characteristic of our species.

The human species is labelled by the scientific term Homo sapiens, a two-word name
(or binomial) that is Latin for “wise man.” Indeed, humans are the most intelligent of
all the species, with an enormous cognitive ability (that is, an aptitude for solving
problems). When humans and their societies perceive an environmental constraint,
such as a scarcity of resources, they often have been able to understand the limiting
factors and to then use insight and tools to manipulate the environment accordingly.
The clever solutions have generally involved management of the environment or other
species to the benefit of humans, or the development of social systems and
technologies that allow a more efficient exploitation of natural resources.

Humans are not the only species that can cope with ecological constraints in clever
ways. A few other species have learned to use rudimentary tools to exploit the
resources of their environment more efficiently. For example, the woodpecker finch
of the Galapagos Islands uses cactus spines to pry its food of insects out of fissures in
bark and rotting wood. Chimpanzees modify twigs and use them to extract termites, a
favourite food, from termite mounds. Egyptian vultures pick up stones in their beak
and drop them on ostrich eggs, breaking them and allowing access to the rich food
inside.

A few such innovations or “discoveries” by other species have even been observed.
About 60 years ago in England, milk was hand-delivered to homes in glass bottles that
had a bulbous compartment at the top to collect the cream as it separated. A few great
tits (chickadee-like birds) discovered that they could feed on the cream by tearing a
hole in the cardboard cap of the bottle. Other great tits observed this behavioural
novelty and adopted it. The feeding tactic became widespread and was even adopted
by several other species, such as the blue tit. Cream-eating was a clever innovation,
allowing access to a new and valuable food resource.

Although other species have developed behavioural changes that allow more efficient
exploitation of their environment, none have approached the number and variety of
innovations developed by humans. Moreover, no other species has developed a
cumulative expertise for exploiting such a broad range of resources. And no other
species has managed to spread these adaptive capabilities as extensively as humans
have, in an increasingly global culture. Unfortunately, humans also have developed an
unparalleled ability to degrade resources and ecosystems and to cause the extinction
of other species. The intense damage caused by humans and our economy is, of
course, a major element of the subject matter of environmental science.
In Detail 1.1. Systems and Complexity
The concept of systems is important in the hierarchical organization of environmental
science. For this purpose, a system may be defined as a group or combination of
regularly interacting and interdependent elements that form a collective entity, but one
that is more than the mere sum of its constituents. A system can be isolated for
purposes of study. Systems occur in various spheres of life, including the following: •
biosystems, which are represented by any of the levels of organization of life, ranging
from biochemistry to the biosphere • ecosystems, which are biosystems that consist of
ecological communities that interact with their environment as a defined unit •
economic systems, or integrated activities that produce goods and services in an
economy • socio-cultural systems, which consist of ways that specialized people,
information, and technologies are organized to achieve some goal • and numerous
others, including musical symphonies, physical art such as paintings, and for that
matter, the words and data in this book

Note, however, that these various systems are not mutually exclusive. For example, an
agroecosystem includes elements of biosystems, ecosystems, and socio-cultural
systems.

Systems have collective properties, which are based on the summation of their parts.
One such property might be the total number of organisms present in a defined area,
which might be measured as the sum of all of the individual plants, animals, and
microorganisms that are estimated to be present.

Systems also have emergent properties, which are revealed only when their
components interact to develop functional attributes that do not exist at simpler, lower
levels. For example, harmonies and melodies are emergent properties of music, as
occurs when vocalists, a drummer, a bass and lead guitarist, and a keyboard player of
a rock band all integrate their activities to perform a song. Emergent properties are
complex and may be difficult to predict or manage.

Biological systems provide numerous examples of emergent properties (see Chapter

9). For example, certain kinds of fungi and algae join together as a life form known as
a lichen, which is an intimate, mutually beneficial relationship (a mutualism). The
biological properties of a lichen are different from those of the partner species (which
cannot live apart in nature), and they are impossible to predict based only on
knowledge of the alga and the fungus.

Similarly, assemblages of various species occurring in the same place and time (an
ecological community) develop emergent properties based on such interactions as
competition, disease, herbivory, and predation. This complexity makes it difficult to
predict changes caused by the introduction of a new disease or predator to a
community (including the harvesting of certain species by humans). Assemblages of
communities over large areas, known as ecoscapes, also have emergent properties, as
does the biosphere as a whole.

