Wrong Model, Useful Framework

"All models are wrong, but some are useful." - George Box

(From Mean Girls to models. Source: Dailymail)

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum." In other words, the world is (increasingly) chaotic: this much I understand from Physics. The desire for simplicity motivates us to model it. The need to make decisions motivates us to simplify complex problems. The urgency to solve complex problems pushes us to make informed decisions. 

Hence, I argue that even if the PBs are "wrong", whether it is the way they quantified anthropogenic perturbations, the numerical boundaries they proposed, the way they linked regional and global scales, the actual PBs selected, or even the tendency of their hard science preoccupation with quantitative methods to oversimplify and distort complex problems (and there are many more ways they can be wrong), the framework it provides us is useful. Science has never been about being right. It has always been about dialogue and debate.

Professor Anson Mackay has contributed to a paper that reinforced my belief in the PBs' usefulness. This paper provides empirical evidence on the positive contribution of the the safe and just operating space approach for regional social-ecological systems. Its starting point is the PBs framework, and it examines two Chinese localities by mapping their regional safe and just operating spaces to determine the current status of key ecological services/processes. Instead of PBs, regional processes can exceed an "environmental ceiling" of sustainable use of ecological processes. They selected 6 "environmental ceilings". Both localities are experiencing "dangerously" compromised water quality due to unsustainable practices, but sediment regulation is considered "safe". The statuses of "Dangerous" (red), "Cautious" (yellow) and "Safe" (green) are determined by qualitative evaluation of ecological records.

(Source: Global Environmental Change)

This paper is one instance in which, despite criticising PBs for not being current for regions that already occupy dangerous operating spaces (like China, a LDC), it made use of the framework constructively, by adapting and applying it into the regional safe and just operating space (RSJOS). Considering regional-scale boundaries also enhances the global environmental governance objective of PBs.

It's inspiring to see the PBs concept taking up a different permutation.

This paper also makes reference to the Oxfam Doughnut, which I will discuss next.

Who's Who: Journals

I found this hilarious comic while comparing Nature and Science, two journals the PBs have officially published in, which also happen to have some of the highest "Impact Factors (IF)".

(Source: PhDComics)

I read up further about journal reputation, and came across this article about important papers that were initially rejected by esteemed journals. I also come across this Reddit discussion about Nature vs Science. 

It is understood that we should not only look at IF when evaluating the value of scientific work. Some even go as far to opine that scientific contributions published in multidisciplinary scientific journals like Nature and Science are less valuable than counterparts published in esteemed discipline-specific journals, which generally have lower IF. 

It makes sense for PBs, an interdisciplinary concept, to be published in interdisciplinary journals, although it did begin life in a niche ecology journal. 

Quantifying/ranking reputation and value of scientific contribution gives us some idea of inflence. It should not be used for evaluating strengths and weaknesses of a piece of work, as that would commit an ad hominem fallacy. They are, however, relevant to the study of the complex social institutions of Science and Academia. 

(Not so much of a social institution in high school.)

On a related note, I will discuss the quantitative methods to determine environmental indices in my next post. Quantification and hierarchy underlie the PBs. Does this oversimplify environmental challenges? 

From Who's Who to Environmental Justice

We all know Steffen, W. Who's "et al. (2015)"?

Of all the authors of the 2015 paper, 9 are men and 7 are women, a satisfactorily even representation. What about other forms of representation? Except for Professor Veerabhadran Ramanathan, all are (at least partly) caucasian. Except for Ramanathan, researchers representing organisations in developing countries (LDCs) like Kenya and South Africa hold joint appointments with organisations in Europe. Even Ramanathan is representing both India, an LDC, and United States, a developed country (DC).

(It's not what it looks like...)

Not to go all intersectional feminist and criticise good research for feminism's sake, but it's worth noting that DC representation exceedingly outnumbers LDC representation in this paper. This gives the impression that PBs is an initiative of the Global North.

Debates on global environmental governance are a privilege of the secure, wealthy and powerful. Professor Juan Martínez‐Alier quotes Hugo Blanco, a former peasant leader in Peru, "The common people have more important things to think about, for instance how to get their daily bread."

However, with great power comes great responsibility. In a survey in Germany on the perceived levels of pressure to act on water management issues and air pollution control, global pressures were rated significantly higher than local pressures. Secure, wealthy and powerful states - DCs - are not only privileged enough to take up global environmental causes, they are apparently burdened with the responsibility to. This is no surprise, since from the perspective of Environmental Justice, many consider DCs to have an ecological debt to LDCs.

(Source: Jason Ammerlaan)

From a policy perspective, LDCs have poorer infrastructure to ensure compliance with environmental regulations than DCs do. There is a tendency for DCs to export environmental degradation to LDCs.

There are different varieties (and theories) of environmentalism. Here, I'm pointing out the difference between the environmentalism of affluence and the environmentalism of survival. Hugo Blanco's speech went on to list valiant environmentalists fighting against local pollution and exploitation problems; "Indigenous peoples oppose deforestation; northern environmentalists may complain against deforestation only if they reduce CO2 in their own countries."

(Source: Capitalism Nature Socialism)

Thus, one valid criticism of the PBs, developed to influence global environmental governance, is that it has less relevance on local scales, especially in LDCs, where resource exploitation and environmental degradation have priority over the less urgent global environmental changes.

Although the importance of local environmental governance cannot be underestimated, global efforts are just as important to furthering Environmental Justice. LDCs are the most vulnerable to security consequences of climate change. Coastal communities in LDCs are most vulnerable to rising sea levels.

(Source: Geirge Steinmetz, National Geographic Creative)

In addition, assuming that "environmental conflicts" fall into the "established patterns of interstate conflict", and convening on national scales to "mobilise environmental awareness and action, may prove counterproductive by undermining globalist political sensibility". Exacerbating the North-South divide in the name of justice is not the most sustainable strategy for decision-makers to build sustainability.

While LDCs more often than not have to prioritise local over global problems, all environmental issues are interconnected - even the 9 PBs interact - because "Earth is a single, complex, integrated system". I believe that the planetary perspective of PBs unite humanity in a way that environmental concepts with a narrower focus cannot achieve. With this mindset, world leaders would look upon the environmental degradation of a remote region not as a faraway problem, but as inseparable from the Earth System.

(Source: Oxfam America)

However, as with everything, moderation is key. It has been shown that in the case of Climate Change, a fragmented, loosely-coupled set of specific regimes has advantages over a comprehensive, integrated, global regime. The importance of local environmental governance is further supported by evidence that "agents make decisions based on individual perceptions". Earth System scientists abstractly debating planetary-scale processes is not the only meaningful conversation we should be having about global environmental change. We should encourage people to share their individual stories about environmental change, too.

Personally, I've noticed that more and more open green spaces in Singapore are being converted to buildings. I've read about the Three Gorges Dam and other environmentally invasive initiatives happening in China during my lifetime. I've vacationed on Southeast Asian tropical islands, and watched our speedboat cut corals. These instances of land-use change concern me; I don't need science to be convinced. The PBs simply put them all into perspective.