The Torch Magazine

The Carbon Climate Crisis and
Its Role in Species Extinction

by Marshall Marcus

     World-wide, human-caused species extinction has followed the spread of Homo sapiens out of Africa. These extinctions have continued up to the present. Human-caused global warming, the driver of climate change, may be contributing to what has been described as Earth's sixth mass species extinction.

     Crisis terminology is needed when discussing global warming and climate change. Indeed, "climate change" is too mild a term for what human-generated carbon dioxide (CO2) is doing as it heats the Earth's surface; the phrase conveys no sense of urgency. "Global warming" is hardly better, and sounds even vaguely comforting.   Because excess CO2 in the atmosphere creates an imbalance in the Earth's carbon cycle, I adopt the terminology of science writer Oliver Morton, who calls global warming what it is: a "carbon climate crisis" (Morton 358).

     The origins and progress of the sixth mass extinction I described in an earlier paper published in the Winter, 2016 issue of Torch magazine (Marcus 28-30), some points of which I will summarize here. A major extinction is defined as one during which 50% or more of all species are destroyed in one million years or less. The first major mass extinction was the Ordovician extinction 445 million years ago. The fifth was the Cretaceous, 66 million years ago. The fossil record indicates that CO2 levels played a major role in all of them (Brannan 23-66, 173-218). Low levels of CO2 occurred when the Earth was becoming covered by ice, while high levels of CO2 warmed the planet, causing ice sheets to melt, oceans to acidify, and sea levels to rise, producing a hot-house environment. Based on similarities to trends occurring now, we appear to be in the early part of what many describe as the Earth's sixth mass species extinction. We are not quite there yet—busy though we are causing species extinction, especially among vertebrate species, we are still far from the 50% mark for destroying Earth's current species.

* * *

     In 2018, two major reports described how the world is headed for a climate catastrophe as the Earth's surface warms 2 ºC or more above that prior to the Industrial Revolution. The first was the October 2018 report by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC) which focused on the world-wide impacts of the global carbon climate crisis (IPCC 2018) The second was the U.S. government's November 2018 4th National Climate Assessment (NCA 2018), which focused on the long-term impacts of the carbon climate crisis in the Unites States.

     According to the IPCC report, renewable energy sources need to constitute 70 to 85% of global energy used for generation of electricity by 2030 in order to limit global warming to 1.5 ºC above pre-industrial Revolution levels by 2050. The report noted the low probability of achieving that in today's political climate and the inadequacy of efforts to date. For example, the report stated that the Paris Climate Accord of 2015, from which the U.S. has withdrawn, will not be able to prevent exceeding 1.5 ºC by 2050.

     The information in the IPCC report suggests that the carbon climate crisis will likely contribute to the decline and ultimately the extinction of many species, such as the loss of marine krill as Antarctic ice melts and other species lost as desertification increases around the world. This paper focuses on another possible outcome of global warming: a decrease in the oxygen (O2) content of Earth's atmosphere.

* * *

     Loss of O2-producing species can reduce atmospheric O2 by reducing the fixation of atmospheric carbon. "Fixation" is the conversion by sunlight of carbon from atmospheric CO2 into plant carbon compounds. In the process, O2 is released as a byproduct. The total amount of sunlight energy which is fixed per year (by forests, shrubs, grasses, crops, and the oceans' photosynthetic species) is called "gross primary productivity." Subtracting the energy used for photosynthesis, what we humans, other animals, and plants use is called "net primary productivity." As we lose the support species that are creating the O2 that the other species rely on, we are obviously facing a challenge.

     There are two reasons for loss of Earth's O2-producing species:

1.    Depletion of O2-producing plankton in the oceans, as global warming increases
2.    Loss of photosynthetic activity by human appropriation of net primary productivity

    "Plankton" is a generic term for a variety of species that form the base of the marine food chain. While individual plankton are generally too small to be seen by the eye, a population of plankton can create a turbidity even visible from space. Not all species of plankton produce O2, but those that do, such as phytoplankton and photosynthetic bacteria called cyanobacteria, are the sources of about 50-85% of the world's atmospheric O2. Of that, cyanobacteria are responsible for perhaps 20% of O2 generation (Earth and Sky 2015; Roach 591-95). The rest of atmospheric O2 comes from land plants: our forests, shrubs, crops and grasses.

