What makes it the Anthropocene?

 As I’ve collected materials cut from magazines or printed from internet documents having to do with environmental issues, I’ve wanted to believe that lessons learned from mistakes will be taken to heart, that humans will find ways to avoid despoiling the natural world. But experience has left me philosophically hard-bitten, for want of a better expression. 

Our evolutionary development has endowed humans with curiosity, ambition, imagination, and competitive predilections, with the capacity to dream of and build the modern world in all its complexity. But though we possess brains with amazing powers, it has become frighteningly clear that we’re chronically unwilling to focus on all the consequences of each and every upward turn of the “progress” ratchet. Those nasty vices such as avarice and lust for power have too often had the upper hand.  It’s becoming commonplace now to speak of the Anthropocene, an unofficial recognition that human-kind is creating a new epoch by causing mass extinctions of plant and animal species, pollution of land and waters, and significantly increasing the planet’s surface temperature, among other lasting impacts.

 Whether it's neoliberalism, unregulated capitalism, Chinese authoritarianism, benevolent socialism, or whatever else might be ginned up in the way of a governance system, nearly all of us now live in a globally competitive world in which production and consumption of goods and services is the driving force. Nations make resolutions to reform their practices with respect to environmental pollution, sometimes own up to past failures, and vow to fix things.  Simultaneously, the global economy continues to invent new ways to make money and raise standards of living while continuing and even enlarging upon destructive practices of the past.

Missteps taken in pursuit of short-term goals can have long-lasting consequences. Here are two examples of human invention, initiated in good faith and with optimism about the benefits to humanity that would accrue from their use.  

PFAS.  These letters stand for per- and polyflouroalkyl substances. Invented over the past several decades, for the most part in corporate research laboratories, they collectively possess several desirable properties. They are quite stable, meaning that they don’t break down easily if heated or subjected to radiation.  This makes them useful in such diverse applications as coated cookware and fire-extinguishing foams.  As they’ve increased in numbers and the varieties of use to which they’ve been put, PFAS’s have become ubiquitous. They’ve seemed to be real winners in making the world better. They of course would never have become universally dispersed if they had failed to pass tests for toxicity before being put to widespread use.  This brings us face to face with a moral issue, encapsulated in the precautionary principle, which has four central components:

1. taking preventive action in the face of uncertainty; 

2. shifting the burden of proof to the proponents of an activity; 

3. exploring a wide range of alternatives to possibly harmful actions; and 

4. increasing public participation in decision-making.

Not everyone is in favor of applying these principles. For one thing, it’s not possible to quantitatively delineate boundaries. How would these principles be applied to the PFAS family of substances?  Some substances are acutely poisonous, others act more slowly or accumulate over time before manifesting toxicity. In the case of the PFAS, it took some time for their toxicity to show up. It became a big issue when the DuPont Chemical Company was careless about disposing of waste materials.  The movie “Dark Waters'' tells the story of a suit brought against DuPont Chemical by residents of Parkersburg, WVA. The company was accused of dumping toxic wastes containing PFAS, with deadly consequences for those living in the area. Many people sickened and died, children's’ development was stunted. The suit went on for years.   In the end, DuPont, while denying any wrongdoing, agreed to pay $335 million to settle the dispute. 

An internet search reveals multiple suits against 3M, Dupont, and other actors, including the U.S. Government, for poisoning water systems with PFAS, causing many health problems in adults and developmental problems in children. The EPA has not set enforceable drinking water standards for perfluorinated chemicals, although they have a 70-parts-per-trillion advisory. It is difficult to find water anywhere (including bottled water, by the way) that doesn’t contain traces of PFAS. The US government continues to use these substances in firefighting foams, and they find their way into water sources on which people depend.  Meanwhile, new PFASs are being invented in research labs. Recent studies have shown that PFAS pollution easily rides the wind; they have been found in soil and groundwater at locations up to 30 miles downwind of a factory in West Virginia in which they were used. 

PFAS technology is employed in COVID-19 testing equipment, and in medical garments, hospital gowns, drapes, and divider curtains. We can be pretty sure that eventually, all of the materials containing PFAS will end up as trash or consigned to an incinerator.  A team of professors from Bennington College recently collected soil and surface water samples from near an incinerator in New York state that had a contract to burn firefighting foam containing PFAS. The study revealed that the incineration conditions didn’t effectively destroy the PFAS.  Instead, it merely spread them into the surroundings.  The New York Department of Environmental Conservation has directed that incineration of PFAS cease until conditions can be established that actually destroy these very stable substances.  They’re termed “forever compounds'' for good reason.

Roadway products  A few years ago, when a research team from the San Francisco Estuary Institute measured the contents of stormwater collecting from a parking lot near the Oakland Coliseum after a rain event, they found an extraordinary amount of rubbery black fragments in the samples.  These results triggered a three-year-long study of water collected at many sites around the bay.  The team was able to estimate that more than 7 trillion synthetic particles are washing into San Francisco Bay annually. About half of them were the rubbery fragments associated with tires. Tire rubber is a complex mixture of natural rubber, 20 to 60 percent synthetic rubber formed from plastic polymers, and a great many other ingredients such as carbon black, sulfur, oils, steel wires, and fabrics. Other additives, mostly proprietary, are added to extend lifetime, improve flexibility, and serve as antioxidants. Contact with the road in driving causes wear on the exterior surface of the tire, producing particles of complex composition. It’s been estimated that a car in the US could lose up to ten pounds annually in tire wear. Much more will be lost from a huge semi-trailer truck continually on the road. 

