German journalist, book author, biologist Christian Schwägerl argues that it is time for people to recognise that we are the main force altering the face of the planet. Schwägerl was reading a lecture on Anthropocene in Zooetics seminar series at Kaunas University of Technology (KTU). ‘97 percent of all vertebrate biomass on Earth is made up of people and their animals. We are the dominant species’, said the author of the book ‘The Anthropocene: The Human Era and How It Shapes Our Planet’.
At KTU Schwägerl introduced the provocative idea of Anthropocene – the era when human activity becomes the main force changing our planet. What messages are we sending to the future, the author asks rhetorically.
How did you become interested in the Anthropocene idea?
Since 1990 I have been working as a journalist: I wrote on environmental, political, scientific topics. I have travelled to the Amazon and Indonesian jungle, have been diving in Pacific Ocean and saw the rich and the destroyed parts of the Great Barrier Reef, have gone deep into uranium mines. As a political journalist I took part in many United Nations conferences on climate.
The Anthropocene idea was developed in 2000, but it took me seven years to find out about it. Then, it took me a couple of years to write the first book (it was published in 2010). Actually, I wasn’t brave enough to use the unknown term ‘Anthropocene’ in the title, so the book is called ‘Era of Mankind’ (in German). At the time, it was not entirely clear whether the idea will live or die. Today quite a few people are talking about it – Anthropocene is becoming a global term.
People are the main planet-changing force. So what?
We are living in times environmental, economic and political crisis. Many regions in Europe are experiencing a demographic crisis. In addition, we are experiencing very rapid technological change. Our society needs direction, and Anthropocene – the idea which reflects upon itself – can offer that direction.
Anthropocene works on many levels: it links people and nature, it encourages us to learn to live in harmony. One may say it is similar to sustainable living, but for me ‘sustainability’ as a term means that we should do everything the same, just less, more slowly and cautiously. Anthropocene does not give answers, but it provokes, it raises questions. I think of it as complementary to sustainability.
When people first hear about Anthropocene, they are shocked. However, after some time the idea become inspirational: ‘Wow, we are changing the planet! Hence, our influence can be both positive and negative.’
During the lecture you provided examples of human impact on the planet: a bird who died from all the plastic that it had eaten, you told us that the length of a plastic film is enough to encircle the globe and the Americas can be covered with aluminium foil. The examples of human activity are really not inspiring.
It is a big challenge of Anthropocene: in order to prove human species’ footprint on the planet we are faced with the examples which are not very inspiring. But, for example, culturally and naturally beautiful cities are positive examples of geological human intervention.
If we took a closer look, I am convinced that we would find many positive examples on a biological level as well. I was always interested in ways how the rich ecosystem of wetlands can be exploited, I am sure we could find some interesting facts even in your country. Central Europe has a number of agricultural practices, which were not only productive for the soil, but also enriched the scenery and the richness of species.
I am not suggesting going back to the eighteenth century farming methods – combining ancient wisdom with the latest technology is a way forward. However, we need not only to focus on maintaining wildlife (as we would have to suffice with constantly shrinking areas), but also to shape our landscape ourselves. We need to reconquer large areas, which were converted to monoculture and to restore their natural diversity.
Another beautiful example from your lecture: the mobile phones bring us closer to the mountains where the minerals used in the devices were mined. What an unusual comparison.
Our culture tends not to focus on the things that we use. For example, we use a mobile phone to call or to send a text. However, it is an object which has many social and ecological connections. The things were different 150 years ago, when everything you used were made by your neighbour blacksmith or shoemaker, when you saw a cow in a field, which provided milk for your cheese. I don’t think that we should go back to that practice, but there is a lot of wisdom in this approach: we need to start thinking about how the things that we use daily connect us to people, places and stories. For example, buying cheap clothes you may find a note from a worker from Bangladesh which said how little he was being paid.
Some of those stories are true, some not, but in any case they raise awareness. Where the minerals used in your phone come from? What are the conditions of people working in those mines?
Isn’t it so that such awareness is affordable for those societies that have already solved other issues like poverty, corruption, etc.? That is – the societies of rich Western countries.