     Two key scientific papers have raised the possibility that declines in plankton populations may be another part of the current sixth mass species extinction. A 2010 paper concluded that world phytoplankton population has decreased approximately 40% since the 1950s and is continuing to decrease (Boyce, "Global Phytoplankton Decline," 591-95). After criticism, the authors revisited their data and those of other researchers. In a 2014 publication they arrived at essentially the same conclusion—that there clearly exists a long-term decline in plankton population (Boyce, "Estimating Global Chlorophyll," 163-73). Scientific literature since then largely supports that projection. These data are markers consistent with the usual decrease of species prior to extinction.

     Evidence from computer modeling and satellite imaging point to a continuing decrease in plankton populations as the planet warms. An example of such a computer model was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (Sekerci), looking at the impact of increasing global temperatures on the stability of atmospheric O2. Would O2 generation from plankton decrease significantly with an increase in world surface temperature? This model's conclusion predicts that, while the current state of the carbon cycle which creates atmospheric O2 is safe, a sufficiently large warming of the planet's surface (roughly estimated as 5-6 °C above pre-Industrial Revolution levels) will inevitably lead to an ecological disaster as Earth's atmospheric O2 begins to decline. So far, we are up about 1 °C and steadily increasing (NASA, 2018).

     Satellite data suggests that global warming has been a causative factor in the 40% decrease in plankton populations since the 1950s. The data come from NASA's Sea-Viewing Wide-Field-of-View Sensor (SeaWiFS) satellite data generated between 2000 and 2006 (Henson 621-40). The images clearly showed a decrease in plankton productivity as mid-Pacific waters warmed about 2 ºC following an El Niño event, with a corresponding short-term mid-Pacific decrease of plankton net productivity of about 30%.

     The second major reason for reduction of O2 going into the atmosphere is human appropriation, or taking, of net primary productivity. Examples of human appropriation include converting forests to less O2-generating crops and grazing lands; devastation of vegetation from oil spills; and the loss of vegetation to logging, strip mining, roads, city streets, parking lots, buildings and homes. According to one estimate, by 2005 human appropriation reached 25% of all net primary productivity, up from 13% in 1910. Appropriation may grow to 27-29% by 2050, in an already stressed ecosystem, as the increase follows human population increase. If biofuels such as palm oil and ethanol begin to be substituted for increasingly scarce fossil fuels later this century, human appropriation of net primary productivity could grow to 44% (Krausmann).

     Human appropriation of 44% of net primary productivity will be difficult for the planet to sustain. World population is now about 7.5 billion humans. By 2050, as the planet warms and population approaches 10 billion, humanity will begin to experience the consequences of the associated mass extinction of support species, from insects to marine life. The outcome in my opinion will be famine—the inability to feed all the planet's human population, as arable land and massive use of fertilizers will be unable to cope. Already, global malnutrition and starvation are intensifying.

     Destabilization of the O2 content of Earth's atmosphere may also occur. The trigger will probably be the impact of global warming on the survivability of plankton, against the background of acceleration in human appropriation of net primary productivity. There is already evidence of loss of atmospheric O2. Air samples taken at Mauna Loa and Cape Kumukahi, Hawaii by scientists of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography 1991 to 2005 (Keeling 1998, 2007) showed that atmospheric O2 concentrations were steadily declining in a linear fashion at about 4 parts per million (4 ppm) of O2 per year. The reason for the decrease was not determined; it perhaps reflected a decrease in replenishment of O2 as O2-generating species declined on land and sea, or the global combustion of fossil fuels over this period. The amount of O2 lost was small compared to the huge reservoir of O2 in the atmosphere, but the troubling feature of the results is not the amounts involved—it is the steady decrease.

     How much time can we expect to pass before destabilization of atmospheric O2 will occur, as the result of loss of O2-producing species? A 2011 paper states that we are just at the beginning of the sixth mass species extinction and predicts that, at the current rate of species extinction, the planet will not reach the magnitudes of the five major past mass extinctions for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years. But, the paper notes, this forecast could overlook some unexpected surprises (Barnowsky 51-57). Meanwhile, it will be prudent to find routes to slowing global warming while seeking ways to get excess carbon out of the atmosphere.

* * *

     Slowing global warming will be an expensive undertaking. According to the IPPC, the cost to convert 70-85% of world energy sources for electricity generation to renewables by 2030 may be $2.4 trillion, or about 2.5% of world GDP. Where and how can such massive financing be found? Should governments already in debt be expected to use deficit spending to pay for switching from fossil fuels to renewables? Rapid access to funding, and a nation to lead the effort, are needed if the IPCC's goal for 2030 is to be met. The foundation for a plan has been put forward in broad outline by the IPCC. Startup money estimated at $2.4 trillion is required for a quick start. As in World War II, a plan and taxation to support that plan are needed.