For several decades it's been observed that coho salmon in US Pacific Northwest streams have been subject to sudden massive die-offs. Despite strenuous efforts to improve the habitat for salmon in the 1990s, large fractions of adults migrating up certain streams were suddenly dying. Researchers suspected that something was washing off nearby roadways to cause these deaths, which correlated with rainfalls. Just recently environmental scientists at the University of Washington discovered that the primary culprit comes from a chemical widely used to protect tires from ozone. After working their way through several thousand potential candidates the researchers found the culprit. The compound in question is proprietary, so the researchers had to go out of their way to synthesize their own supply. They were able to establish that the compound, labeled 6PPD, is quite poisonous for Coho salmon. 6PPD is of course washing off roadways around San Francisco Bay and all over the world.  The waterways that collect the runoff from the roads may or may not contain life-forms that are poisoned by it. Southwest Florida where I live is very heavily trafficked. The runoff from roadways almost entirely runs into creeks and rivers that empty into the Gulf of Mexico. What is the long term damage to the multiple ecosystems that live in those waters? We don’t know. 

Were precautionary principles applied before 6PPD and its cousins were approved for use? It’s hard to imagine how that could even be done. Thousands of novel chemical substances are discovered in research laboratories every year, and many of them find commercial applications.  Whether it be water plants, bumblebees, coho salmon or human beings, nature suffers at the hands of human creativity. Organisms or ecosystems have mechanisms for coping with novel substances or with environmental changes. In the course of evolution, complex biological systems evolved resiliency, capacities to eliminate or reduce the effectiveness of toxins. When our early ancestors learned to use fire, they huddled around campfires, in hutches or lodges, breathing in smoke rich with carcinogens and other toxins. It wasn’t good for them, but they survived. Similarly, we survive the toxic effects of synthetic materials that find their way through industry into our lives. But is surviving our vision for the future?  Sometimes, as with some industrial dumps, toxic waste materials move into the larger environment at concentrations that override the limited capacity of living systems to cope with them. We read about and see movies about a few notorious examples. But a great many substances pass regulatory requirements set at a certain level, and are distributed globally. Only later does it turn out that, like campfire smoke, they’re not good for us. 

I do not see a way to significantly change the script of our present scenario.  Human society is becoming increasingly global through the agency of shared technologies, which exercise powerful influences on people’s values and aspirations.  Much has been written on the consequences of our having been enthralled by our successes as a species.  Paul Hawken writes, 

It is an understandable vanity for humans to believe that their cells are privileged or unique, but the distinction between human cells and those of a sunflower is shockingly narrow, while between primates and humans the difference is slender as a thread….We live in community, not alone, and any sense of separateness that we harbor is illusion. Humans are animals, albeit extraordinary ones, and have no special immunity conferred upon them. Given the present rate of planetary pollution and destruction, we need to negotiate a dѐtente with nature and ourselves.

Ah, but how do we enter into that negotiation, when most of the human race is unaware that it’s needed, and is disinclined to deal with what promises to be a demanding, even painful, experience?  The illustrious scientist Edward O. Wilson has written extensively on the urgency of acting now to preserve the biodiversity of the planet. In his book, Half-Earth, he’s quite clear: We have entered into a new epoch.  The biosphere is disappearing, species-by-species, at a sickening pace. Many have termed this epoch the Anthropocene, because it's clear that humans are the major causative agents.  Only an enormous commitment to preservation could save most of what is left.  In a final chapter, Wilson suggests ways in which we might employ our intelligence and imaginative capacities to put aside half of planet Earth for the preservation of biodiversity and to reclaim some of what has been lost. He argues that we can still do this by reshaping society. Check out the Half-Earth Project website. 

I’m heartened by Wilson’s readiness to embrace new technologies.  Futurists have been talking of the inevitability of massive shifts in how and where people will live, of producing food from cellular bases, thus freeing land for a return to a biodiverse natural state, of dramatic reductions in per capita energy consumptions, and more.  But even if society can learn to think differently about planet Earth, reforms won’t go as they should unless our species adopts an ethic that overrides all other claims on our fealty: we are nature ourselves and must live in it.  Darwin argued that, in keeping with other species, humans evolved to have a moral sense.  How can we evince it with respect to nature? Among other things, we think ahead, envisioning a holistic, soil-supporting agricultural system, weaning ourselves away from animal-focused diets, supporting community-based education and practice. When we’re able, we get our hands in the dirt. We become devoted stewards of the planet’s freshwater. We constantly urge elected officials and those in government to pay attention to the ecology of the bioregion they represent. Just maybe, we’ll succeed in preserving a good bit of Gaia for our progeny. 

