Exploring the planetary boundary for chemical pollution

Highlights

• Planetary boundaries of Rockström et al. (2009) to avoid “unacceptable global change”

• Boundary for chemical pollution (PBCP) reflects Earth's finite assimilative capacity.

• While conceptually necessary, a PBCP is challenging to operationalize.

• To meet the need of abating global pollution, four recommendations are presented.

• Recommend devising new, preventative technologies and social approaches.

Abstract

Rockström et al. (2009a, 2009b) have warned that humanity must reduce anthropogenic impacts defined by nine planetary boundaries if “unacceptable global change” is to be avoided. Chemical pollution was identified as one of those boundaries for which continued impacts could erode the resilience of ecosystems and humanity. The central concept of the planetary boundary (or boundaries) for chemical pollution (PBCP or PBCPs) is that the Earth has a finite assimilative capacity for chemical pollution, which includes persistent, as well as readily degradable chemicals released at local to regional scales, which in aggregate threaten ecosystem and human viability. The PBCP allows humanity to explicitly address the increasingly global aspects of chemical pollution throughout a chemical's life cycle and the need for a global response of internationally coordinated control measures. We submit that sufficient evidence shows stresses on ecosystem and human health at local to global scales, suggesting that conditions are transgressing the safe operating space delimited by a PBCP. As such, current local to global pollution control measures are insufficient. However, while the PBCP is an important conceptual step forward, at this point single or multiple PBCPs are challenging to operationalize due to the extremely large number of commercial chemicals or mixtures of chemicals that cause myriad adverse effects to innumerable species and ecosystems, and the complex linkages between emissions, environmental concentrations, exposures and adverse effects. As well, the normative nature of a PBCP presents challenges of negotiating pollution limits amongst societal groups with differing viewpoints. Thus, a combination of approaches is recommended as follows: develop indicators of chemical pollution, for both control and response variables, that will aid in quantifying a PBCP(s) and gauging progress towards reducing chemical pollution; develop new technologies and technical and social approaches to mitigate global chemical pollution that emphasize a preventative approach; coordinate pollution control and sustainability efforts; and facilitate implementation of multiple (and potentially decentralized) control efforts involving scientists, civil society, government, non-governmental organizations and international bodies.

Introduction

Rockström et al., 2009a, Rockström et al., 2009b presented nine anthropogenic impacts of global relevance, including climate change, biodiversity loss, anthropogenic changes of the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, stratospheric ozone depletion, ocean acidification, global freshwater use, changes in land use, atmospheric aerosol loading, and chemical pollution. The authors proposed that humanity may be moving beyond a “safe operating space” as the magnitude of these impacts approaches or exceeds certain thresholds that represent tipping points of the global system or a natural limit for processes without clear thresholds (so-called “dangerous levels” in the Rockström et al. articles) (Fig. 1). As discussed in detail below, the authors defined a “safe operating space” as those global conditions that allow for continued human development. Rockström et al., 2009a, Rockström et al., 2009b challenged the global scientific community to determine these “non-negotiable” thresholds or natural limits, which are science-based limits of the Earth's systems, reflecting conditions that are favorable for human life and cultural development, and then to define human-determined boundaries at an appropriate distance from these limits that allow humanity to “avoid unacceptable global change” (Carpenter and Bennett, 2011). A critical goal of defining the boundaries is to move governance and management away from a piecemeal and sectorial approach, towards an integrated global approach that is necessary to address global phenomena.

For chemical pollution, Rockström et al., 2009a, Rockström et al., 2009b did not define the scope of chemicals considered, natural limits, or a planetary boundary, but stated that these remain to be determined. However, they suggested that possible measurable control variables for natural limits could be emissions, concentrations or effects of persistent organic pollutants (POPs), plastics, endocrine disruptors, heavy metals and nuclear wastes. Persson et al. (2013) added to the discussion by suggesting three conditions that must be met simultaneously for chemical pollution to present a global threat. Here we consider a broad range of chemicals including synthetic organic substances and metals, and those intentionally and unintentionally released. We do not consider the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus, which are considered under a separate planetary boundary, or sulfates, which can also fall under another planetary boundary (atmospheric aerosol loading).

