Print this page

Published: 19 January 2015

Humans have become a ‘planetary-scale force in a single lifetime’


The accelerated impacts of human activity on the Earth over the past 60 years have reached ‘planetary-scale’ proportions, in turn driving the earth into a new geological age, according to new research.

In 1968, the crew of Apollo 8 captured this view of Earth rising above the lunar horizon. While humans have ventured into space over the past 50 or so years, they have also changed planetary-scale systems on Earth.
In 1968, the crew of Apollo 8 captured this view of Earth rising above the lunar horizon. While humans have ventured into space over the past 50 or so years, they have also changed planetary-scale systems on Earth.
Credit: NASA

An international team of researchers found that of nine global-scale processes which underpin life on Earth, four have exceeded safe conditions, with two impacted so significantly as to pose serious risks to future human wellbeing.

‘Human activities could drive the Earth into a much less hospitable state – in this research we have more accurately assessed the risk of this happening,’ said lead researcher, Professor Will Steffen from The Australian National University (ANU) and the Stockholm Resilience Centre.

‘We are starting to destabilise our own planetary life support system.’

The first paper charts the ‘Great Acceleration’ in human activity since 1750 using a planetary dashboard of 24 global indicators. It is published in the journal Anthropocene Review.

‘We expected to see major changes since 1750, but what surprised us was the timing; dramatic increases have occurred since 1950,’ Professor Steffen said.

The research team compared 12 measures of human activity (such as economic growth, population, energy use) with 12 environmental factors, such as biodiversity, and the carbon and nitrogen cycles, and found they had all seen unprecedented growth in the latter half of the 20th Century.

For example, since 1950 urban population has increased seven-fold, primary energy use has quintupled and fertiliser use has increased eight-fold. In turn species are becoming extinct more than 100 times faster than the background rate, and the amount of nitrogen entering the oceans has quadrupled.

‘We’ve now entered a new geological epoch, named the Anthropocene, in which the global economic system is the primary driver of change on Earth,’ Professor Steffen said.

‘We have become a planetary-scale force in a single lifetime.’

The second paper, published in Science, quantifies risks to nine global systems that regulate the stability of the Earth and provide ‘ecosystem services’ that societies depend upon, such as maintaining fresh water supplies, soil fertility and climatic stability.

The international team of 18 researchers say that four of the nine systems have already crossed planetary boundaries into risky territory.

The four are: climate change caused by carbon emissions; loss of biosphere integrity, resulting from high rates of species extinction; land system change; and altered biogeochemical cycles, with high levels of phosphorus and nitrogen flowing into the oceans following overuse of fertilisers.

The team found that climate change and loss of biosphere integrity are core planetary boundaries which, once crossed, risk shifting the Earth to a new state.

‘For climate change the risk to humans begins increasing as carbon dioxide rises above 350 parts per million (ppm). We’re now at nearly 400 ppm; we’re coping so far, but we’re seeing extreme weather events become worse, loss of polar ice and other worrying impacts,’ Professor Steffen said.

‘Our analysis shows that at 450 ppm the risks are very serious indeed.’

Professor Steffen says living within planetary boundaries will not necessarily compromise the prosperity and comfort of humans.

‘Experts from technology and engineering say we can prosper with nine billion people, and stay within the planetary boundaries,’ Professor Steffen said.

‘We have to be clever and we have to innovate, but they say we can do it.’

The team will present their findings in seven seminars at the World Economic Forum in Davos, which runs from 21 to 25 January.

Source: ANU







Published: 27 January 2015

Can the property development industry deliver climate-ready cities?

Eddo Coiacetto

Developers often cop criticism for being environmental vandals who’d do anything in the name of profit. But the industry is complex, ranging from one-off ‘mum and dad’ investors to global corporations. One thing they all have in common is that what they produce – residential and commercial developments – will need to perform in future environments that may call into question how or why the structures were built in the first place.

Gold Coast skyline, 2012: Coastal development in south-east Queensland may be impacted by more powerful storm surges and sea-level rise.
Gold Coast skyline, 2012: Coastal development in south-east Queensland may be impacted by more powerful storm surges and sea-level rise.
Credit: Mike R under CC BY-SA 2.0

There is no ‘typical’ property developer. Private property development is a complex, high-risk industry in which the developer is the entity, person or institution that manages the risks of development.

Unlike builders, developers do not have to be qualified, accredited or registered. While some may come from land-related professions and trades, others may be from unrelated fields, such as mining. Firms can be created specifically for a development project, then dissolve on project completion.

Can an individual developer deliver climate-ready developments? To an extent, some already do. The question though, is whether the entire collective of developers responsible for building cities – the development industry – can do it.

