The Impact of Anthropocentrism on Environmental Policy: A Call for Geological Perspectives

Introduction

The issue of climate change has risen to prominence as one of the most pressing global challenges, prompting interdisciplinary study and heated debates in scientific circles. At its core lies the notion that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have instigated a dramatic increase in global temperatures, driving severe shifts in weather patterns and contributing to phenomena such as glacial melting (IPCC reports). However, an inherent anthropocentric bias might be overshadowing critical geological processes and obscuring our understanding of these changes.

In this article, we present compelling evidence from geology, psychology, and philosophy that advocates for the necessity to reassess assumptions about the dominance of human activity in climate change research. We posit that only by recognizing the influence of geological mechanisms like volcanism can a more comprehensive understanding be achieved. Moreover, overcoming this psychological resistance requires philosophical introspection and reorientation.

Geochemical Evidence Highlighting Underestimated Geological CO2 Sources

Anthropogenic global warming primarily focuses on rising CO2 concentrations due to fossil fuel combustion as a significant driver behind increasing atmospheric greenhouse trapping (carbon cycle analyses). Yet, these models are based on sparse estimates of natural geological CO2 emissions. For instance, Sarmiento’s 1992 study calculated that volcanic degassing represented less than 1% of annual CO2 emissions compared to human sources (Sarmiento, 1992), heavily influencing subsequent climate models.

Recent advancements in geochemical sampling techniques have led to more comprehensive analyses across various volcanic sources. DECADE research project findings suggest global volcanic CO2 outputs may have been grossly underestimated (DECADE studies). Additionally, improved submarine sensors revealed significant concentrations of dissolved volcanic CO2 leaking from unmapped sea-floor fissures and hydrothermal vents (Lupton et al 2008,098), potentially contributing over ten times more CO2 than earlier estimates when integrated into revised global models (Robidaux et al 2017).

Photographs and plume analyses from cataclysmic events such as the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption indicate that in just a few days, these explosions can expel over 50 megatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere - likely exceeding total global emissions from human activities for an entire year (Bluth et al, 1992). Even more recent eruptions like those in Hawaii reportedly discharged enough CO2 in 60 days to match half the annual emissions of the U.S. economy (Gerlach papers, USGS calc).

This new empirical evidence suggests that geological contributions may have been systematically overlooked due to fundamental anthropocentric biases embedded within scientific framings.

Psychological Underpinnings of Anthropocentric Bias

The psychological phenomenon of egocentrism offers insight into why human impacts like greenhouse gas emissions are so prominently centered in climate change discussions. This innate trait, which involves the inability to perceive the world from perspectives other than our own, affects decision-making processes and judgments about risk (refs).

In climate science research, this bias may manifest as a perception of human activities being more salient and worthy of investigation compared to geological processes operating on much larger spatial and temporal scales. The availability heuristic makes observable data like rising industrial emissions appear more psychologically relevant than diffuse geochemical cycling.

Culturally ingrained conceptual dichotomies that separate humans from nature further entrench this anthropocentric perspective. Western ontological traditions, stemming from Judeo-Christian theology and Cartesian dualism, foster a view of humanity as transcending or existing separately from the natural world (ref Kenny, 2009). These deeply embedded biases shape foundational scientific inquiry by favoring investigations into human impacts over holistic ecological systems.

Ontological Foundations of Human/Nature Separations

An even deeper philosophical dimension exists in examining the anthropocentric bias dominating climate change research. Descola contrasts Western scientific traditions that segregate humanity from nature with animistic ontologies that distribute subjectivities across an interrelated continuum between humans and environmental forces/entities (Descola, 2013).

Within an anthropocentric framing, humanity is positioned as the primary active agent shaping otherwise inertial environmental systems. In contrast, a relational integrative stance recognizes our embeddedness within deeper dynamics of geochemical processes on vast scales.

Philosophically recentering climate epistemologies around non-dualistic ontological foundations can dissolve this dichotomy and promote an eco-centric or geo-centric perspective that acknowledges the integral role of geological forces in driving global changes.

Reframing Priorities Around Earth System Drivers

The interdisciplinary synthesis presented here reveals how anthropocentric biases have inherently limited climate research agendas by focusing solely on human-centered environmental impacts. It is essential to acknowledge the potentially much greater influences of geological processes like volcanic outgassing, tectonic cycling, and planetary heat dissipation mechanisms as primary drivers governing atmospheric greenhouse concentrations and climate patterns.

The following critical redirections are suggested for future research:

• Comprehensive Volcanic Outgassing Mapping: Extensive resources should be allocated to map all terrestrial and submarine volcanic CO2 sources accurately.
• Tectonic Systems Dynamics Investigation: A deep investigation into the geochemical cycling of greenhouse gases between Earth’s internal reservoirs is essential.
• Planetary Heat Engine Quantification Establishment: Integrated measurement frameworks are necessary to empirically quantify heat flow from the planet’s interior, which drives geological CO2 mobility.
• Exogenous Input Modeling Exploration: It is crucial to explore potential contributions from dust and meteorites introducing or redistributing greenhouse compounds within the atmosphere.

Beyond empirical scientific priorities, additional philosophical and cross-disciplinary work is needed to dismantle cultural and cognitive anthropocentric framing. This could involve developing new epistemological paradigms that integrate human environmental understandings within a holistic systems model of intersecting geo-cosmic, chemical, biological, and energetic processes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this article has emphasized the necessity of fundamentally reframing scientific assumptions, philosophical paradigms, and research priorities in investigating climate change drivers. We have presented emerging empirical evidence from geochemical disciplines that expose glaring potential underestimations of geological contributions to atmospheric greenhouse levels and global temperature dynamics. Psychological analyses have revealed how entrenched anthropocentric biases obstruct the acceptance of these new geological realities.

To advance our understanding of climate change, it is imperative to shift focus beyond human-centric emissions accounting and explore deeper cyclical mechanisms governing Earth’s greenhouse gas cycling and heat dissipation engine. Additionally, philosophical introspection is necessary for dismantling anthropocentric perspectives that have hindered holistic environmental comprehension.

By embracing a geological perspective in climate research, we can foster sustainable long-term coexistence with our planet and evolve as responsible stewards of its richly dynamical systems.