Emergent properties are extremely difficult to predict and often emerge as “surprises,”
for example, occurring when ecosystems are stressed by some human influence. The
interconnections within systems are particularly important: any effects on particular
components will inevitably affect all of the others. This extreme complexity is one of
the defining attributes of life and ecosystems, in contrast with physical (or non-
biological) systems, which are less complex.

Systems analysis is the study of the characteristics of systems, including their

components, the relationships among those elements, and their collective and
emergent properties. Systems analysis is used to study commercial, industrial, and
scientific operations, usually with the goal of improving their efficiency. It can also be
applied to improve the management of ecosystems being exploited to provide goods
and services for use by the human economy. Ecologists also use systems analysis to
better understand the organization and working of natural ecosystems, regardless of
any direct relationship to the harvesting of natural resources. A key result of many
such analyses is that the complexity of the system often precludes accurate
predictions.

To see a remarkable example of a musical system with emergent properties, have a

look at the video, Stringfever Bolero at http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=H5MLNMgpywk

Stressors and Responses

The development and productivity of organisms, populations, communities, and
ecosystems are naturally constrained by environmental factors. These constraints can
be viewed as being environmental stressors (or stressors). For example, an individual
plant may be stressed by inadequate nutrition, perhaps because of infertile soil or
competition with nearby plants for scarce resources. Less-than-optimal access to
nutrients, water, or sunlight results in physiological stress, which causes the plant to
be less productive than it is genetically capable of being. One result of this stress–
response relationship is that the plant may develop relatively few seeds during its
lifetime. Because reproductive (and evolutionary) success is related to the number of
progeny an organism produces to carry on its genetic lineage, the realized success of
this individual plant is less than its potential.

Similarly, the development and productivity of an animal (including any human) are
constrained by the environmental conditions under which it lives. For instance, an
individual may have to deal with stresses caused by food shortage or by difficult
interactions with other animals through predation, parasitism, or competition for
scarce resources.

The most benign (or least stressful) natural environments are characterized by
conditions in which factors such as moisture, nutrients, and temperature are not
unduly constraining, while disturbances associated with disease, wildfire, windstorm,
or other cataclysms are rare. These kinds of relatively benevolent conditions allow the
most complex and biodiverse ecosystems to develop, namely old-growth rainforest
and coral reefs. Other environments, however, are characterized by conditions that are
more stressful, which therefore limits their development to less complex ecosystems,
such as prairie, tundra, or desert.

All ecosystems are dynamic, in the sense that they change profoundly, and quite
naturally, over time. Many ecosystems are especially dynamic, in that they regularly
experience large changes in their species, amounts of biomass, and rates of
productivity and nutrient cycling. For example, ecosystems that occur in seasonal
climates usually have a discrete growing season, which is followed by a dormant
period when little or no growth occurs. To varying degrees, all of the natural
ecosystems of Canada are seasonally dynamic: a warm growing season is followed by
a cold dormant period when no plant productivity or growth occurs. Animals may
survive the hard times of winter by migrating, hibernating, or feeding on plant
biomass remaining from the previous growing season.

Ecosystems that have recently been affected by a disturbance (an episode of

destruction) are particularly dynamic because they are undergoing a process of
ecological recovery known as succession. Succession occurs in response to changes
associated with natural disturbances such as a wildfire, windstorm, or insect or disease
epidemic. These cataclysmic stressors kill many of the dominant organisms in an
ecosystem, creating opportunities for relatively short-lived species, which may
dominate the earlier years of the post-disturbance recovery. Succession also occurs
after anthropogenic disturbances, such as a deliberately lit wildfire or a clear-cut of
mature timber.
The dynamics of natural disturbances can be far-reaching, in some cases affecting
extensive landscapes. For example, in most years, millions of hectares of the boreal
forest of northern Canada are disturbed by wildfires. Similarly, great areas may be
affected by sudden increases of spruce budworm, a moth that can kill most mature
trees in fir–spruce forest, or by the mountain pine beetle, which kills pine trees. An
even more extensive cataclysm ended about 12,000 years ago, when glaciation
covered virtually all of Canada with enormous ice sheets up to several kilometres
thick. However, disturbances can also be local in scale. For example, the death of a
large tree within an otherwise intact forest creates a local zone of damage, referred to
as a microdisturbance. This small-scale disturbance induces a local succession of
vigorously growing plants that attempt to achieve individual success by occupying the
newly available gap in the forest canopy.

