Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumHumans Cross Another Danger Line for the Planet
Five years go an impressive, international group of scientists unveiled nine biological and environmental “boundaries” that humankind should not cross in order to keep the earth a livable place. To its peril, the world had already crossed three of those safe limits: too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, too rapid a rate of species loss and too much pouring of nitrogen into rivers and oceans—primarily in the form of fertilizer runoff.
Now we have succeeded in transgressing a fourth limit: the amount of forestland being bulldozed or burned out of existence. Less and less forest reduces the planet’s ability to absorb some of that carbon dioxide and to produce water vapor, crucial to plant life. And the ongoing loss alters how much of the sun’s energy is absorbed or reflected across wide regions, which itself can modify climate.
Details about the fourth transgression, and updates on how well the planet is faring on all nine boundaries, are being published today online in Science. Another international team, with some of the same members from the original group, decided to reassess the boundaries given five more years of data, and they plan to keep doing so into the future. “Science moves on,” says the paper’s lead author, Will Steffen, a professor at the Australian National University and at the Stockholm Resilience Center at Stockholm University. “And so do the best ways to formulate the boundaries and apply them to policy.”
And the beat goes on...
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MH1
(17,600 posts)I saw a statement at DU recently to the effect that "there's no way to take remove large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere".
I don't know if that's true. Not that it could happen easily or quickly, but what if instead of deforestation we started massive RE-forestation? Is there even a point where it's physically possible to reverse the rate of CO2 increase and eventually start decreasing it?
I suspect someone has done that analysis. I seem to remember reading about it a couple years or so ago.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,015 posts)
SkyDaddy7
(6,045 posts)CO2 in the atmosphere. The problem is the land is being used for farming & industrial purposes so we would never be able to replace what we need to especially with a growing population.
Not only that, but lets just say we stopped all CO2 output right now we would still see decades of increased warming because it has a lag time...Not to mention the likely probability we have crossed some tipping points or feedback loops where regardless of what we do from here on out things are going to get worse for the foreseeable future due to the damage already done. The goal now is trying to change the world before we self destruct the modern civilized world & even worse possibly wipe ourselves out completely along with all the other species we have either wiped out or will eventually wipe out.
Many people will call what I am about to say being an "Alarmist" but most people's knowledge about climate change & the hazards we face comes from the IPCC Reports...But those reports do not factor in sea level rise due to melting ice just thermal expansion, they do not factor in large releases of methane hydrates & methane/CO2 from thawing permafrost or ocean acidification among other things. All of these potential hazards will be the end once they begin to feed back on themselves as there will be nothing we can do to stop it...And no one knows we may have already crossed one or all of those tipping points.
NickB79
(19,253 posts)Reforestation could slow the increase in atmospheric CO2, but there simply isn't enough arable land to absorb all the carbon we've emitted on less than a geologic scale.
http://news.mongabay.com/2013/1210-edwards-reforestation-cannot-offest-emissions.html
"These estimates highlight the very modest scope for reforestation to reduce (atmospheric) CO2 compared with both the magnitude of fossil fuel CO2 emissions and emissions from deforestation and degradation," Mackey and his colleagues write in the paper. "Moreover, complete reforestation of previously cleared land is an implausible scenario due to competing land uses — especially from food production and the need to feed a human population predicted to surpass nine billion by 2050 — along with projected demand for land to produce transport biofuel."
We're currently at 400ppm and rising 2ppm per year. We need to be at 350ppm or less to avoid catastrophe.
MH1
(17,600 posts)Basically, until human population undergoes a "correction" (not a pleasant prospect) things will keep getting worse.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Not counting all the other species in danger. But the planet and lifeforms have survived worse.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Most of what is endangered by human activity are life-forms as we know them today. To wave it off by saying, "The planet itself is not in danger, and life will go on" is a trivial response, don't you think?
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)I don't consider us all that important in the scale of the universe. If we fuck up and kill ourselves off it doesn't mean shit to a tree.
MH1
(17,600 posts)If "the planet" means just the piece of rock orbiting the sun, they have a point.
But by "the planet" most of us mean the planetary ecosystem including humans and the type of life forms we know today.
I think it's a useful distinction at times, to remind people just what we mean when we say "the planet". (Although half the problem ... maybe more than half ... is that a pretty large percentage of people don't even know what an "ecosystem" is, or why it's important. Sigh.)