There is no going back to nature as it was. People think of the Anthropocene in terms of warming oceans, rising sea levels, and other climate-related changes.  But if we could somehow forestall or reverse many of those changes, there will still be PFAS, 6PPD, countless other man-made chemical substances, and mind-boggling quantities of plastic and other waste.  These may prove to be the greatest drivers of change in the Anthropocene Epoch.

Of babies, popcorn and the precautionary principle

My spouse Audrey and I are looking forward to becoming great grandparents early in 2009. Yikes! Am I ready to be a great grandfather? Everyone in the family is of course very enthused over this coming event. My granddaughter's husband Victor, a keenly analytic sort of guy, tries to think of anything and everything that could affect the health of our granddaughter and the fetus she is carrying. That brings me to popcorn, one of Audrey's favorite snack foods. A liking for popcorn has been passed on to our grandkids, including our pregnant granddaughter (who is also named Audrey). The Audreys' favorite way of making popcorn is to use a plastic bowl with a lid and a bit of oil, and run the assembly in the microwave on high for an appropriate time. Victor has insisted that our granddaughter stop eating popcorn made in this manner, because of the chance that bisphenol A (BPA) might find its way out of the plastic and into the popcorn.

Victor has a good point. There has been a lot written of late on the potentially harmful effects from ingestion of BPA incidental to its use in many plastic objects with which we regularly come into contact. The biggest worries have to do with the health of the fetus and infants. Animal studies indicate that even low levels of BPA in the mother can result in neural and behavioral changes in the infant, especially those related to the development of normal sex-based differences between males and females. But in this case, as in so many others relating to the potentially harmful effects of trace contaminants, the evidence directly relating to humans is nonexistent or inconclusive. In response to much concern, a great many studies have been conducted. The results of all these were recently summarized in a report from the Center for the Evalution of Risks to Human Reproduction. Two things come to mind as I read through this lengthy, detailed report: First, there has been a vast amount of study of the biological effects of BPA. Secondly, it is devilishly difficult to conclude with any level of certainty the extent of the risk that BPA poses to humans. In a kind of battle of agencies, the FDA issued a report in August 2008 suggesting BPA is not something to worry about. That report was blasted by environmental and consumer groups such as the Consumers Union. It's hard to know for sure, but on the basis of the CERHR report I believe that there is little cause for adults to worry, unless they are put into extensive contact with BPA in a work environment. On the other hand, while direct evidence relating to humans is lacking, the studies with rats and mice show that BPA does pose significant dangers in the prenatal and infant stages of life.

How should we respond when faced with a state of knowledge that falls far short of certainty? First we need to assess the authority with which scientific evidence can be called into play. In this case, the evidence, though indirect, is sufficiently compelling to make a case that every effort should be made to minimize exposure of the fetus and infant to BPA. Science in this case provides no certainty, only indirect indications that BPA might cause problems. Animal responses to toxins often fail to mirror those of humans. Sometimes the animals show greater sensitivity than humans, sometimes less. Nonetheless, there is a general similarity in responses, and it is often possible, as in this case, to trace the biological pathways taken by the substance under study to achieve some degree of confidence in inferences based on animal results.
Second, in deciding what response to make to a potential risk, we should invoke the Precautionary Principle, which is embodied in such folk sayings as "look before you leap", and "better safe than sorry". In short, it has to do with the avoidance of risk. In the case of the popcorn popper Victor is applying the principle to say that if there is any chance that using the plastic popcorn popper will increase our granddaughter's body load of BPA, she should avoid using it. This is not a difficult decision for them to make. There are ways to make popcorn that avoid the contact with heated plastic. But for manufacturers who use BPA in a host of applications, the search for a substitute can be arduous and expensive. Substitutes have already come on the market to replace BPA-containing water bottles, baby bottles and infant formula cans. But for some uses, no alternative known to be safe in all respects has been identified. For example, food cans and soft drink cans are lined with a polymer formed from BPA. The amount of BPA that finds its way into the contents of the can is very small, but many environmental groups have lobbied against continued use of the liners.

Enter again the Precautionary Principle. Manufacturers of BPA-containing products are eager to point to the many virtues of plastics in our everyday lives. They stress their safety and the lack of definitive evidence that BPA produces any harmful effects in adults. And there is another side to the Precautionary Principle coin. In an effort to avoid a potentially harmful effect of some action or use, we might inadvertantly create an even greater harm. The American Chemistry Council, an association of chemical companies, makes the point that the plastic liners of cans help to prevent food poisoning. If that's true, and if lives are saved by the use of plastic liners, their removal might do more harm than the potential harm from ingestion of tiny amounts of BPA.

Cass R. Sunstein, writing in the journal Deadalus, [ Sunstein, Cass R. "Taking Precautions", Daedalus, Spring 2008, p. 49] discusses the difficulties in employing the Precautionary Principle as a source of concrete guidance. The problem is that we seldom know all the relevant risks. So we continue to struggle to find the appropriate place for science to exercise an authority consistent with what it can claim to know. Many nonscientists mistakenly expect that real science produces bulletproof answers to the questions put before it. However, the science we draw upon to address issues that affect society in the here and now more often than not can deliver only hedged bets.