A large body of primary literature and numerous reviews document the extent and diversity of chemical pollution and attendant adverse health effects to humans and ecosystems (e.g.,UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), 2012, AMAP (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme), 2004, AMAP (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme), 2009, Letcher et al., 2010, WHO (World Health Organisation) and UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), 2013; inter alia). Indeed, the number of scientific studies providing such evidence fills environmental journals and conference halls. Examples of widespread effects are diminishing populations of wildlife (e.g., Oaks et al., 2004, Tapparo et al., 2012, EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2013) and increasing burdens of human clinical and subclinical illness related to environmental toxicants (WHO (World Health Organisation) and UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), 2013, Grandjean and Landrigan, 2006, Stillerman et al., 2008). Mounting evidence also indicates that the assessment of individual chemicals is insufficient, as complex mixtures might cause significant toxic effects, even if all individual chemicals are present only at individually non-toxic concentrations, as discussed below. This pattern has been observed repeatedly in a broad range of bioassays at different levels of complexity and for different types of chemicals (see reviews by Kortenkamp et al., 2007, Kortenkamp et al., 2009, Kortenkamp, 2008, Backhaus et al., 2010, SCENIHR (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks) et al., 2012). Together, this evidence implies that if emissions of increasing numbers and amounts of chemicals continue at current and anticipated increasing rates (UNEP, 2012), concentrations of such chemicals in many parts of the world, alone or as mixtures, will push the global system beyond the safe operating space. In turn, reaching this point will lead to erosion of vital ecosystems and ecosystem services, and threaten human well-being. Some argue that this point has already been reached (WHO and UNEP, 2013; inter alia). Furthermore, the boundary of global chemical pollution cannot be ignored because it is inextricably connected to the other planetary boundaries by the manifold impacts across the life-cycle of chemicals at a global scale, e.g., energy and water use for extraction and manufacturing, land use change that accompanies waste disposal with a potential loss of biodiversity.

This paper explores the definitions and meaning of, and arguments for, a planetary boundary or boundaries for chemical pollution (PBCP). We discuss the many challenges that indicate that defining a boundary or boundaries for chemical pollution is not easily within reach. Our intent here is not to reproduce or re-summarize evidence of widespread adverse effects due to chemical pollution. Rather, we submit that this evidence points to the need for considering a planetary boundary or more likely boundaries for chemical pollution to help humanity remain within the Earth's safe operating space. Thus, the paper closes with recommendations for steps that hopefully will move humanity towards a safe operating space with respect to chemical pollution.

We start the discussion by acknowledging that defining natural limits and a PBCP(s) is challenging for many reasons. In the framework presented by Rockström et al., 2009a, Rockström et al., 2009b, defining a PBCP is more difficult than for other impacts (e.g. for global warming), due to the difficulty of identifying a single or a few measurable control variables. A control variable is defined, according to Rockström et al., 2009a, Rockström et al., 2009b, as a measureable parameter that can be related to a specific planetary boundary, e.g., atmospheric CO₂ or temperature for global warming. However, agreeing on one or more control variables for chemical pollution is challenging because chemical pollution is caused by an enormous number of chemicals emitted from innumerable sources and in extremely different amounts in different regions of the world. In the same way, the response variable is difficult to define and measure in a clear-cut way, since chemicals cause a wide variety of adverse effects in a similarly wide variety of species, including humans. The links to the related boundary of biodiversity are evident (Steffen et al., 2015). The critical point is that the Earth's assimilative capacity, or the number and capacities of the sinks capable of degrading or immobilizing anthropogenically-released chemicals, is limited at the global level, even for readily biodegradable chemicals.