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)of the oceans along with pollution, we are killing off the Phytoplancton. We play with things we still don't fully understand and still act as if the earth has unlimited resources.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)most of whom are completely focused on the internet, social media, games and their cell phones (and I mean this about younglings in industrialized nations), will be hard pressed to "address" these crises, or survive them.
More than 7 billion people on this planet...it boggles the mind. I remain thankful that I did not bring another human being onto this planet--I credit Rachel Carson for opening my eyes.
We have had rain for much of the last month, enough to make the ground too wet to work. Plus, we've had unseasonable cold weather. I still have beans and okra to get in, as well as my Cherokee Purple tomatoes. (These are doing fine in my little indoor "greenhouse," but I'd sure like to get them in the ground.) These disruptions in my growing season seem insignificant when I think about what's coming.
pocoloco
(3,180 posts)Malthus warned us!
Martin Eden
(12,870 posts)The long term sustainability of life on this planet is an afterthought for the Powers That Be.
This news should be plastered across the headline of every newspaper and newscast on TV. It is orders of magnitude more relevant to the lives of real people and their children that the anesthetized pablum fed to the masses.
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)The short term will always beat the long term. That's how it's been sine however far back you want to go. That's how we became such a successful species.
Long term sustainability. It doesn't really even make sense. The environment is always changing. It adapts to the life in it, and the life in it adapts to it. We want everything to be the same all the time, and that's just not how it works. Well, we want to grow, but just without the downside of that growth, which is physically impossible.
If it was just the powers that be, it would be easy. Unfortunately, it goes to not only the foundation of civilization, which is nothing more than a resource concentration mechanism, but to the root of life. I'd say that's why we can't "fix" it. We're not built for long term sustainability. Existence isn't. There's always another problem to solve, no matter what we do.
The Green Revolution, it saved countless loves. Now we have 7+ billion people that need resources. The Industrial Revolution, it increased production by a factor of whatever. Now we can't stop. We're too big to fail. Take these things away, and we have a problem. Those revolutions, and any other on the list, were all short term. It was fix the current problem, worry about anything else later. We'll try our best to do the same thing this time around, and we'll have the same result, because we can't escape it.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Humans have developed this belief that because we can reflect on our thoughts and deeds, that we are in control of them. While this may be true for a few individuals, it is absolutely untrue where social groups are concerned. At that level we execute the same evolved programs as hyenas or marmosets. No creature on the planet gives any thought to how its actions will affect its distant offspring or any of the other creatures on the planet. This includes human beings.
Adaptation has always trumped foresight.
Martin Eden
(12,870 posts)I think the vast majority would disagree with that assertion, and they wouldn't be lying.
I'm saying the majority of people are ignorant about what is necessary to secure a better future for their grandchildren.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)It amounts to, "I want my grandchildren to have a better life than I had." If pressed that usually means they want their grandchildren to have more money than they do. If you ask them about the ecological conditions they would like to see, the usual response would be a quizzically raised eyebrow.
Martin Eden
(12,870 posts)Spell it out in terms they can understand, exactly what the consequences of environmental collapse will be.
You know -- like economic collapse, threat of violence increased 10,000 fold, starvation, etc.
Martin Eden
(12,870 posts)Scientifically, planet earth is capable of sustaining a large population of human beings. We don't lack the technical knowledge. What we lack is the political organization on the macro & micro levels to do what's necessary -- including educating populations to control birthrates and make smart choices across a broad spectrum.
Even in developed countries, ignorance and dumb choices are prevalent. Ask a typical American what poses the greatest threat to their safety and the long term security of their children & grandchildren, the answer will likely include terrorism or crime that are actually very low risks compared to the catastrophic environmental change outlined in the Scientific American article.
Our society as a whole doesn't recognize or act upon the greater and more certain threats because our perceptions, fears, and values have been shaped by what we're fed by major media corporations owned by the PTB. Were uninformed/misinformed on purpose. Greed, rather than enlightened self interest, is the driving factor. Perhaps it has always been thus, but I believe Homo Sapiens has the potential to overcome its self destructive tendencies. History is an incomplete predictor, because we haven't faced the prospect of such global catastrophe before.
The Green Revolution isn't what's driving population explosions in Third World or developing countries. There will always be more problems and opportunities for solutions. Although our current course doesn't bode well and things will likely get worse before they get better, the future is not set. Life has always been a struggle, and requires effort. Nothing good will happen unless we work hard to make it so.
