Oceans Losing Oxygen at Unprecedented Rate, Experts Warn (theguardian.com) 201
Oxygen in the oceans is being lost at an unprecedented rate, with "dead zones" proliferating and hundreds more areas showing oxygen dangerously depleted, as a result of the climate emergency and intensive farming, experts have warned. From a report: Sharks, tuna, marlin and other large fish species were at particular risk, scientists said, with many vital ecosystems in danger of collapse. Dead zones -- where oxygen is effectively absent -- have quadrupled in extent in the last half-century, and there are also at least 700 areas where oxygen is at dangerously low levels, up from 45 when research was undertaken in the 1960s. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature presented the findings on Saturday at the UN climate conference in Madrid, where governments are halfway through tense negotiations aimed at tackling the climate crisis.
Grethel Aguilar, the acting director general of the IUCN, said the health of the oceans should be a key consideration for the talks. "As the warming ocean loses oxygen, the delicate balance of marine life is thrown into disarray," she said. "The potentially dire effects on fisheries and vulnerable coastal communities mean that the decisions made at the conference are even more crucial." All fish need dissolved oxygen, but the biggest species are particularly vulnerable to depleted oxygen levels because they need much more to survive. Evidence shows that depleted levels are forcing them to move towards the surface and to shallow areas of sea, where they are more vulnerable to fishing.
Grethel Aguilar, the acting director general of the IUCN, said the health of the oceans should be a key consideration for the talks. "As the warming ocean loses oxygen, the delicate balance of marine life is thrown into disarray," she said. "The potentially dire effects on fisheries and vulnerable coastal communities mean that the decisions made at the conference are even more crucial." All fish need dissolved oxygen, but the biggest species are particularly vulnerable to depleted oxygen levels because they need much more to survive. Evidence shows that depleted levels are forcing them to move towards the surface and to shallow areas of sea, where they are more vulnerable to fishing.
The planet needs less people (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The planet needs less people (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, except for the elite. They get to do whatever they want. But those poor people need to just go away.
Re:The planet needs less people (Score:5, Informative)
Reducing population is actually pretty simple, distribute birth control to reduce the number of people being born and provide adequate medical services to provide useful lives for the people who are alive.
For too long now, Western religious groups have prevented providing the developing world with birth control.
Re: (Score:2)
For too long now, Western religious groups have prevented providing the developing world with birth control.
The USA has been doing that since at least 2001. They'll give out lube, too, in the right situation.
Re: (Score:2)
You really have no clue, so you? The sad thing is that they conflated birth control with abortions, thereby resulting in MORE abortions...
The US government is cutting its funding for the supply of contraceptives to family planning clinics run by Marie Stopes International in Africa, alleging that it condones forced abortions in China.
MSI has categorically denied that it supports forced abortions or coercive sterilisation in China or anywhere else in the world, and says that the actions of the Bush governmen
Re: The planet needs less people (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
thank you for demonstrating you lack of reading comprehension
The VERY FIRST LINE from the cited article explains that it was the US who claimed that providing contraceptives condoned abortions in China, which has been disproved in the time since then
>>The US government is cutting its funding for the supply of contraceptives to family planning clinics run by Marie Stopes International in Africa, alleging that it condones forced abortions in China.
Would you like a mulligan on this one, or will you stop
Re: (Score:2)
That only works for people who have a s goal treating their sexual partner as a play thing (objects) for the purpose of pleasure. Birth control is encourages disease, divorce , abuse of women and children, and selfishness. Also , people who don't believe in birth control are likely to fill up the Gap if they can.
You'd get a lot more traction by encouraging the right 'type' of religious sentiment. Can you image a society were a large percentage of the population was voluntarily celibate, lived in single
Re: (Score:2)
I just threw up in my mouth when you tried to explain that a relationship that includes sex for the pure enjoyment of sex, and not for the sole purpose of procreation, is in fact "treating their sexual partner as a play thing (objects) ".
I am sorry to tell you that the rewards, and pleasures of this Earth, come from God, even though you try and make them seem corrupted.
What a sad little life you must lead.
