Earth System science as correlated biophysical, socio-ecological and humaniora spaces: how can mutually bound subsystems be studied and understood in an integrated way, with the dynamics of all components, and their interactions, being considered together?

The study of global change is still dominated by a framework in which the Earth system’s natural biophysical processes at a global scale are viewed as the appropriate scale and discourse of study. Global mean temperature seems to be the barometer of the planet, and we are told at the end of each year that that year was the ‘warmest on record’. Carbon cycle budgets are constructed with single numbers for fossil fuel emission, and ocean and land uptake of carbon. Yet the phenomenon of global change is driven by the interactions of humans and their activities with their environment at a number of spatial and temporal scales. Ultimately, however, societies depend upon the ‘Earth System’ and the resilience of biophysical components that provide for multiple and fundamental services sustaining economic and social activities, including life itself. Until recently we could tolerate much experimentation, disciplinary-based thought and institutional frameworks in explaining the evolving interaction between humans and their activities and the biophysical environment. The dynamics of the Earth system operated on such a large scale that human activities were not perceived as a significant factor in the overall functioning of the planet.

Much has however changed in the last couple of decades: the need to study complex set of drivers, interactions, feedbacks and impacts in a holistic, systems-oriented approach now requires ‘creative tensions’ in the international global change research community challenging us to engage into finding a much needed scientific breakthrough.

How the scientific community is going to cope with interactions between economic growth, population development and ecology which at present perpetuate vicious circle? Do we need a new scientific speciality, complexology, to deal with the challenge?

Meeting the challange we have to cope with complexity our predominantly disciplinary science is poor prepared for. We need a new scientific subject complexology which has to combine systems approaches with the ability to address required disciplines and to communicate with the scientific community. That does not exist, yet.

Is nature predictable?

Earth systems have a natural tendency to be complex, i.e. several processes act at the same time. The process-response function is therefore logically complex, i.e. not dependant on one process. Earth system sciences have become almost purely empiric and a theoretical approach is required to provide a sound basis for models. Partly deterministic, partly probabilistic model runs for all permutations of variables should then tell us whether the system is predictable. This requires a joint effort of earth scientists, climatologists, physicists, chemists, biologists, mathematicians, statisticians, modellers, and many others.

How do we overcome the apparent unreadiness of the scientific community to take a leadership role in addressing the interrelated ecological, biological, social, and economic complexities of the global catastrophe we are currently experiencing before it is too late?

Actions taken by the scientific community must consider the complex interrelationship between the crises. It is the combined impact of Climate Change+ the Ecological Emergency+ Global Warming + the Global Economic Crisis + Armed Conflict + Public Health Emergencies + Extreme Poverty that has brought the planet and its people to breaking point. These crises have created an unprecedented catastrophe of unparalleled complexity.

Attention must also be paid to human life on the planet. We are a species first — biologically, physiologically, psychologically, and emotionally – before we are separated by gender, ethnicity, race, religion, politics or national identity. There is much that can be accomplished if we work with people to preserve biodiversity. It is critical that scientists harness both new and old media to engage with governments, financial institutions, industry, NGO’s, educational institutions, and people.

Global networks of scientists need to spend time in communities, understand local conditions and support local initiatives. Mathematical models will not help us understand human misery caused by the destruction of ecosystems. For many, harmony of living with the Earth has been destroyed by wars, the removal of natural resources by industry, and the co-opting of land for agribusiness. One billion people are already at the point of starvation. We will not reach those who live so close to death with our one hundred facts about the global crises. They are in crisis and it is already deadly.

It is also critical we make the health and well-being of women central to the ecological survival of the planet, and their education a global priority. Protect women’s reproductive rights and they will have fewer children – but their children will be healthy. The mantra should be “what’s good for the planet is good for the humanity,” and the shifts in thinking and behavior will begin to take place. The task is monumental. We should begin immediately.

Denny Taylor, ICEC, Hofstra Univerisity

How can we improve societal learning in dealing with complex challenges?

A unifying feature of all environmental and sustainability challenges is the complexity and uncertainty of the issues and relationships between goals, and problems. In order to deal effectvely with these issues we need to better learn about the interconections, and develop new approaches to policy making that reflect these lessons. Many tentative efforts have already been made in this direction.

Obstacles have to do with how communities of knowledge are organized and funded, and the possible trade offs between relying on technical expertise and democratic values. While they are not fundamental opposites, their potential contradictions do need to be considered and addressed.