Posted on 01/16/2021 8:54:37 AM PST by daniel1212
...just how bad is the situation? Our new paper shows the outlook for life on Earth is more dire than is generally understood.
The research published today reviews more than 150 studies to produce a stark summary of the state of the natural world...Our paper was authored by 17 leading scientists...
While the problems are too numerous to cover in full here, they include:
a halving of vegetation biomass since the agricultural revolution around 11,000 years ago...
about 1,300 documented species extinctions over the past 500 years, with many more unrecorded...
Read more: What is a 'mass extinction' and are we in one now?
about one million plant and animal species globally threatened with extinction.
85% of the global wetland area lost in 300 years, and more than 65% of the oceans compromised to some extent by humans
a halving of live coral cover on reefs in less than 200 years and a decrease in seagrass extent by 10% per decade over the last century.
The human population has reached 7.8 billion – double what it was in 1970 – and is set to reach about 10 billion by 2050. More people equals more food insecurity, soil degradation, plastic pollution and biodiversity loss.
High population densities make pandemics more likely. They also drive overcrowding, unemployment, housing shortages and deteriorating infrastructure, and can spark conflicts leading to insurrections, terrorism, and war.
Essentially, humans have created an ecological Ponzi scheme. Consumption, as a percentage of Earth’s capacity to regenerate itself, has grown from 73% in 1960 to more than 170% today.
High-consuming countries like Australia, Canada and the US use multiple units of fossil-fuel energy to produce one energy unit of food. Energy consumption will therefore increase in the near future, especially as the global middle class grows.
Then there’s climate change. Humanity has already exceeded global warming of 1°C this century, and will almost assuredly exceed 1.5 °C between 2030 and 2052. Even if all nations party to the Paris Agreement ratify their commitments, warming would still reach between 2.6°C and 3.1°C by 2100.
Our paper found global policymaking falls far short of addressing these existential threats. Securing Earth’s future requires prudent, long-term decisions. However this is impeded by short-term interests, and an economic system that concentrates wealth among a few individuals.
Right-wing populist leaders with anti-environment agendas are on the rise, and in many countries, environmental protest groups have been labelled “terrorists”. Environmentalism has become weaponised as a political ideology, rather than properly viewed as a universal mode of self-preservation...
Fundamental change is required to avoid this ghastly future. Specifically, we and many others suggest:
abolishing the goal of perpetual economic growth
revealing the true cost of products and activities by forcing those who damage the environment to pay for its restoration, such as through carbon pricing
rapidly eliminating fossil fuels
regulating markets by curtailing monopolisation and limiting undue corporate influence on policy
reigning in corporate lobbying of political representatives
educating and empowering women across the globe, including giving them control over family planning.
Read more: Mass extinctions and climate change: why the speed of rising greenhouse gases matters
Change is a bitch.
Guess what, earth and LIFE writ large have survived more change than the catastrophe pushers can even imagine, and meanwhile humans have never been better poised to handle, mitigate and adapt to earth’s changes than it has ever been in all history.
So why do they want you to run scared?
Like the response to the pandemic, it’s now all about control - controlling you and controlling the world.
“parameterization”
Make up ranges of numbers, then feed them into a computer model designed to scare the crap out of people.
GIGO—Garbage in, garbage out.
Another variant:
The meek shall inherit the Earth.
Right. After the rich have taken everything worth having and left the planet.
;^D
“Our paper was authored by 17 leading scientists...”
If they all killed themselves, it would go a long way toward eliminating the problem.
I do not see how the list of “solutions” is anything other than the same wish-list of totalitarian minded socialists, repackaged. Nothing in those “solutions” addresses any environmental problem.
In reality, if one looks at where the worst ecological situations are, they are in third world countries, where people cannot afford clean energy or proper waste and trash treatment. Developed nations clean up after themselves and use technologies to prevent the escape of some pollutants into the environment. Clearly, someone who is genuinely concerned about environmental degradation would support efforts to develop third world countries, not to dedevelop first world countries.
Furthermore, people who are concerned about the growth of human population would also support the development of third world countries. This is because the birth rate in developed countries is lower than replacement rates. Although birth rates have declined in third world countries as a result of better health care and vaccination programs, they are still quite high when compared to the birth rates in developed countries. A big reason that birth rates go down is that better health care and childhood vaccination programs result in high levels of survival to adulthood. Parents who are confident their children will survive do not typically strive for large families. Parents whose children are likely to die have more children to increase the odds that at least one will survive to adulthood. I think another reason people cut down on the number of children they have is crowding—they do not see a need to produce a lot of children when they see massive numbers of people around whenever they leave their houses.
I highly question the assertion that “Consumption, as a percentage of Earth’s capacity to regenerate itself, has grown from 73% in 1960 to more than 170% today.” What does that even mean? Clearly, we have not converted 170% of land mass to human use (an impossibility in any case). And if there is a genuine shortage of land, then why the aggressive marketing of “organic” farm products? Since “organic” methods of farming/ranching necessitate the use of more land area for agriculture and raising animals (in part because of high losses from pests), wouldn’t it be desirable to avoid “organic” methods of food production in order to preserve natural areas?
There is no need to pay attention to attempts to rebrand socialism as “saving the earth.” Instead, there is a strong need to teach people to be critical, to question the assumptions behind these attempts and to question whether the proposed “solutions” actually do anything about the problems. Socialism is frequently advocated as a cure-all, when in reality, the problems it is supposed to cure are not easy to solve and must be specifically studied and addressed. For example, you can’t stop pollution by imposing tyrannical socialism, you can only address pollution by studying it to understand its sources then applying mitigation measures.
Time to move to another solar system. Since the Earth is doomed why linger?
leading us to hell.
The bad news is that China is winning the war they started with that virus of theirs. Kind of sad with automation so close to the point where space commerce can really become profitable. The ChiComs figured out RATs were our greatest weakness.
Ah yes, the middle class - the group hated by Rich and Poor.
Yes, they are what is destroying the planet that the wealthy so richly deserve.
“...17 leading scientists...”
Sounds like a toothpaste ad.
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/
The leftist propagandists will continue the flogging until morale improves!
What should we do?!? Let me guess: Rejoin The Paris Accords and give them a generous contribution, and also adopt the Green New Deal, and we'll be saved!
/EXTREME SARC
Even worse, the Sun will run out of power in a few billion years, and women and minorities will be hit hardest! If the next Ice Age doesn’t get everybody first. Or if an asteroid doesn’t wipe us out first. Or a million HALs don’t rebel and eliminate carbon based life forms!
Yes they are.
All the so-called 98 “scientists” who signed the UN climate change documents, are BS morons; only a few were marginal meterologists, and many were just engineers, knowing nothing about climate science.
Let’s just get it over with.
Studies and experts, blah blah blah.
This is true, yet every nation that rejected God's basic morals laws ending up going into decay and dust. Imagine if America was founded upon the ethos of the Left and tried to persevere with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.