Even highly stable ecosystems such as tropical rainforest and communities of deep
regions of the oceans change inexorably over time. Although catastrophic
disturbances may affect those stable ecosystems, they are rare under natural
conditions. Nevertheless, as with all ecosystems, these stable types are influenced by
pervasive changes in climate and by other long-term dynamics, such as evolution.

In fact, natural environmental and ecological changes have caused the extinction of
almost all of the species that have ever lived on Earth since life began about 3.5
billion years ago. Many of the extinctions occurred because particular species could
not cope with the stresses of changes in climate or in biological interactions such as
competition, disease, or predation. However, many of the extinctions appear to have
occurred synchronously (at about the same time) and were presumably caused by an
unpredictable catastrophe, such as a meteorite colliding with the Earth. (See Chapters
7 and 26 for descriptions of natural extinctions and those caused by human
influences.)

Environmental stressors and disturbances have always been an important, natural

context for life on Earth. So, too, have been the resulting ecological responses,
including changes in species and the dynamics of their communities and ecosystems.
Image 1.2. Modern consumerism results in huge demands for material and energy
resources to build and run homes and to manufacture and operate machines and other
goods. In an environmental context, this is sometimes referred to as “affluenza”.
Source: B.
Freedman 
 Human Activities are Environmental Stressors
These days, of course, ecosystems are influenced not just by “natural” environmental
stressors. In many situations, anthropogenic influences have become the most
important constraining influence on the productivity of species and on ecosystems
more generally. These direct and indirect influences have intensified enormously in
modern times.

Humans affect ecosystems and species in three direct ways: (a) by harvesting valuable
biomass, such as trees and hunted animals; (b) by causing damage through pollution;
and (c) by converting natural ecosystems to into land-uses for the purposes of
agriculture, industry, or urbanization.

These actions also engender many indirect effects. For example, the harvesting of
trees alters the habitat conditions for the diversity of plants, animals, and
microorganisms that require forested habitat, thereby affecting their populations. At
the same time, timber harvesting indirectly changes functional properties of the
landscape, such as erosion, productivity, and the quantity of water flowing in streams.
Both the direct and indirect effects of humans on ecosystems are important.

Humans have always left “footprints” in nature – to some degree, they have always
influenced the ecosystems of which they were a component. During most of the more
than 100,000 years of evolution of modern Homo sapiens, that ecological footprint
was relatively shallow. This was because the capability of humans for exploiting their
environment was not much different from that of other similarly abundant, large
animals. However, during the cultural evolution of humans, the ecological changes
associated with our activities progressively intensified. This process of cultural
evolution has been characterized by the discovery and use of increasingly more
sophisticated methods, tools, and social organizations to secure resources by
exploiting the environment and other species.

Certain innovations occurring during the cultural evolution of humans represented

particularly large increases in capability. Because of their great influence on human
success, these advances are referred to as “revolutions.” The following are examples
of early technological revolutions:

 the discovery of ways of making improved weapons for hunting animals

 domestication of the dog, which also greatly facilitated hunting
 domestication of fire, which provided warmth and allowed for cooked, more
digestible foods
 ways of cultivating and domesticating plants and livestock, which resulted in
huge increases in food availability
 techniques for working raw metals into tools, which were much better than
those made of wood, stone, or bone The rate of new discoveries has increased
enormously over time. More recent technological revolutions include the following:
 methods of using machines and energy to perform work previously done by
humans or draught animals
 further advances in the domestication and cultivation of plants and animals
 discoveries in medicine and sanitation
 extraordinary strides in communications and information-processing
technologies

These and other revolutionary innovations all led to substantial increases in the ability
of humans to exploit the resources of their environment and to achieve population
growth (Chapter 10). Unfortunately, enhanced exploitation has rarely been
accompanied by the development of a compensating ethic that encourages
conservation of the resources needed for survival. Even early hunting societies of
more than about 10,000 years ago appear to have caused the extinction of species that
were hunted too effectively (Chapter 26).

The diverse effects of human activities on environmental quality are vital issues, and
they will be examined in detail in later chapters. For now, we emphasize the message
that intense environmental stress associated with diverse human activities has become
the major factor causing ecological changes on Earth. Many of the changes are
degrading the ability of the environment and ecosystems to sustain humans and their
economies. Anthropogenic activities are also causing enormous damage to natural
ecosystems, including to habitats needed to support most other species.