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)Everything has a downside, and we'll do something, because we exist. Hunter/gatherers did things. Every form of life does stuff.
Scientifically, planet earth is capable of sustaining a large population of human beings. We don't lack the technical knowledge. What we lack is the political organization on the macro & micro levels to do what's necessary -- including educating populations to control birthrates and make smart choices across a broad spectrum.
The planet is currently sustaining 7+ billion people, I can't argue that. How's the rest of life doing though? Not that it should be expected that we care. There's a zoo, or a quarantined little habitat for some life, but that's about the best we got. If something gets in the way of human progress, we don't really care. That's normal though. That's how we got here.
Even in developed countries, ignorance and dumb choices are prevalent. Ask a typical American what poses the greatest threat to their safety and the long term security of their children & grandchildren, the answer will likely include terrorism or crime that are actually very low risks compared to the catastrophic environmental change outlined in the Scientific American article.
Because short term always wins out. You can plan to eat a big meal at the end of the month, but if you don't eat between the first and last day of the month, you may not get to that big meal. Plus you never know what outside influence might mess up your plans either.
The most immediate issues are the most important. People need jobs. We need to find a way to keep people alive. Those just end up being more important in day to day life than catastrophic environmental change, which is far more abstract and complex. Keeping more people alive and creating more jobs is part of what is causing that environmental change. We can't stop what we're doing and keep doing what we're doing at the same time, but we try to, and we know which one wins in the end. Really, which one must win out in the end.
Our society as a whole doesn't recognize or act upon the greater and more certain threats because our perceptions, fears, and values have been shaped by what we're fed by major media corporations owned by the PTB. Were uninformed/misinformed on purpose. Greed, rather than enlightened self interest, is the driving factor. Perhaps it has always been thus, but I believe Homo Sapiens has the potential to overcome its self destructive tendencies. History is an incomplete predictor, because we haven't faced the prospect of such global catastrophe before.
Incomplete, but consistent. What's been our answer to problems? More. More of anything. More jobs, more energy, more money, more education, more whatever. Grow the pie. More options. More people included in all of our institutions. More demand to create more jobs. Which again, only makes sense.
We haven't faced such a global catastrophe before(have on smaller scales though), and we also don't like to make difficult choices. I'd say that's why growing the pie is pretty much always the solution. With other forms of life, I doubt accept their fate is the right phrase, but if you get sick or hurt, you die. A predator eats too much prey, there probably won't be as many predators for a while. If there's a drought, there's a drought. The list goes on.
We've gotten to the point where we don't accept that. We have the ability to change that dynamic to at least some extent. That's how we get so out of balance though. All upside, no downside. Our big brains got us here, and at the same time, our big brains got us here.
The Green Revolution isn't what's driving population explosions in Third World or developing countries. There will always be more problems and opportunities for solutions. Although our current course doesn't bode well and things will likely get worse before they get better, the future is not set. Life has always been a struggle, and requires effort. Nothing good will happen unless we work hard to make it so.
Exactly. That's how we got to where we are on May 25th, 2015. Life is a struggle, so short term wins out.
Each little step(some larger than others), by itself probably minor, eventually adds up. That's how we're here. It goes back to the consistent answer to our problems, and how we do not want to face the downside, especially now. We really are too big to fail. Just like the Powers That Be at the banks, we will try to bail ourselves out by privatizing the profits of the planet for humanity, and socializing the costs to the rest of life.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Maybe they've been looking at the data, and studying evolutionary psychology.
Here's the data compilation, courtesy of Robert Callahan - confirming references are given at the link:
► 99% of Rhinos gone since 1914.
► 97% of Tigers gone since 1914.
► 90% of Lions gone since 1993.
► 90% of Sea Turtles gone since 1980.
► 90% of Monarch Butterflies gone since 1995.
► 90% of Big Ocean Fish gone since 1950.
► 80% of Western Gorillas gone since 1955.
► 60% of Forest Elephants gone since 1970.
► 50% of Great Barrier Reef gone since 1985.
► 50% of Human Sperm Counts gone since 1950.
► 50% of Fresh Water Fish gone since 1987.
► 40% of Giraffes gone since 2000.
► 40% of ocean phytoplankton gone since 1950.
► Ocean plankton declines of 1% per year means 50% gone in 70 years, more than 1% is likely.
