Earth is reaching its breaking point, U (of MN) scientists warn

U scientists join others in warning that people may have the planet near environmental breaking point.

By TOM MEERSMAN, Star Tribune

September 24, 2009

Human pressure is pushing the planet's food, water and environmental systems to the breaking point, say more than two dozen leading scientists, including two from the University of Minnesota. Their conclusions, published Wednesday in an unusual paper in the journal Nature ("Planetary Boundaries: A Safe Operating Space for Humanity"), are the first attempt to define the physical and biological limits of Earth as nations increase development and populations.

"For lack of a better phrase, the Earth becomes a bit more like Humpty Dumpty," said report co-author Jon Foley, director of the University of Minnesota's Institute on the Environment. "You push it, it falls over, and it breaks. You can't put it back together again." If systems unravel, he said, the planet will survive but there could be huge costs and disruption in the world's economy.

(snip)

As a climatologist, Foley said that he watched average global temperatures inch up very slowly over the years, and then ice sheets and glaciers started to disappear rather rapidly. "Suddenly we began to lose the integrity of the climate system," he said.

The study defines nine subsystems that need to be watched closely to avoid irreversible damage. They include climate change, global freshwater use, ocean acidification, species extinction, ozone depletion, conversion of natural land to cropland, chemical pollution, atmospheric pollution, and nitrogen and phosphorus additions to the biosphere and oceans.

Of the nine systems, climate change, species extinction and nitrogen additions are changing at rates faster than scientists believe is sustainable, the paper states.

(snip)


http://www.startribune.com/local/60706347.html


================

We need to stop providing tax credit after five children. Selfish individuals who continue to be "fruitful and multiply" have to pay for them. And.. we need to subsidize birth control pills and devices.

And my goodness. Can you IMAGINE the HOWLS from the religious right the moment you launch a government program to prevent people from having babies?

do not need to facilitate that. After all, we deduct the interest on our mortgages (that some would like to eliminate) but we stop at one million, I think.

So people can have credit for their kids up to five which I still think is too much.

with?

However, people should be required to bear the full cost of those children themselves and not foist it on the rest of us.

No tax breaks after TWO children (replacement of each parent) works for me.

How many people can you feed and care for with everything in your home and what you can produce on your land? 10, 20, 100, 1,000. 100,000? At some point it's no longer possible to give everyone what they need. Just look at easter island. If you think that wiping out all the other species on the planet to make room for more humans is the answer, then you don't understand our interdependency with out environment and ecology. If you remove just one species of bat in South America it will have global consequences. Why? The seeds of most trees in that region need to pass through a bat's digestive tract in order to germinate. If new trees aren't growing in the ever shrinking rain forest then CO2 will build up faster and the world's weather patterns will be altered. We are all interconnected. We can't destroy the earth to save ourselves; that's like destroying the ship so you won't drown.

The earth has only a certain amout of natural resource and so far we have used most of it along with destroying and poisoning most of it.

The earth has it's own balance , we continue to think resources are endless and keep adding to the population all over the globe then we all die , not just the multitude of other lifeforms because we all need air and water and food there is no way around that .

Where does the mindset to keep producing come for the bible? Or is it just human ignorance and self importance.

I'm am continually astonished at the attitude of some that we can populate the Earth with an unlimited number of people. Yeah, let's have wall-to-wall people but just cut their consumption rate back to the way it was in the middle ages. Right.

What, are we supposed to forgo having any kids?

Proper construction and proper recycling would go a LONG way to reducing the amount of needless waste...

But you know what freepazoids would say to that...

Frankly China has been limiting families of how many children they can have for decades. Has China reduced it's effect on the Earth? Reducing tax credits to families who produce over X number of children is no more than a feel-good band-aide on a much larger problem.

Authoritative new study sets out a grim vision of shortages and violence – but amid all the gloom, there is some hope too
by Jonathan Owen

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/07/13-0

Interesting reading. I am confused, however, by one of the suggestions:

"produce healthier meat without the need to grow animals" - how?

At some point it will wipe us out and begin anew.

The Earth will survive, we will not.

At this point in time, five is too many.

Birth control should be free and widely available.