In fact, the environmental and ecological damage caused by humans has become so
severe that an appropriate metaphor for the human enterprise may be that of a
malignancy, or cancer. This is a sobering image. It is useful to dwell on it so that its
meaning does not escape our understanding. Humans and their activities are
endangering species and natural ecosystems on such a tremendous scale and rate that
the integrity of Earth’s life-support systems is at risk.

From an ecological perspective, the pace and intensity of these changes is staggering.
Moreover, the damage will become substantially worse before corrective actions are
(hopefully) undertaken to reverse the damage and allow an ecologically sustainable
human enterprise to become possible. From a pessimistic standpoint, however, it may
prove to be beyond the capability of human societies to act effectively to fix the
damage and to design and implement solutions for sustainability.
 These are, of course, only opinions, albeit the informed views of many environmental
specialists. Anticipating the future is always uncertain, and things may turn out to be
less grim than is now commonly predicted. For example, we might be wrong about
the availability of key resources needed to sustain future generations of humans. Still,
the clear indications from recent patterns of change are that the environmental crisis is
severe and that it will worsen in the foreseeable future.

But not all this damage is inevitable. There is sincere hope and expectation that
human societies will yet make appropriate adjustments and will choose to pursue
options that are more sustainable than many of those now being followed. In fact, no
other outcome could be considered acceptable.

Ethics and World Views

The choice that people make can influence environmental quality in many ways – by
affecting the availability of resources, causing pollution, and causing species and
natural ecosystems to become endangered. Decisions influencing environmental
quality are influenced by two types of considerations: knowledge and ethics.

In the present context book, knowledge refers to information and understanding about
the natural world, and ethics refers to the perception of right and wrong and the
appropriate behaviour of people toward each other, other species, and nature. Of
course, people may choose to interact with the environment and ecosystems in various
ways. On the one hand, knowledge provides guidance about the consequences of
alternative choices, including damage that might be caused and actions that could be
taken to avoid that effect. On the other hand, ethics provides guidance about which
alternative actions should be favoured or even allowed to occur.

Because modern humans have enormous power to utilize and damage the
environment, the influence of knowledge and ethics on choices is a vital
consideration. And we can choose among various alternatives. For example,
individual people can decide whether to have children, purchase an automobile, or eat
meat, while society can choose whether to allow the hunting of whales, clear-cutting
of forests, or construction of nuclear-power plants. All of these options have
implications for environmental quality.

Perceptions of value (of merit or importance) also profoundly influence how the
consequences of human actions are interpreted. Environmental values can be divided
into two broad classes: utilitarian and intrinsic.
1. Utilitarian value (also known as instrumental value) is based on the known
importance of something to the welfare of people (see also the discussion of the
 anthropocentric world view, below). Accordingly, components of the environment
and ecosystems are considered important only if they are resources necessary to
sustain humans—that is, if they bestow economic benefits, provide livelihoods, and
contribute to the life-support system. In effect, people harvest materials from nature
because they have utilitarian value. These necessities include water, timber, fish and
animals hunted in wild places, and agricultural crops grown in managed ecosystems.

Ecological values are somewhat broader utilitarian values—they are based on the
needs of humans, but also on those of other species and natural ecosystems.
Ecological values often take a longer-term view. Aesthetic values are also utilitarian
but are based on an appreciation of beauty, but they are subjective and influenced by
cultural perspectives. For instance, environmental aesthetics might value natural
wilderness over human-dominated ecosystems, free-living whales over whale meat,
and large standing trees over toilet paper. On the other hand, aesthetics that are
heavily influenced by more anthropogenic considerations might result in the opposite
preferences. Maintaining aesthetic values can provide substantial cultural, social,
psychological, and economic benefits.
2. Intrinsic value is based on the belief that components of the natural
environment (such as species and natural ecosystems) have inherent value and a right
to exist, regardless of any positive, negative, or neutral relationships with humans.
Under this system, it would be wrong for people to treat other creatures cruelly, to
take actions that cause natural entities to become endangered or extinct, or to fail to
prevent such occurrences.

As was noted previously, ethics concerns the perception of right and wrong and the
values and rules that should govern human conduct. Clearly, ethics of all kinds
depend upon the values that people believe are important. Environmental ethics deal
with the responsibilities of present humans to both future generations and other
species to ensure that the world will continue to function in an ecologically healthy
way, and to provide adequate resources and livelihoods (this is also a key aspect of
sustainable development; see the last section of this chapter). The environmental
values described above underlie this system of ethics. Applying environmental ethics
often means analyzing and balancing standards that may conflict, because aesthetic,
ecological, intrinsic, and utilitarian values rarely all coincide (see In Detail 1.2).