What about consumption (Score:5, Informative)
Americans [folk.uio.no] Plenty of idiots will just deny the truth we all know.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I just wonder if that calculation on environmental impact of eating meat versus being a vegetarian or even vegan ever takes into account what production of amino acids and vitamin B12 dump into nature... Or if it's even possible to produce those in a lab.
Because make no mistake, not eating animal products isn't healthy. Not in the slightest. That bullshit concerning cholesterin for one was a giant hoax...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
vegans, like me, only need vitamin B12 (and the production of it isn't a big problem [nih.gov])
Re: (Score:2)
overpopulation can't be a solvable problem...
Actually it can, it's just the solution isn't one anyone would like. One Child Policy.
Re: (Score:2)
ethically, it can't
Re: (Score:2)
ethically, it can't
Why is it ethically not possible? We live in a society that has to have rules to function and survive. Why does anyone have a "right" to pop out as many babies as they want causing more strain on the limited resources available? Why does anyone have a right to procreate at all? Believe it or not, there is a finite number of people this world can sustain, and we are reaching that number quickly, if we haven't already. We've caused possibly irreparable damage to the environment, killed off entire species
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
are you suggesting to kill people?
No. Nowhere in my post did I even imply killing anyone, nor did the GP. Both of us were talking about a one child policy.
Or control birth from who? Rich people will do it too?
Um.. Everyone, including the wealthy.
Re: (Score:2)
good luck with that, mr. Viability
Re:The planet needs less people (Score:5, Insightful)
overpopulation can't be a solvable problem...
Actually it can, it's just the solution isn't one anyone would like. One Child Policy.
You don't need a "one child policy," Demography has repeatedly shown that three things are correlated with lower population growth:
1. reduction in poverty (known as the "demographic transition")
2. increase in education levels
3. access to birth control.
If you want to reduce population growth, you don't need a "one child policy." You need to address poverty, educate people, and give people access to birth control. (That doesn't mean forcing people to use birth control. It means giving them the freedom to choose to use birth control if they want. Turns out, not everybody wants to have eight or ten children. A lot of people would stop at two, if they could. Or even zero.)
Here's a hard problem: how do we decrease poverty without increasing the strain on natural resources? That's an engineering problem. We need to solve it.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in a country with good education, low poverty, and good access to birth control, but some families are still having 6-7 kids. How can we stop them ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How can we stop them?
@XXongo's whole point is that you don't need to. You just need for the *average* family to have fewer children.
Re: (Score:2)
You just need for the *average* family to have fewer children.
That reasoning is flawed. If, for various reasons, some people are "resistant" to the 3 mentioned parameters for low childbirth, and still have big families, then it is likely that they will pass on some of this resistance to their offspring, and they will get bigger families too. Even worse, men with a desire for a large family will seek out women with the same desire, and they will combine their genes, increasing the chance that their offspring will end up with an even better combination.
You cannot compen
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So family size is dictated by genetics, not environment?
It's dictated by both, obviously. This means that if you change the environment to promote small families, that genes will adapt and recombine.
It's survival of the fittest. In this case, the fittest are the ones with the biggest families. For some mysterious reason, a lot of folks have trouble grasping this most basic concept of evolutionary biology.
Re:The planet needs less people (Score:4, Interesting)
Someone doesn't understand genetics. In the US, in just 60 years [statista.com] we've seen a drop in family size by 15%.
US household size was cut in half [infoplease.com] in just 100 years.
In fact, there is substantial evidence [oecd-ilibrary.org] that it takes just one generation for a household of immigrants (immigrant family becoming native born) to cut their household size by 15% or more. That doesn't even give a chance for genetic impetus, as the offspring of immigrants have measurably fewer kids when they move to a more economically advanced nation.
Is your contention that our genes will modify so fast that we will now have a biological imperative to cut our breeding in half? Really? That's how fast you think it works?
Seriously, it's not genetics - it's economy. Improve the economy, you'll cut population growth. Every time.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone doesn't understand genetics. In the US, in just 60 years [statista.com] we've seen a drop in family size by 15%.