The question is important because developers play a key role in shaping cities.1 Developments contribute to climate change because they impact on energy consumption and greenhouse emissions. New buildings and houses also affect the degree of exposure of users and residents to heatwaves, flooding and other extreme weather events. The extent to which they do depends on factors like:

  1. location

  2. site features

  3. building features, and

  4. private governance arrangements, such as covenants, easements and body corporate rules that developers put it place for users.

Regulation seeks to influence the above characteristics. But land use planning has had little traditionally to say about private governance arrangements. And building standards are relatively unproblematic and acceptable to developers: there is even a significant degree of industry self-regulation via green rating schemes, for example.

Importantly, controlling the location of developments, and to a degree their design, is politically charged, since it profoundly impacts property values and development feasibility.

At this point, it’s worth defining what a ‘climate-ready’ development industry would look like. It would be one that:

  1. has the capacity to, and which can change to, deliver – in both the short and longer-term – products that reduce or minimise users’ exposure to climate hazards, and products that contribute to reducing energy use and GHGs; and

  2. is at the same time resilient to, and has the capacity to deal with, climate change consequences, both direct and indirect.2

Developers’ exposure to the risks of climate change is limited because their commitment to a project is short – from several months to, at most, a couple of decades – compared to the lifetime of that development and the timeframes of predicted climate change hazards, such as sea-level rise.

Further, developers differ in their capacity and willingness to respond to the risks of climate change. They include builders, solicitors, ‘mum and dad’ developers, large diversified global corporations, mining companies, financial institutions and superannuation companies. They may be individuals or corporations, and may also be one-time operators, occasional developers, or professionals. Some developer ‘entities’ merely manage a development project for a fee while passing the risk of development on to equity investors, who may be ordinary people trying to save for their retirement.

Each entity has a different way of operating and some have more power than others to shape their operating environment. That environment is made up of diverse opportunities and risks – such as market risks, site risks, funding risk and planning risk. Different developers respond to the same stimuli (risk or opportunity) in different, even opposite, ways to other developers.

The problem therefore is that there can be no generic industry-wide response to climate change or to a climate -related regulation/policy. In other words, a given policy will not work with all developers.

Take land-use zoning to control the location of development, for example. Some developers only seek out land that is zoned for what they want to use the land for. However, other developers, perhaps with more time or power on their side, search only for land that is not zoned and then seek to rezone it because landowners want too much for zoned land.

As mentioned, the climate risks are not the same for all developers. A developer specialising in marina developments in North Queensland may be exposed to sea-level rise, storm surge and cyclonic activity; whereas one specialising in retirement units in central Queensland may be exposed to bushfires, drought, heat stress and inland flooding.

This discussion has so far focused only on the development industry. But climate-ready development necessitates a whole-of-sector approach, including landowners, financiers, builders and suppliers, engineers, consultants, and designers.

The role of finance is central and critical because it is this capital that is placed at risk in a development.

Policy makers can support the development industry’s adaptation to climate change by providing timely, accessible information.3

Many government departments are the custodians (and originators) of substantial data banks, yet access is often difficult, time-consuming and expensive. Strategies to improve transparency and communication of government data – such as long-term forecasts of storm surge levels – would go a long way to improving development appraisals. The easier the access to information, the more informed the eventual decision: for example, developers might avoid locations and sites at serious risk from climate change impacts.

So, while the outlook for the development industry (and its products) may sound grim, we cannot afford be pessimistic, because climate change presents an unprecedented threat. The solution thus requires an unprecedented level of consistent and concerted action by all players in the property and financial sectors, including all levels of government.

Associate Professor Eddo Coiacetto from Griffith School of the Environment, Griffith University, is interested in improving the effectiveness planning practice by basing it on a sounder understanding of the realities of urban development. Eddo is one of 31 experts who’ve contributed to the edited collection, Responding to Climate Change, published by CSIRO Publishing.


1 Squires G & Heurkens E (2015) International Approaches to Real Estate Development. Abingdon: Routledge.
2 Coiacetto E (forthcoming) Climate change governance in private real estate development: essential concepts about development for feasible research, regulation and governance. In JR Knieling (Ed.) Climate Change Governance: Theory, Concepts and Praxis in Cities and Regions. Wiley.
3 Coiacetto E, Shearer H, Dodson J, Taygfeld P & Banhalmi-Zakar Z (2014 ) One man's meat is another man's poison: why 'who' the developer is matters in climate change adaptation in the development industry. In P Burton (Ed.) Responding to Climate Change: Lessons from an Australian Hotspot. CSIRO Publishing.




ECOS Archive

Welcome to the ECOS Archive site which brings together 40 years of sustainability articles from 1974-2014.

For more recent ECOS articles visit the blog. You can also sign up to the email alert or RSS feed