There is also tension between ethical considerations that are individualistic and those
that are holistic. For example, animal-rights activists are highly concerned with issues
involving the treatment of individual organisms. Ecologists, however, are typically
more concerned with holistic values, such as a population, species, or ecosystem. As
such, an ecologist might advocate a cull of overabundant deer in a park in order to
favour the survival of populations of endangered plants, whereas that action might be
resisted by an animal-rights activist.

Values and ethics, in turn, support larger systems known as world views. A world
view is a comprehensive philosophy of human life and the universe, and of the
relationship between people and the natural world. World views include traditional
religions, philosophies, and science, as well as other belief systems. In an
environmental context, generally important world views are known as
anthropocentric, biocentric, and ecocentric, while the frontier and sustainability world
views are more related to the use of resources. The anthropocentric world view
considers humans as being at the centre of moral consideration. People are viewed as
being more worthy than any other species and as uniquely disconnected from the rest
of nature. Therefore, the anthropocentric world view judges the importance and
worthiness of everything, including other species and ecosystems, in terms of the
implications for human welfare.
Image 1.3. According to the biocentric and ecocentric world views, all species have
intrinsic value. This does not, however, mean that one species cannot exploit another.
This image of a girl and her puppy was taken in Kimmirut, southern Baffin Island.
Source: B. Freedman.

The biocentric world view focuses on living entities and considers all species (and
individuals) as having intrinsic value. Humans are considered a unique and special
species, but not as being more worthy than other species. As such, the biocentric
world view rejects discrimination against other species, or speciesism (a term similar
to racism or sexism).

The ecocentric world view considers the direct and indirect connections among
species within ecosystems to be invaluable. It also includes consideration for non-
living entities, such as rocks, soil, and water. It incorporates the biocentric world view
but goes well beyond it by stressing the importance of interdependent ecological
functions, such as productivity and nutrient cycling.

The frontier world view asserts that humans have a right to exploit nature by
consuming natural resources in boundless quantities. This world view claims that
people are superior and have a right to exploit nature. Moreover, the supply of
resources to sustain humans is considered to be limitless, because new stocks can
always be found, or substitutes discovered. The consumption of resources is
considered to be good because it enables economies to grow. Nations and individuals
should be allowed to consume resources aggressively, as long as no people are hurt in
the process.

The sustainability world view acknowledges that humans must have access to vital
resources, but the exploitation of those necessities should be governed by appropriate
ecological, intrinsic, and aesthetic values. The sustainability world view can assume
various forms. The spaceship world view is quite anthropocentric. It focuses only on
sustaining resources needed by people, and it assumes that humans can exert a great
degree of control over natural processes and can safely pilot “spaceship Earth.” In
contrast, ecological sustainability is more ecocentric. It considers people within an
ecological context and focuses on sustaining all components of Earth’s life-support
system by preventing human actions that would degrade them. In an ecologically
sustainable economy, natural goods and services should be utilized only in ways that
do not compromise their future availability and do not endanger the survival of
species or natural ecosystems.

The attitudes of people and their societies toward other species, natural ecosystems,
and resources have enormous implications for environmental quality. Extraordinary
damages have been legitimized by attitudes based on a belief in the inalienable right
of humans to harvest whatever they desire from nature, without consideration of
pollution, threats to species, or the availability of resources for future generations.
Clearly, one of the keys to resolving the environmental crisis is to achieve a
widespread adoption of ecocentric and ecological sustainability world views.
Environmental Issues 1.1. Old-Growth Forest: Values in Competition Ethics and
values are greatly influenced by cultural attitudes. Because the attitudes of people
vary considerably, proposals to exploit natural resources as economic commodities
often give rise to intense controversy. This can be illustrated by the case of old-growth
rainforest on Vancouver Island.

Old-growth forest in the coastal zone of British Columbia contains many ancient
trees, some of which are hundreds of years old and of gigantic height and girth (see
Chapter 23). The cathedral-like aesthetics of old-growth forest are inspiring to many
people, providing a deeply natural, even spiritual experience. Elements of the culture
of the First Nations of coastal British Columbia are based on values associated with
old-growth forest. Whatever their culture, however, few people fail to be inspired by a
walk through a tract of old-growth forest on Vancouver Island. Old-growth forest is
also a special kind of natural ecosystem, different from other forests, and supporting
species that cannot survive elsewhere. These ecological qualities give coastal old-
growth forest an intrinsic value that is not replicated elsewhere in Canada. This
ecosystem represents a distinct element of our natural heritage.