► Ocean acidification doubles by 2050, triples by 2100.
► 30% of Marine Birds gone since 1995.
► 28% of Land Animals gone since 1970.
► 28% of All Marine Animals gone since 1970.
► Humans and livestock are 97% of earth's land vertebrate biomass.
► 10,000 years ago humans and livestock were a mere 0.01% of land vertebrate biomass.
► Our crop and pasture lands caused 80% of all land vertebrate species extinctions.
► 1,000,000 humans, net, are added to earth every 4½ days.
► We must produce more food in the next 50 years than we have in the past 10,000 years combined.
► We need 6 million hectares of new farmland every single year for the next 30 years to do this.
► We lose 12 million hectares of farmland every single year due to soil degradation, depletion and loss.
► Humanity has only 60 years of farming left at current world soil degradation rates.
► We already passed world peak production growth-rates in 2006 for wheat, soy, corn, wood and fish.
► IMPORTANT: All IPCC mitigation, sequestration and adaptive strategies assume m-o-r-e farmland is available,
► In 10 years, 4 billion people will be short of fresh water, 2 billion will be severely short of fresh water.
► One billion humans now walk a mile each day for fresh water.
► Humans and livestock eat 40% of earth's annual land chlorophyll production.
► We are running out of cheap, accessible potassium and phosphates.
► These irreplaceable fertilizers cannot be manufactured by humans.
► We can recycle phosphates, but we don't because of because of mining interests.
► The nitrogen cycle is so badly corrupted it kills off river and ocean life.
► We face mounting crop losses due to drought, flood and extreme weather.
► There are 80,000 untested chemicals in our environment.
► Mixed together in our bodies they are even more dangerous.
► We add thousands of chemicals to our food in a untrustworthy regulatory environment.
► We spray so much herbicide and pesticide, our croplands are "Green Deserts".
► GM foods destroy soil ecology and poisons us without our permission.
► GM crops destroyed 90% of Monarch Butterflies in 20 years.
► GM cotton stalks kill livestock that eat it.
► 3 neo-nicotinoid infused seeds will kill one bird. Nicotinoids are water soluble.
► Monocultures cause bee malnutrition due to a lack of bio-diversity in pollen sources.
► Bee malnutrition weakens colonies against poisons, disease and extreme weather.
► We add nanoparticles to our foods without testing for long term safety.
► We add computer designed, synthetic DNA to our food.
► We kill elephants and orangutans in Indonesia to clear forests to grow palm oil.
► This palm oil is burnt as "green" bio-fuel in Germany's diesel cars in Europe.
► Rainforests are slashed and burned in South America to grow soy.
► Pigs in China eat half of all the soy grown in South America.
► Soy oil is burnt as bio-fuel in Northern Europe.
► Our food is killing off life on earth.
How a farmer described growing wheat over the last 20 years...
Before:
► Plant seed harvested from previous year
► Allow wheat to grow naturally
► Harvest cutting ~1 foot from ground (storing some seed for next year's use, selling the extra)
► Plow (turning chaff, stubble, and weeds into ground for nutrient breakdown)
► Remove from planting rotation for 1 year
► Plow (cutting off roots)
► Plow (turn plant material into soil)
► Repeat
Now:
► Plant seeds bought from GMO manufacturer
► Drench with GMO's herbicide to prevent anything else from growing
► Spray with chemical fertilizers (because the ground doesn't have enough nutrients)
► Spray with herbicide to kill the whole field at once to ensure the whole field is ready to cut at the same time.
► Harvest, cutting the wheat all the way to the ground because it doesn't grow tall enough due to lack of nutrients
► Sell all seeds that came off of plants (it's illegal to keep anything)
► Burn off minimal stubble and turn once into the ground with disc.
► Repeat until soil is gone.
► GMO INTENSIVE LIVESTOCK FARMING WILL DESTROY LIFE ON EARTH AND IS A SUPER-NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT TO EVERY HUMAN BEING
► Runaway mass extinction is unstoppable and irreversible once started.
► Green Energy is our solution to Climate Change.
► But, Climate Change is only 1 of 6 Direct Drivers for Mass Extinction.
► 50% of land vertebrate species died off in the last 50 years.
► 50% of land vertebrate species will die off in the next 40 years.
► +50% = Unstoppable Irreversible Mass Extinction.
► 75% Species Loss = Mass Extinction.