     One option for financing the switch to renewables is suggested by the analysis of global wealth inequality by French economist Thomas Piketty. In his 2013 book Capital in the 21st Century, Piketty argues for a progressive global tax on capital—that is, on wealth, the market value of assets, less debt, of any source of income, e.g., real estate, bank deposits, stocks, bonds, equity funds, holding companies, family trusts, foundations, and endowments. Such a tax, applied to finance the switch to renewables, would mainly impact nations responsible for most of the consumption of fossil fuels. The tax would not replace existing taxes, nor increase government deficits.

     No technical impediment stands in the way of putting in place a progressive global carbon climate crisis tax on capital, a C3 tax. Progressive taxation on capital, almost always at very low tax rates, has a long history. For example, virtually all countries impose property taxes on real estate. Some countries tax capital directly, such as Spain, Switzerland, and, until January of 2019, France.

     How would such a tax work in the U.S.? Perhaps we shall see. A bill to progressively tax capital introduced January 24, 2019 by Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts proposed a tax of 2% on family wealth greater than $50 million, and 3% on wealth greater than $1 billion. It would impact 75,000 American households, or less than 0.1% of the population. The tax will raise an estimated $2.75 trillion over 10 years (Saez). Real wealth (as opposed to deficit spending) is available from the capital assets of individuals in the free market economies of the western world, and the world's state-owned corporations such as exist in China's economy. These concentrations of wealth could, in a single year of taxation on world capital, finance the switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources without deficit spending. Examples of available wealth concentration in two western countries are shown in the following table (which incorporates data from Piketty, found on pages 340 and 348).

     The wealth distributions shown for 2010 are not something new. Even greater inequality of wealth distribution existed in the United States and Europe for the entire 19th century, and up to 1914. Other data presented by Piketty show that in 1900-1910, in both the United States and Europe, the top 10% of the population owned 90% of wealth, the middle 40% 5-6%, and the bottom 50% owned 5% or less. Then came the shocks of 1914-45 from two world wars and the Great Depression. By 1950 the percentage of wealth held by the top 10% in Europe and the U.S. dropped precipitously from 90%, down to 25-35%, depending on the country. Since about 1980 there has been a slow, steady recovery in wealth owned by the upper 10%. As the above table shows, by 2010 the wealth of the top 10% in the U.S. had recovered nicely, reaching 72% of total wealth. There is no reason to believe that concentration of wealth among the top 10% of the population in the U.S. has not continued to grow.

     Shocks similar to those of 1914-45, and worse, face us during the latter part of the 21st century in a world of widespread wealth inequality. The world will lack adequate food, clean water, and other resources as world population grows past 10 billion, and the nations of the world have to deal with mass movements of climate refugees. Two of the contributing factors to such shocks—the acceleration of global warming and species extinction—are in large part traceable to continued use of fossil fuels. Concentrations of capital can be the source of financing the switch to renewable energy sources. The requirements for a progressive global tax on capital are straightforward:

1.    Transparency: the sharing between national tax authorities of bank data on the capital of individuals with wealth above a predetermined level
2.    A method to assess the market value of capital held by those individuals
3.    A fair progressive schedule of taxation
4.    A nation like the United States to lead the effort.

     Tax rates to finance the switch to renewable energy sources would be low, similar to property tax levies. Using guidelines developed by the IPCC as goals, nations should be responsible for setting their own C3 taxation on capital to subsidize the switch to renewables. With transparency of capital ownership less debt, a fair schedule of progressive taxation will be possible. To make clear the difference between taxation on capital and taxation on income, consider the following example. Taxation of two individuals would not be the same for their separate ownership of two properties, both with a market value of $200,000, but one having an outstanding debt of $100,000. Taxation of the owner of the latter would be half that of the other owner. If the debt were to be paid off in the following twelve months, the two individuals' capital assets would be taxed at the same level the following year.

* * *

      The following steps are suggested for the U.S. to begin leading the effort to bring the Earth's carbon cycle back into balance:

1.    Reaffirm its membership in the Paris Climate Accord
2.    Work to make that accord conform with the recommendations of the IPCC
3.    Enact a carbon climate crisis (C3) tax within U.S. borders, aimed at IPCC's 2030 goal
4.    Encourage other nations to establish pathways to create their own C3 taxes.