Old-growth forest is also an extremely valuable resource because it contains large

trees that can be harvested and manufactured into lumber or paper. If utilized in this
manner, old-growth forest can provide livelihoods for people and revenues for local,
provincial, and national economies. Old-growth forest also supports other economic
values, including deer that can be harvested by hunters, and salmon by fishers, as well
as birds and wildflowers that entice ecotourists to visit these special habitats. Intact
old-growth forest also provides other valuable services, such as flows of clean
streamwater and assistance in the regulation of atmospheric concentrations of vital
gases such as carbon dioxide and oxygen. At one time, old-growth forest was
widespread on Vancouver Island, but it is now endangered both there and almost
everywhere else in Canada. This has happened largely because old-growth forest has
been extensively harvested and replaced by younger, second-growth stands. The
secondary forest is harvested as soon as it becomes economically mature, which
happens long before it can develop into an old-growth condition. The net result is a
rapidly diminishing area of old-growth forest and endangerment of both the
ecosystem and some of its dependent species.

Obviously, the different values concerning old-growth forest on Vancouver Island are
in severe conflict. Industrial schemes to harvest old-growth trees for manufacturing
into lumber or paper are incompatible with other proposals to protect this special
ecosystem in parks and wilderness areas. The conflicting perceptions of values have
resulted in emotional confrontations between loggers and preservationists, in some
cases resulting in civil disobedience, arrests, and jail terms. Ultimately, these sorts of
controversies can only be resolved by finding a balance among the utilitarian,
ecological, aesthetic, and intrinsic values of old-growth forest, and by ensuring that all
of these values are sustained.

The Environmental Crisis

The modern environmental crisis encompasses many issues. In large part, however,
we can classify the issues into three categories: population, resources, and
 environmental quality. In essence, these topics are what this book is about. However,
the core of their subject areas is the following:

 Population
In 2015, the human population numbered more than 7.3 billion, including about 34
million in Canada . At the global level, the human population has been increasing
because of the excess of birth rates over death rates. The recent explosive population
growth, and the poverty of so many people, is a root cause of much of the
environmental crisis. Directly or indirectly, large population increases result in
extensive deforestation, expanding deserts, land degradation by erosion, shortages of
water, change in regional and global climate, endangerment and extinction of species,
and other great environmental problems. Considered together, these damages
represent changes in the character of the biosphere that are as cataclysmic as major
geological events, such as glaciation. We will discuss the human population in more
detail in Chapters 10 and 11.

 Resources
Two kinds of natural resources can be distinguished. A non-renewable resource is
present in a finite quantity. As these resources are extracted from the environment, in
a process referred to as mining, their stocks are inexorably diminished and so are
available in increasingly smaller quantities for future generations. Non-renewable
resources include metals and fossil fuels such as petroleum and coal. In contrast, a
renewable resource can regenerate after harvesting, and if managed suitably, can
provide a supply that is sustainable forever. However, to be renewable, the ability of
the resource to regenerate cannot be compromised by excessive harvesting or
inappropriate management practices. Examples of renewable resources include fresh
water, the biomass of trees and agricultural plants and livestock, and hunted animals
such as fish and deer. Ultimately, a sustainable economy must be supported by
renewable resources. Too often, however, potentially renewable resources are not
used responsibly, which impairs their renewal and represents a type of mining. The
subject area of natural resources is examined in detail in Chapters 12, 13, and 14.

 Environmental Quality
 This subject area deals with anthropogenic pollution and disturbances and their effects
on people, their economies, other species, and natural ecosystems. Pollution may be
caused by gases emitted by power plants and vehicles, pesticides, or heated water
discharged into lakes. Examples of disturbance include clear-cutting, fishing, and
forest fires. The consequences of pollution and disturbance for biodiversity, climate
change, resource availability, risks to human health, and other aspects of
environmental quality are examined in Chapters 15 to 26.

Environmental Impacts of Humans

In a general sense, the cumulative impact of humans on the biosphere is a function of
two major factors: (1) the size of the population and (2) the per-capita (per-person)
environmental impact. The human population varies greatly among and within
countries, as does the per-capita impact, which depends on the kind and degree of
economic development that has occurred.

