For pessimists only

The other day at the market, A new sign was attached to the freezer section describing the toxins in the fresh frozen fish and how much one could safely consume per week, depending on the species.

I think we are on the threshold of major shifting due to environmental upheaval. That notice about the toxins in the fish, are those levels of toxicity ever going to go down?

Past Peoples have over intensified their environments and been driven away by their own destruction. But the earth was much larger in a sense thousands of years ago. They could wander to new places and exploit them.

In all the science publications I read, the environmental news if bleak. Huge dead zones in the ocean. Amphibians in catastrophic decline, melting glaciers, desertification, tree fungus, etc.

How much longer until we go from steep decline to catastrophe? What will the reactions be to those catastrophes? What will a world of 7 or 8 billion do when the earth will only support 4 billion? Will the leaders of the industrial countries reverse priorities?

And will science, as those who ape the line, be able to fix the planet?

that is the scariest question of them all.

I fear serious environmental consequences during the 21st Century. I also fear that environmental catastrophes will be exacerbated by governments of industrialized nations bent on grabbing more than their share of dwindling resources.

This is what gets me most depressed. It makes me think all of the things we spent time debating are essentially meaningless without making the environment the number one issue.

I fear for todays children and their children.

Precisely because of what you say. If the end is coming inexorably--are we really going to be able to stop it? Even if we abandoned coal and gas immediately, and cut way back on humans (not sure how we accomplish this) is there any hope that the stuff we've already done won't still wipe us out?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

..Believe it or not, since 1972, ocean and river pollution had improved steadily until Bush crashed the Whitehouse. The last three years are the first since Nixon where pollution levels have gotten worse. And now Bush passed a bill allowing sewage treatment plants to discontinue treatment in times of rain, as well as his not enforcing any pollution laws with industrail plants. Greenpeace scientists say that Bush will cause more pollution in the next 4 years than the prior 34 years combined. His record in Texas speaks for itself. He made Houston the most polluted city in the country in just 2 years. They're still recovering.

But the question is, as far as ending life on this planet goes, are there really things we can do to forestall it. I hear a number of different answers, from "Yes of course we can" to "Yes we can but we will need to do X which is impossible" to "Well it's hard to say but it's possible that the damage is already done and we can't do anything"

What we have to do is find a way to make environmentally sound decisions profitable. The way you do that is with an educated populace that cares about the future of the world. Better educated people make better decisions about themselves and see how their actions affect others. The same applies to corporations, incidentally, so giving money to sustainable companies has a similar effect.

Media is a big enemy in this, but ultimately I think it can be done. There is no reason that we have to resign ourselves to catastrophic destruction before it happens.

Maybe it would have swung some of those Moms in the red states.

Remember when Mom gave you a tuna sandwich for lunch? Those were the days, now eat your Soilent Green!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We don't need no steeenkin' planet. There's pie in the sky!

what kind of pie is it?

new testament meringue or pecan koran?

key lime...pecan....cherry pie....mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

...believe that something needs to be done now, or it will be too late. Here are some sites that offer some solutions and insights:

http://www.npg.org/forum_series/overpop&overconsume.htm

http://www.alexandrapaul.com/activism/overpopulation.htm

http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/lindsaydevon/fourthessay_backtoearth.htm

http://www.figu.org/us/overpopulation/bomb.htm

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1525/is_5_84/ai_62896162

http://dieoff.org/page27.htm

Global warming is disrupting the ocean currents, and the tsunamis from the underwater earthquake are further evidence of the disturbance.

http://www.supramics.com/climate/foreword.html

http://www.ourplanet.com/imgversn/112/bode.html

See this new news report:

India Times

They are a sign of massive, sudden displacement of rock in water!

Before the earthquake there was a bulge on the Indian plate on the sea floor. The bulge is gone now. Water rushed in to fill the void. Waves colided. Waves reflected outward. When waves approach shore they slow down A LOT and lose most of their wavelength, but increase their height.

This has been going on as long as there have been oceans (which could be before or after the beginnings of plate tectonics). Tsunamis can also be the result of massive landslides.

