Since the 1972 Stockholm Conference, many global environmental agreements have been struck for climate, biodiversity, and sustainable development goals. Still, the planets environment has continued to decline, including on the ocean. One result has been ocean acidification, caused by the uptake of 30–40 per cent of all carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. On its face, this ocean CO2 uptake sounds positive. However, with a continuous increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, this also means an increase in the ocean, which alters its chemistry in ways that may disrupt oceanic biodiversity through making waters more acidic. When coupling this with other major global crisis, we see that we have only adopted global environmental agreements that protect humans from our own nature-induced change – and not ensured that we take our ethical obligation to nature itself by protecting it from human use. This chapter looks at the risk perception literature and considers how the science–policy interface can be exploited to convey the importance of ocean acidification, and whether the anthropogenic lens is what will always be necessary to ensure action to protect something from ourselves.
21.1 Introduction
Around the end of the eighteenth century, with the design of the steam engine by James Watt, the geological age of the Anthropocene started (Crutzen 2006). This has led to unprecedented changes in the natural environment, the most serious of which is climate change. We have tried to change our paths since then though. In fact, more than 50 years have now passed since the 1972 Stockholm Conference (Rockström et al. 2021) – the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. This was when global leaders for the first time made the environment and the triple planetary crisis of climate, nature, and pollution a focus issue. At that time, in 1972, they warned – and this still holds true today – that ‘Through ignorance or indifference we can do massive and irreversible harm to the earthly environment on which our life and well-being depend’ (United Nations 1973).
Since then, state leaders have created the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) entered into force both a climate and biodiversity agreement (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)) with many iterations; signed the UN 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015 with corresponding targets, as part of the realization of Agenda 2030; and in 2022 and 2023, state leaders also signed the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ). Still, we have continued to saturate Earth’s capacity to support future generations (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2018). The planet is more polluted than earlier, there are fewer fish in the ocean, the temperature is increasing, methane levels are at their highest in 800,000 years, polar regions are melting, plastics are ubiquitous, and the ocean is more acidic than ever (Barnes & Kaiser 2009; Hönisch et al. 2012; Worm & Branch 2012; MacLeod et al. 2021; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2022).
In fact, six of nine planetary boundaries that are needed for humans to be able to develop and thrive for generations to come have been breached already (Richardson et al. 2023). Then, in 2025, the ocean acidification boundary was crossed (Findlay et al. 2025). This is a boundary that is also specifically mentioned in the SDGs, with target 3 of SDG14 Life below water specifying the need to ‘Minimize and address the impacts of ocean acidification, including through enhanced scientific cooperation at all levels’. It was in fact the only by-product of climate change and greenhouse gas emission that was singled out to be included under this goal (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2022). Still, there is a lack of concrete knowledge of how breaching this boundary will impact either non-human populations or the corresponding human population that depends on these (Buckley et al. 2017).
In light of this, the current chapter considers ocean acidification within the planetary boundaries framework and assesses the lack of responses that led to, and may further exacerbate, the breaching of this boundary. We argue that this in part can be explained by the human-centric perspective of global environmental governance, where effective governance is linked to risk perception within a human context. In terms of ocean acidification, we argue that humans still have a low personal risk perception, coupled with a lack of knowledge (or interest) about it, which directly hinders its agenda setting and implementation of effective governance. We conclude with considering whether the increased saliency of biodiversity challenges, as brought to the surface with the signing of the GBF in 2022, can bring more attention to the role of stressors such as ocean acidification on sustainability and the consequences the breach of this planetary boundary can have on not only humans but also non-human populations.
…
Fossbakk R. H., 2026. Chapter 21 – How can we curb ocean acidification in a time of multiple competing crises? Part VIII – Ocean Acidification. In: Meisch S. P. & Schmidt J. J. (Eds.), Ethics and Planetary Boundaries, pp 205-216. Cambridge University Press. Chapter.
0 Responses to “Chapter 21 – How can we curb ocean acidification in a time of multiple competing crises?”