Paul Ehrlich, an American ecologist, has expressed this simple relationship using an
“impact formula,” as follows: I = P × A × T, where

 I is the total environmental impact of a human population

 P is the population size
 A is an estimate of the per-capita affluence in terms of resource use
 T is the degree of technological development of the economy, on a per-capita
basis

Calculations based on this simple PAT formula show that affluent, technological
societies have a much larger per-capita environmental impact than do poorer ones.

How does Canada’s impact on the environment compare with that of more populous
countries, such as China and India? We can examine this question by looking at two
simple indicators of the environmental impact of both individual people and national
economies: (a) the size of the human population, (b) the use of energy and (c) gross
domestic product (GDP, or the annual value of all goods and services produced by a
country). The use of energy is a helpful environmental indicator because power is
needed to carry out virtually all activities in a modern society, including driving
vehicles, heating or cooling buildings, manufacturing industrial products, and running
computers. GDP represents all of the economic activities in a country, each of which
results in some degree of environmental impact.
One of the major influences on the environmental impact of any human population is
the number of people (the population size). In this respect, Canada has a much smaller
population (35.1 million in 2015) compared to China (1.3 billion), India (1.1 billion),
or the United States (321 million) (Figure 1.3a).

However, on a per-person basis, people living in Canada or the U.S. have much larger
environmental impacts than do those living in China or India, as indicated by both
per-capita energy use (Figure 1.3c) and per-capita GDP (Figure 1.3e). This difference
is an inevitable consequence of the prosperous nature of the lifestyle of North
Americans and other wealthier people, which on a per-capita basis is achieved by
consuming relatively large amounts of natural resources and energy, while generating
a great deal of waste materials. Sometimes this environmental effect of a wealthier
population is referred to as “affluenza”.

However, the per-capita environmental impact is only part of the environmental

influence of a country, or of any human population. To determine the national effect,
the per-capita value must be multiplied by the size of the population. When this is
done for energy, China and the U.S. have by far the largest values, while Canada and
India are much less (Figure 1.3b). Still, it is remarkable that the national energy use of
Canada, with its relatively small population, is close to that of India and within an
order of magnitude of China, which have enormously larger populations. The same
pattern is true of national the GDPs of those countries.

These observations drive home the fact that the environmental impact of any human
population is a function of both (a) the number of people and (b) the per-person
environmental impact. Because of this context, relatively wealthy countries like
Canada have much larger environmental impacts than might be predicted based only
on the size of their population. On the other hand, the environmental impacts of
poorer countries are smaller than might be predicted based on their population. We
can conclude that the environmental crisis is due to both overpopulation and excessive
resource consumption.
Figure 1.3. The relative environmental impacts of China, India, Canada, and the
United States. The environmental impacts of countries, and of their individual
citizens, can be compared using simple indicators, such as the use of energy and the
gross domestic product. Canada’s relatively small population, compared with China
and India, is somewhat offset by its higher per-capita GDP and use of energy.
However, because the per-capita data for the U.S. and Canada are similar, relative
population sizes are the key influence on the environmental impacts of these two
countries. Sources of data: population data are for 2015 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015);
energy use (all commercial fuels) for 2013 (BP, 2013); GDP for 2013 (CIA, 2014).
Image 1.4. Places where people live, work, grow food, and harvest natural resources
are affected by many kinds of anthropogenic stressors. These result in ecosystems that
are not very natural in character, such as the pavement and grassy edges of this major
highway in Toronto. Source: B. Freedman.

Ecologically Sustainable Development

Sustainable development refers to development of an economic system that uses
natural resources in ways that do not deplete them or otherwise compromise their
availability to future generations. In this sense, the present human economy is clearly
non-sustainable. The reason for this bold assertion is that the present economy
achieves rapid economic growth through vigorous depletion of both non-renewable
and renewable resources (see Chapters 12-14). Economic growth and development are
different phenomena. Economic growth refers to increases in the size of an economy
because of expansions of both population and per-capita resource use. This growth is
typically achieved by increasing the consumption of natural resources, particularly
non-renewable ones such as fossil fuels and metals. The rapid use results in an
aggressive depletion of vital non-renewable resources, and even renewable ones. In
Canada, for example, considerable economic growth is being achieved by the huge
investments of capital needed to mine and process the great oil-sand resources of
northern Alberta (see Canadian Focus 13.1). In contrast, a comparable scale of
investment in renewable energy initiatives, such as wind or solar power, or in energy
conservation, would have contributed more so to sustainable development.