     To maintain perspective, it is worth quoting paleontologist Jonathan Payne: "I think the key thing we learn from these mass extinctions is, the last thing to recover is biology. Getting the carbon out of the system takes hundreds of thousands of years. Rebuilding the ecosystem takes millions or tens of millions of years" (qtd. in Brannan 274). On that basis, it would be infinitely better to not allow atmospheric CO2 to increase beyond control in the first place. Working through the United Nations, America can be the leader in the world effort to finance the switch from fossil fuels to renewables, to start slowing global warming. While that is being done, the inventive genius of mankind can be applied to finding ways to stop the process or even to reverse it. The effort means enlisting all nations and peoples in a war to end mankind's war against the ecosystem, a warfare that if not countered, will literally take your breath away.

Works Cited or Consulted

Barnowsky, Anthony D., et al. "Has the Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction Already Arrived?" Nature 471, 7336 (March 2011), 51-57.

Boyce, Daniel G, et al. "Global Phytoplankton Decline Over the Last Century". Nature, 466, 7606 (July 2010), 591-4.

Boyce, Daniel G., et al, "Estimating Global Chlorophyll Changes Over the Past Century." Progress in Oceanography 122 (2014), 163-73.

Brannan, Peter. The Ends of the Earth. Harper-Collins, 2017.

EarthSky.org. "How Much Do Oceans Add to World's Oxygen?" June 8, 2015

Henson, S. A.; Sarmiento, J. L, et al, "Detection of Anthropogenic Climate Change in Satellite Records of Ocean Chlorophyll and Productivity." Biogeosciences 7:2, (2010), 621-40.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC). Summary for Policymakers: Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 º. October 6, 2018

Keeling, R.F., A.C. Manning, E.M. McEvoy and S.R. Shertz, "Methods for Measuring Changes in Atmospheric O2 Concentration and Their Application in Southern Hemisphere Air." Journal of Geophysical Research 103:D3 (February 1998), 3381-97.

Keeling, R.F., A.C. Manning, W.J., et al. "On the Long-term Stability of Reference Gases for Atmospheric O2/N2 and CO2 Measurements." Tellus 59B (2007), 3-14.

Krausmann, Fridolin, et al. "Global Human Appropriation of Net Primary Production Doubled in the 20th Century." Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 110:25 (June 2013), 10324-29.

Marcus, Marshall. "Connecting the Dots between Species Extinction, Overpopulation and the Use of Resources." Torch 89:2 (Winter, 2016), 28-31.

Morton, Oliver. Eating the Sun: How Plants Power the Planet. Fourth Estate (Imprint of HarperCollins), 2007.

NASA. Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). "GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v3)." 2018.
<https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/index_v3.html>

Piketty, Thomas, Capital in the 21st Century. Arthur Goldhammer, trans. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2014.

Roach, John, "Source of Half Earth's Oxygen Gets Little Credit." National Geographic News, June 7, 2004

Saez, Emmanuel, and Zuchman, Gabriel. "Letter to Elizabeth Warren." saez@econ.berkekey.com, January 19, 2019

Sekerci, Yadigar, and Petrovskii, Sergei. "Mathematical Modelling of Plankton–Oxygen Dynamics Under the Climate Change." Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, November 2015.

U.S. Global Change Research Program. Fourth National Climate Assessment. nca2018.globalchange.gov.

Author's Biography

    A native of Memphis, Tennessee, Marshall Marcus earned a B.S. in chemistry at Memphis State College after two years of oil exploration in Brazil, and later an M.S. in chemistry from the University of Kentucky.

    After teaching chemistry at Transylvania College in Lexington, Kentucky, he worked as a polymer research chemist with DuPont at Chattanooga, Tennessee, and then with Firestone as a chemical engineering supervisor at Hopewell, Virginia. He also worked for 29 years as a safety and health consultant for corporations, school districts, and the federal government, retiring in 2010.

    He has been an ardent Appalachian trail hiker, a choir member and vestry man in the Episcopal Church, a Red Cross chapter director, and a Red Cross volunteer near New Orleans following hurricanes Katrina and Rita. He is married and has one daughter. He and his wife Virginia live in Richmond, Virginia.

    His paper was presented at the Richmond, Virginia Torch Club on February 5, 2019

    He may reached at vmchum@msn.com.