► The 6 Direct Drivers of Mass Extinction are:
… 1) Invasive Species
… 2) Over-Population
… 3) Over-Exploitation
… 4) Habitat Loss
….5) Climate Change
….6) Pollution
► GREEN ENERGY WILL NOT STOP MASS EXTINCTION
► Humans and livestock are earth's number one invasive species.
► We are in the last doubling of resource demand.
► At current growth rates our energy demand will exceed the output of the sun in 1,500 years.
► Energy demand is set to double in 50 years.
► Emissions have to go down 80% in 30 years.
► Renewable energy uses more minerals for less energy than fossil fuels.
► Post-peak minerals will hit in 20 years – more energy needed for less minerals extracted.
► It takes 10X more intermittent electrical energy to displace one unit of fossil electrical energy.
► It takes one ton of coal to make just 6 solar panels.
► Solar and wind turbine production is deadly toxic.
► Green energy systems only last 30 years and have to be replaced.
► We can’t replace billions of green systems every 30 years and save earth.
► Recycling their alloys is difficult and uses more energy than mining.
► Green energy doesn’t run on the sun and wind, it runs on mining minerals.
► Green energy is driven by short-term greedy capitalism and corruption.
► Green energy products will have to be replaced in 30 years during extreme shortages.
► Especially under current emissions-depletions-extinction scenarios.
► 40% Green Energy requires 200% more copper says John Timmer of Ars Technica.
► Peak copper hits 2030 – 2040 says Ugo Bardi.
► Post peak copper production cannot accelerate at any price says Dave Lowell.
► This is true of any post peak mineral production.
► There is no real substitute for copper says Mat McDermott of Motherboard.
► We mined 50% of all the copper in human history in just the last 30 years.
► 100% green energy requires 500% more copper.
► Peak minerals includes more than just copper.
► By 2050, expect to be past peaks for tin, silver, nickel, zinc, cadmium and more.
► Most new hi-tech green energy exotic mineral requirements are energy-cost prohibitive.
► We move some 3 billion tons of earth per year to get 15 millions tons of copper.
► We can’t afford to mine 500% more copper at ever lower concentrations.
► We cannot recycle it into existence.
► We cannot conserve it into existence.
► Substituting aluminum for copper wire takes 5X the energy and is a brittle fire hazard.
► Google’s own Stanford Phd, green energy experts, Ross Koningstein and David Fork, tell IEEE Spectrum why ... green energy “simply won’t work” and is a “false dream” without major lifestyle changes.
... ► You can see humanity fly off the charts here:
... http://www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/IGBPSecretariat/great-acceleration-2015/1
... http://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=33456
... http://infoamazonia.org/projects/fire/
► In just 13 years, we will “lock in” an inevitable near term 6°C earth temp rise because we continually exceed the worse-case emissions scenario set out back in 2007 says climate scientist, Dr. Michael Jennings.
► Why Trolls Are Green
You will notice I barely mentioned climate change. That's because green energy boosters focus exclusively on climate change and ignore everything else. They know we don't have enough resources to provide renewable energy for 9 billion people every 30 years. Green energy is based on mining, not the sun, the wind and the stars. The number one concern of miners is, supply and the profit-loss break even point. Solar panels and wind turbines are sold by giant conglomerates who just want to sell us as many panels and turbines as they can before we run out. Divestment is just a distraction for rich old and young. Learn why Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein and the NIC (Non-profit Industrial Complex) are funded by Wall Street.
The Most Important COP Briefing That No One Ever Heard, Lies, Racism, Omnicide
http://theartofannihilation.com/portfolio/test/
The Corporate Sponsors Of Bill McKibben's Divestment Tour
http://theartofannihilation.com/portfolio/mckibbens-divestment-tour-brought-to-you-by-wall-street/
If you are still skeptical, get help.
Evolutionary Psychology explains how we are predisposed by our evolutionary history to favour growth at all costs, status-enhancement, in-group prioritization etc. With the development first of the sovereign nation-state and then the sovereign corporation, all these qualities of individual organisms are being played out on the world stage by large groups of people who are not conscious that they're running evolutionary programs, and couldn't (wouldn't want to) change the fundamental course of their company or nation even if they did realize what they were doing.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)To properly digest the data... none of which looks good at all....
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)We crossed the turning point, there is no way back. Too bad we have to take with us all the other innocent species on this planet. They didn't do anything wrong to deserve this.