Tsunamis are a sign of an active Earth, not global warming.

Let me paste a post from another thread:

This isn't a straw that breaks the camel's back thing.... The camel is already being hit by a train from the left and the right. The lithostatic pressure at the ocean floor due to the weight of the ocean in, let's say, the west coast of Sumatra is 58.8 kPa.

P_lith = pgh

P_lith = 1.0 x 9.8 x 6000

P_lith = 58.8 kPa

Add 1m of water, and the P_lith has increased all the way up to 58.81 kPa. Add 10 m of water, and the P_lith is up to 58.9 kPa. So an increase of 10 m of water, increased the P_lith due to the weight of the ocean by 0.17%.

BUT, let's add in the P_lith from the rock overlying the focus of the earthquake. This was a really rather shallow quake, and was only 6km deep. Plugging into the equation, we see:

P_lith = pgh

P_lith = 2.7 x 9.8 x 6000

P_lith = 158.8 kPa

Wow, that's quite a bit more. And now, add in the increase from 10m of water, and it's just increasing the lithostatic pressure at the focus by 0.046%.

Add in the stresses from subduction, which are in gPa, and you'll soon see that the Plith from filling up oceans is really really REALLY inconsequential.

Tsunamis aren't caused by global warming! Sea Level change could possibly make them worse, but it doesn't fucking cause them!

Look, it's not just me, here's a University of Michigan professor who believes the same thing, see his December, 27 posting . The post is about halfway down the page.

Prof. Cole says: "But everyone should realize that global warming contributes to extreme weather events, causing more hurricanes and typhoons and stronger ones. Even in the year 2004 extreme weather events caused on the order of $100 billion in damage-- an unprecedentedly high figure and one due to rise. Giant waves are only one potential problem with global warming....As Naomi Oreskes pointed out in the Washington Post on Saturday, the scientific literature for the past decade has expressed no doubts about the reality of global warming or of human responsibility for some large portion of it. Although not all scientists are convinced, the scholarly literature where this matter is debated technically is characterized by broad consensus. The main doubts that are raised are in the mass media, for ulterior motives, by non-scientists. Moving to cleaner energy as soon as possible is the only way to prevent future tsunamis that will hit closer to home for Americans."

Also, the agrees. They say: "But global warming, poorly planned coastal development and other threats over which humans have some control are weakening natural defences ranging from mangrove swamps to coral reefs that help keep the oceans at bay."

Those Repugnant's driving SUV's are killing people with tsunami's!

Rising sea levels will make their effects worse,but GW isn't the cause of them.

You folks who watched "The day after Tomorrow" too much go start your own thread, please <sarcasm>

How long would it take, if Mankind were to quit fucking up the oceans TODAY, before heavy-metal levels in fish stocks would decline to "acceptable" levels?

100 years? 500 years?

As the food chain goes round and round without human interference, wouldn't these contaminants just keep recycling through the chain?

California Gobernator Arnawled Terminator is trying to kill Hispanic and Asian speakers in California with mercury in fish, says the http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/12/23/EDGI4AFDHM1.DTL|San Francisco Chronicle>:

"Next time you're in a grocery store, look at what's not there, and think about who is getting hurt. In California, grocery stores are only required to post mercury warning signs to protect the health of families from mercury-contaminated seafood in English only; signs in Laotian, Chinese, Spanish and other commonly spoken languages simply don't exist.

Posting warnings in multiple languages is a simple, inexpensive step that can protect many more Californians from mercury poisoning. All residents of California, including non-English-speaking residents, need to be protected from mercury-contaminated seafood; it is fair and it is just. Four in 10 Californians speak a language other than English in the home, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Among those who speak Spanish, for example, 37 percent report that they either don't speak English very well or cannot speak it at all."

"California Gobernator Arnawled Terminator is trying to kill Hispanic and Asian speakers in California with mercury in fish, says the San Francisco Chronicle"

That's really reaching, isn't it?

And did the "Chronicle" REALLY call him "Arnawled Terminator"?

And again, what does that have to do with getting the heavy metal OUT of fish stocks?