Yes and no. Yes, those who can, invest in new technologies. For example, Germany has enough resources to be able to switch from fossil and nuclear energy to renewable energy. Transition is expensive, but we can afford that. Finally, we can mass-produce these technologies and make them cheap. Then they can be used in less affluent countries.
However, the fact that only wealthy people are conscious of the environmental crisis is not true: the poorest people are suffering the most. It is small farmers who suffer from the climate-induced soil erosion. Climate change is affecting millions of Chinese who pay for pollution with their own and their children’s health, the fishermen are losing their income due to industrial fishing, which serves the needs of industrialised countries.
And what about those countries who are responsible for the environmental crisis?
It is really a distorted image, because the countries responsible for the most significant changes, such as the US, probably will suffer the least. For example, climate in Germany is becoming warmer, so maybe we will be able to grow grapes in Northern Germany, the winter will be shorter and the summer – longer.
Africa is another story. Fish have already begun to move from sub-tropical waters to the Arctic, it is feeling the global warming. People who have contributed nothing to the climate change, are losing their income – the fish are moving North. There are many examples where the poor pay for the climate change, caused by the West.
The West is going to pay off the debt?
I think it is inevitable. For example, environmental scholars estimate that a person a year can produce only 2 tons of carbon dioxide. It is a kind of budget, anything above it would make the climate system unstable. An average German produces approximately 8–9 tonnes, an average American – 16 tonnes, European average is 7 tons. We are traveling by car and by plane, we buy food that has been produced using fossil energy. It is as if we are take credit from the bank, never thinking about how to pay it back. After all, we saw what happened to the financial system, when people lived above their capacity.
Poor countries, such as India is now producing 2 tonnes of the carbon dioxide per capita; there are countries which produce even less than that. It would be fair to pay those countries that are below the rate of exploitation encouraging them to invest in renewable energy, so they would not become fossil energy consumers. Those countries could become more sophisticated, more economically wealthy, but not more harmful to the environment.
A scientific discussion is currently going on in order to gather the evidence to claim Anthropocene a geological era. What’s next?
In 2016 the scientists will claim their results: if there is enough research evidence for Anthropocene to be regarded as a geological era, to include the term into text books, etc. The idea is becoming globally visible through various projects, such as exhibitions at Deutsche Museum, or the Smithsonian Museum in Washington and elsewhere; the term is being officially used by the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon.
I do not believe that a miracle will happen, but little by little people are beginning to understand that the environment is not what is around us, but also we ourselves. We are beginning to see that we are changing Earth – not just scratching its surface, but making deep, essential and lasting changes. We are learning not to look down at nature. Of course, the change of attitude does not happen overnight.
What will happen when Anthropocene ends?
I would like to believe that Anthropocene will last a very long time. I love the human form of life, I would like it to stay on. However, perhaps in the future someone will want to express the idea of sustainable coexistence, of symbiosis? I don’t think we should go in the direction of dominating, designing the planet, rather in the close cooperation, involving all forms of life. Perhaps the next era will be symbiocene, or pancene, where all species are equally important? In any case, I think that Anthropocene will last a long time – I assume that we still have at least 100 thousand years left.
What is being considered the beginning of Anthropocene?
Researchers still disagree about that. On option is 1950s, when the first nuclear bomb exploded the surface of the Earth. This is an easily measurable strong geological signal: the planet has generated species, who can produce a new element. Also, this year is the beginning of modernisation when the global spread of plastic consumption started.
Another alternative is to mark the beginning of Anthropocene with the beginning of industrialisation in the 1800s when carbon gas emissions increased all over the planet. However, there is some evidence that we began to significantly change the Earth before that – the methane gas released into the atmosphere by first rice farmers, or deforestation of Mediterranean strongly affected the environment.
The starting point of the geological period must be significant and the eruption of nuclear energy satisfies this requirement. On the other hand, it is not a nice symbol. The challenge of Anthropocene is to create beautiful messages for future generations, which would say: ‘we were here, you can see our mark.’ There’s nothing wrong with leaving footprints, but it is important that they are beautiful.