Almost all national economies have been growing rapidly in recent times. Moreover,
most politicians, economic planners, and business people hope for additional growth
of economic activity, in order to generate more wealth and to provide a better life for
 citizens. At the same time, however, most leaders of society have publicly affirmed
their support of sustainable development. However, they are confusing sustainable
development with “sustainable economic growth.” Unfortunately, continuous
economic growth is not sustainable because there are well-known limits due to finite
stocks of natural resources, as well as a limited ability of the biosphere to absorb
wastes and ecological damage without suffering irreversible degradation. This limit is
a fundamental principle of ecological economics (see Chapter 12).

Economic development is quite different from economic growth. Development

implies a progressively improving efficiency in the use of materials and energy, a
process that reflects socio-economic evolution toward a more sustainable economy.
Within that context, so-called developed countries have a relatively well-organized
economic infrastructure and a high average per-capita income (because of their latter
characteristic, they may also be referred to as high-income countries). Examples
include Canada, the United States, Japan, countries of western Europe, and Australia.
In contrast, less-developed or low-income countries have much less economic
infrastructure and low per-capita earnings. Examples include Afghanistan, Bolivia,
Myanmar, and Zimbabwe. A third group is comprised of rapidly developing or
middle-income countries, such as Brazil, Chile, China, India, Malaysia, Russia, and
Thailand.

A sustainable economy must be fundamentally supported by the wise use of

renewable resources, meaning they are not used more quickly than their rate of
regeneration. For these reasons, the term sustainable development should refer only to
progress being made toward a sustainable economic system. Progress in sustainable
development involves the following sorts of desirable changes:

 increasing efficiency of use of non-renewable resources, for example, by

careful recycling of metals and by optimizing the use of energy
 increasing use of renewable sources of energy and materials in the economy
(to replace non-renewable sources)
 improving social equity, with the ultimate goal of helping all people (and not
just a privileged minority) to have reasonable access to the basic necessities and
amenities of life

Despite abundant public rhetoric, our society has not yet made much progress toward
true sustainability. This has happened because most actions undertaken by
governments and businesses have supported economic growth, rather than sustainable
development. We will further examine these issues in Chapter 12 and other parts of
this book.
Sustainable development is a lofty and necessary goal for society to pursue. But if a
sustainable human economy is not attained, then the non-sustainable one will run
short of resources and could collapse. This would cause terrible misery for huge
numbers of people and colossal damage to the biosphere.

The notion of sustainability can be further extended to that of ecologically sustainable

development. This idea includes the usual aspect of sustainable development in which
countries develop without depleting their essential base of natural resources,
essentially by basing their economy on the wise use of renewable sources of energy
and materials. Beyond that, however, an ecologically sustainable economy runs
without causing an irretrievable loss of natural ecosystems or extinctions of species,
while also maintaining important environmental services, such as the provision of
clean air and water. Ecological sustainability is a reasonable extension of
sustainability, which only focuses on the human economy. By expanding to embrace
the interests of other species and natural ecosystems, ecological sustainability
provides an inclusive vision for a truly harmonious enterprise of humans on planet
Earth. Identifying and resolving the barriers to ecological sustainability are the
fundamental objectives and subject matter of environmental studies. It provides a
framework for all that we do.

Conclusions
Environmental science is a highly interdisciplinary field that is concerned with issues
associated with the rapidly increasing human population, the use and diminishing
stocks of natural resources, damage caused by pollution and disturbance, and effects
on biodiversity and the biosphere. These are extremely important issues, but they
involve complex and poorly understood systems. They also engage conflicts between
direct human interests and those of other species and the natural world.

Ultimately, the design and implementation of an ecologically sustainable human

economy will require a widespread adoption of new world views and cultural attitudes
that are based on environmental and ecological ethics, which include consideration for
the needs of future generations of people as well as other species and natural
ecosystems. This will be the best way of dealing with the so-called “environmental
crisis,” a modern phenomenon that is associated with rapid population growth,
resource depletion, and environmental damage. This crisis is caused by the combined
effects of population increase and an intensification of per-capita environmental
damage.
Finally, it must be understood that that the study of environmental issues is not just
about the dismal task of understanding awful problems. Rather, a major part of the
subject is to find ways to repair many of the damages that have been caused, and to
prevent others that might yet occur. These are helpful and hopeful actions, and they
represent necessary progress toward an ecologically sustainable economy.