Little hope of that on this religiously insane pronatalist planet.

Shrink the class gaps as we should, and that won't be a problem.

Birth rates in developed countries are already very low compared to those in developing countries.

The only thing in danger is the climatic conditions changing our survivability as the dominant species.
The earth has survived worse in its 4.5 billion years.

We can't break the planet. However, the planet may become inhabitable for humans.

Wake up. We ARE breaking the planet!

Earth 'will expire by 2050'

Our planet is running out of room and resources. Modern man has plundered so much, a damning report claims this week, that outer space will have to be colonised

The end of earth as we know it? Talk about it here

Observer Worldview


Earth's population will be forced to colonise two planets within 50 years if natural resources continue to be exploited at the current rate, according to a report out this week.

A study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), to be released on Tuesday, warns that the human race is plundering the planet at a pace that outstrips its capacity to support life.

In a damning condemnation of Western society's high consumption levels, it adds that the extra planets (the equivalent size of Earth) will be required by the year 2050 as existing resources are exhausted.

The report, based on scientific data from across the world, reveals that more than a third of the natural world has been destroyed by humans over the past three decades.

Using the image of the need for mankind to colonise space as a stark illustration of the problems facing Earth, the report warns that either consumption rates are dramatically and rapidly lowered or the planet will no longer be able to sustain its growing population.

Experts say that seas will become emptied of fish while forests - which absorb carbon dioxide emissions - are completely destroyed and freshwater supplies become scarce and polluted.

The report offers a vivid warning that either people curb their extravagant lifestyles or risk leaving the onus on scientists to locate another planet that can sustain human life. Since this is unlikely to happen, the only option is to cut consumption now.

Systematic overexploitation of the planet's oceans has meant the North Atlantic's cod stocks have collapsed from an estimated spawning stock of 264,000 tonnes in 1970 to under 60,000 in 1995.

The study will also reveal a sharp fall in the planet's ecosystems between 1970 and 2002 with the Earth's forest cover shrinking by about 12 per cent, the ocean's biodiversity by a third and freshwater ecosystems in the region of 55 per cent.

The Living Planet report uses an index to illustrate the shocking level of deterioration in the world's forests as well as marine and freshwater ecosystems. Using 1970 as a baseline year and giving it a value of 100, the index has dropped to a new low of around 65 in the space of a single generation.

It is not just humans who are at risk. Scientists, who examined data for 350 kinds of mammals, birds, reptiles and fish, also found the numbers of many species have more than halved.

Martin Jenkins, senior adviser for the World Conservation Monitoring Centre in Cambridge, which helped compile the report, said: 'It seems things are getting worse faster than possibly ever before. Never has one single species had such an overwhelming influence. We are entering uncharted territory.'

Figures from the centre reveal that black rhino numbers have fallen from 65,000 in 1970 to around 3,100 now. Numbers of African elephants have fallen from around 1.2 million in 1980 to just over half a million while the population of tigers has fallen by 95 per cent during the past century.

The UK's birdsong population has also seen a drastic fall with the corn bunting population declining by 92 per cent between 1970 and 2000, the tree sparrow by 90 per cent and the spotted flycatcher by 70 per cent.

Experts, however, say it is difficult to ascertain how many species have vanished for ever because a species has to disappear for 50 years before it can be declared extinct.

Attention is now focused on next month's Earth Summit in Johannesburg, the most important environmental negotiations for a decade.

However, the talks remain bedevilled with claims that no agreements will be reached and that US President George W. Bush will fail to attend.

Matthew Spencer, a spokesman for Greenpeace, said: 'There will have to be concessions from the richer nations to the poorer ones or there will be fireworks.'

The preparatory conference for the summit, held in Bali last month, was marred by disputes between developed nations and poorer states and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), despite efforts by British politicians to broker compromises on key issues.

America, which sent 300 delegates to the conference, is accused of blocking many of the key initiatives on energy use, biodiversity and corporate responsibility.

The WWF report shames the US for placing the greatest pressure on the environment. It found the average US resident consumes almost double the resources as that of a UK citizen and more than 24 times that of some Africans.

Based on factors such as a nation's consumption of grain, fish, wood and fresh water along with its emissions of carbon dioxide from industry and cars, the report provides an ecological 'footprint' for each country by showing how much land is required to support each resident.

America's consumption 'footprint' is 12.2 hectares per head of population compared to the UK's 6.29ha while Western Europe as a whole stands at 6.28ha. In Ethiopia the figure is 2ha, falling to just half a hectare for Burundi, the country that consumes least resources.

The report, which will be unveiled in Geneva, warns that the wasteful lifestyles of the rich nations are mainly responsible for the exploitation and depletion of natural wealth. Human consumption has doubled over the last 30 years and continues to accelerate by 1.5 per cent a year.

Now WWF wants world leaders to use its findings to agree on specific actions to curb the population's impact on the planet.

A spokesman for WWF UK, said: 'If all the people consumed natural resources at the same rate as the average US and UK citizen we would require at least two extra planets like Earth.'

The world's ticking timebomb

Marine crisis:
North Atlantic cod stocks have collapsed from an estimated 264,000 tonnes in 1970 to under 60,000 in 1995.

Pollution:
The United States places the greatest pressure on the environment, with its carbon dioxide emissions and over-consumption. It takes 12.2 hectares of land to support each American citizen and 6.29 for each Briton, while the figure for Burundi is just half a hectare.

Shrinking Forests:
Between 1970 and 2002 forest cover has dwindled by 12 per cent.

Endangered wildlife:
African elephant numbers have fallen from 1.2 million in 1980 to half a million now. In the UK the songbird population has fallen dramatically, with the corn bunting declining by 92 per cent in the past 30 years.

one up I will heed its warnings but I can't take it to seriously.

Save the Planet, is because Save the Humans, just sounds selfish.

The fact that we are in the middle of the greatest species loss since the dinosaurs expired means NOTHING to you??

You need to get out more.

Extinction Rate Across The Globe Reaches Historical Proportions

ScienceDaily (Jan. 10, 2002) — AUSTIN, Texas -- Half of all living bird and mammal species will be gone within 200 or 300 years, according to a botany professor at The University of Texas at Austin.
See also:
Plants & Animals
ns

Although the extinction of various species is a natural phenomenon, the rate of extinction occurring in today's world is exceptional -- as many as 100 to1,000 times greater than normal, Dr. Donald A. Levin said in the January-February issue of American Scientist magazine. The co-author is Levin's son, Phillip S. Levin, a National Marine Fisheries Service biologist who is an expert on the demography of fish, especially salmon.

Levin's column noted that on average, a distinct species of plant or animal becomes extinct every 20 minutes. Donald Levin, who works in the section of integrative biology in the College of Natural Sciences, said research shows the rate of current loss is highly unusual -- clearly qualifying the present period as one of the six great periods of mass extinction in the history of Earth.

"The numbers are grim," he said. "Some 2,000 species of Pacific Island birds (about 15 percent of the world total) have gone extinct since human colonization. Roughly 20 of the 297 known mussel and clam species and 40 of about 950 fishes have perished in North America in the last century. The globe has experienced similar waves of destruction just five times in the past."

Biological diversity ultimately recovered after each of the five past mass extinctions, probably requiring several million years in each instance. As for today's mass extinction, Levin said some ecologists believe the low level of species diversity may become a permanent state, especially if vast tracts of wilderness area are destroyed.

Other experts, in contrast, say breaking up today's vast ranges into smaller habitats could promote the evolution of new species. That's because populations of the same type of organism that are separated from each other may diverge over time. As populations are reduced in size, genetic changes may accumulate more rapidly. Another reason diversity may rebound -- as it normally does after a major extinction episode -- is that disturbances caused by human beings do not eliminate habitats, but merely change them.

If by earth you include the many species we are driving to extinction.

are talking about Mother Earth, Gaia. Unfortunately, we humans are not going out without taking a lot of non-humans with us. But geologically, Earth will survive us and it will change and species will evolve. We need to change or we will not be on this Earth.

so no need to worry, right?

Geez, I'm sick to death of this excuse for doing jack shit.

There have been far bigger ecological catastrophes. Life in one form or another has survived them all.
The biggest one was when Earth went to an Oxygen atmosphere-pretty much killed off all the methane breathers. The Permian extinction killed off over 95% of all lifeforms at the time.
Nobody is using this as an excuse. I was pointing out that the planet itself is in NO danger from us.
What is in danger is us and many other species but the PLANET itself will survive with some form of life.

and wont be consuming anything after that. : )

Raising cattle requires unthinkable amounts of water and is directly responsible for the shrinking level of the Ogallala Aquifer. There is also a net 16:1 loss in usable protein in the process. Clear cutting of tropical forests for raising cattle is a major problem on too many levels to mention, but including species extinction and climate change, and you can thank Burger King in particular for that, but all of the fast food joints contribute to the problem. Antibiotic, steroid, pesticide, and dung run-off into streams and rivers is destroying the water and clogging deltas with algae. Yes, cows belch, and while it seems funny it actually is a real problem.

Hog farming is slightly more friendly, but produces a much more acidic run-off. The protein loss is only marginally better at 10:1 - 12:1. Chicken comes out on top in the mix with only a 5:1 loss in protein.

Raising animals for food is not only destroying the environment and depleting our fresh water supplies, it is also wasting available food resources.

The protein loss claims are rather low-end estimates. "Diet for a New America" by John Robbins has the references to the research behind the numbers. I've seen much higher claims.

AND ZPG are the only way to have a sliver of hope for future survival.

The detrimental effects far outweigh any potential benefit. It is a drain on the resources of Earth and the production is entirely damaging to the environment. We can easily feed the world, but not with meat.

I always thought the high protein in meat is what made our brains grow larger.

Who would have guessed tofu could have done the same?

:shrug:

It is almost impossible to NOT get enough protein unless you live on pizza and beer. The only legitimate reason for animal products (dairy, eggs) is B12. It is only manufactured by living creatures. There are yeast substitutes that readily supply it, but if you eat dairy, even in limited quantities, you'll be fine.

Would humans have evolved from homo habilis to homo sapiens without eating meat?

Vegetarianism isn't a 20th century invention. Hunting/gathering societies depended heavily on meat. By the time humans began cultivating crops, evolutionary factors that might serve as an argument for "needing meat" had long ago disappeared. There are vegetarian and vegan cultures all over the planet with long histories, some predating recorded time and only determined by archeological methods.

Physiologically, we have evolved as omnivores, but our digestive systems are built for vegetation foods, not meat. Carnivores have simple (short) intestines and a very short digestive period. Humans, like strict vegetarian animals, have a long digestive tract meant to break down vegetation over a long period of time.

From a nutritional and health perspective, meat in moderation isn't harmful but it is certainly not necessary. Daily consumption raises the risk from fat and cholesterol. That risk is relatively low for those who eat "good meat", meaning wild game and traditionally raised farm animals. That isn't what the vast majority of Americans eat. The difference between "good meat" and commercially farmed meat is similar to that between a homegrown tomato and those pithy pink things they call tomatoes - the shit you'll find on fast food. Sure, genetically they are both meat and both tomatoes, but they certainly aren't of the same quality or safety.

Commercially farmed critters are pumped full of steroids and other hormones, antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals, and pesticides. They are high in fat content and have poor muscle cell structure due to the rapid growth induced by the process. The only objective is to grow as much flesh as quickly as possible and send it away for slaughter. Every extra day is lost money in feed and chemical expenses. The fast food companies buy a substantial percentage of their food from foreign sources so even the pathetic USDA rules we have aren't enforced - just think about the water those things are drinking in Brazil. Burger King has been the worst offender for at least 30 years (don't even get me started on deforestation). Last I heard, Wendy's was still using all US beef, but I don't know if that is true now. Those pithy pink tomatoes have equally questionable safety (origin) and no nutritional value.

If you are going to eat meat, at least find a butcher who works with small farms and knows their habits. I had one 21 years ago (right before going vegetarian). We would get pork sausage that was so lean you ended up with less than two tablespoons of grease in the pan after frying a pound of patties. The beef jerky was to die for. They also made liverwurst that induced cravings for more. The slab bacon was the same - all lean, all high quality. Everything in the shop came from farms within about a ten mile radius. That's good meat, and healthy for you!

When people who are unfamiliar with the substance ask "What's scrapple?" I reply "Sausage is made from everything you can't use for anything else. Scrapple is made from everything you can't use for sausage." While that's probably true, this butcher had the best scrapple I've ever had - and I had eaten it all of my life, usually fried with syrup. I still don't want to know what was in it, but damn that shit was good. You can get good meat, safe and healthy meat that is. You will not find it in a grocery store or restaurant. The dollar always wins on that one.



Just some "food for thought".

After we all stop eating meat I bet you can't answer that can you.

Im sure they won't do any damage yep all the other animals will be fine they can compete!!

That is one of the DUMBEST questions I've ever heard!

"Okay everyone, lets all stop eating meat at the same moment. Close the slaughter house and turn the cows free on the city streets!"

Why do you think there IS all of that livestock? They are bred for food, kept alive for as little time as possible and slaughtered. Every additional day beyond the expected growth maximum is considered lost revenue. A gradual reduction in usage would only require supply and demand adjustments over time.

And I am proud to report I have managed to convince some Vegetarian and Vegans to be Omnivores again. seriously I can honestly say there is not much I hate more then Veganism.

And if true, that's something to be really proud of. Next up, convincing Prius owners to buy H2s.

Off with you.

Not so much any more.

Give the biggest tax credit for no children, with vasectomy/tubal ligation.
A decent deduction for no children.
Give a small deduction for 1 biological child, and for any adopted children.
No deduction for 2 biological children, plus any adopted children.
A carbon tax on every biological child after the second.

At least in terms of population size. (there are other contexts and venues as well; it isn't as simple as just "size of population", though nobody is denying that "size of penis" hasn't helped in terms of population control...)
:shrug:

That we use far more resources per person than any other population now on earth. So simply reducing population without reducing consumption will not do any good.

I don't see the average American citizen significantly reducing their consumption of food and other resources until they are forced by shortages, taxation, or cost. After the $ per gallon gas last year, Americans cut gas use some and have continued to use less gas than previously - but not all that much less. I do not have figures, this is just from what I have read in a number of sources.

Ever since "The Population Bomb" came out I have tried to use fewer resources personally, but I am an omnivore. I eat less meat as an adult that my mother served us individually while I was growing up, and I eat far less beef, pork and lamb and more fish than I remember being the norm when I was a kid. If everyone cut back their consumption of meat, I think it would make a difference in the use of resources (and maybe obesity rates) but it is a personal choice.

to give some kind of thought into whether or not to reproduce. Around here they start poppin' ;em out at about 15 and they just keep on poppin' 'em out until they can't do it anymore. (I'm so glad I marched and fought for reproductive choice in the 70's. :eyes:) 'Course between religion and everyone's concept of a gawd-given right to spit out as many children as they please, that's never going to happen. At some point the earth is just going to get sick and tired of us and find a way to spit 95% of us out. And we will have deserved it.

i'll go a bit further.

males and females should have birth control implants as soon as they are old enough to produce sperm, or an egg. the birth control would be effective until they choose to have it surgically removed, but only AFTER they pass parenting classes, and apply for a license, to be allowed to have children.

if you can't financially support a child, you can't have one.

i am a firm believer that the rest of you do NOT have the right to fuck us all into oblivion.

no sarcasm tag required.

On average, one American consumes as much energy as

2 Japanese

6 Mexicans

13 Chinese

31 Indians

128 Bangladeshis

307 Tanzanians

370 Ethiopians

http://www.mindfully.org/Sustainability/Americans-Consume-24percent.htm


Our US population is way too high considering what we consume.

This ranges from that Clown Club, the Cato Institute, proclaiming that we have an obligation to explore other planets because it's our manifest destiny to be fruitful and multiply (again, like flies) to assorted ignorami the world over, ranging from religious zealots including here who think that some poor stupid deity actually is interested in whether we live in squalor, to bumblers who want to propose that the west raise its birthrates to "compete" with the developing world, to poor simpletons, again the world over, who think that makin' bacon is somehow a great accomplishment to be celebrated and for which one should be admired and "recognized".

Blithering stupidity, meat puppets. They'll make great pets.