In just 60 years, we've managed to kill a lot of bacteria too, but that doesn't mean they can't evolve to grow resistant to antibiotics and come back.
Is your contention that our genes will modify so fast that we will now have a biological imperative to cut our breeding in half?
They don't have to. The genes for big families already exist. They just need to outgrow the genes for small families. And they will get more effective when combined with other genes for big families, which also exist in other people. This combination will happen automatically when the small families die out.
Seriously, it's not genetics - it's economy. Improve the economy, you'll cut population growth. Every time.
Every time ? How many times have you tried it ?
Re:The planet needs less people (Score:4, Interesting)
In just 60 years, we've managed to kill a lot of bacteria too, but that doesn't mean they can't evolve to grow resistant to antibiotics and come back.
What is the lifespan of a typical bacterium? How many generations of bacteria came and went in 60 years?
Just to save you the effort, a typical bacterium lives for about 12 hours [sciencefocus.com]. In those 60 years, we'd expect around 44,000 generations. That would be about 880,000 years for mankind (longer than we've been around). So yeah - you're completely off-base here.
Is your contention that our genes will modify so fast that we will now have a biological imperative to cut our breeding in half?
They don't have to. The genes for big families already exist. They just need to outgrow the genes for small families. And they will get more effective when combined with other genes for big families, which also exist in other people. This combination will happen automatically when the small families die out.
Again, your contention is this happens in one or two generations? The facts do not support it. In fact, the facts show that family sizes DROP in a generation or two when the economy grows.
Every time ? How many times have you tried it ?
Two hundred plus years [sagepub.com] of historical records point to this fact. Do you have anything that shows otherwise? If it's as solid as your understanding of genetics, the answer would be "no".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Explain to them that there is no god.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Political Problem(Re:The planet needs less people) (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's a hard problem: how do we decrease poverty without increasing the strain on natural resources?
I believe one major part of this problem is a lack of freedom, as history shows poor nations tend to be nations run by tyrants. Another major part of this problem is a lack of cheap energy, as even in nations with economic freedom, rule of law, and otherwise near ideal government will still find themselves in poverty without access to cheap energy.
That's an engineering problem. We need to solve it.
I'm not so sure. We know how to create a free economy and enforce the rule of law. We know how to get energy with low CO2 emissions, minimal needs for land and raw materials, is plentiful, reliable, safe, and have high energy returns on energy investments. These are onshore windmills, hydroelectric dams, geothermal power, and nuclear fission reactors. There is certainly some engineering we could do but that's just making the technology fit the specific situation, the hard engineering on making it work has been done. The only reason these energy sources aren't used more is the politics of NIMBY, bad science invading politics, irrational fear, a lack of freedom, a lack of a rule of law, and generally bad governments run by tyrants.
The problem I see is politics. Compare North Korea with South Korea as those are an example of two populations with nearly every variable removed but one has a better political system than the other. Good economic policy leads to clean, abundant, and affordable energy. I'm not saying South Korea is the ideal on energy policy we need to follow, only that they are better than North Korea and are on a far better path than many nations of the world. South Korea still burns a lot of coal but they built many nuclear power plants and are building more, dammed up as many rivers as they could for hydro electric power, have built many windmills and are building more, and just generally appear to be on a good path to energy independence and keeping the air and water clean.
Perhaps this can be summed up this way, look at the nations that rate highly on economic freedom, then look at how nations rate with air pollution and other metrics of a healthy environment. My guess is that everyone should see a high correlation between the two. Global warming is a "First World Problem", as in people that live in poverty don't much care about global warming. Nations with the most poverty tend to be those with the least freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
1. reduction in poverty (known as the "demographic transition")
2. increase in education levels
3. access to birth control.
Countries that aspire to sexual equality usually have lower birth rates. In that regard, the above points need to be equally applied to both men AND women.
Re: (Score:2)
overpopulation can't be a solvable problem...
Actually it can, it's just the solution isn't one anyone would like. One Child Policy.
Population growth is no longer a problem in most if not all of the worlds developed nations, in fact population decline is a bigger problem in many. In less developed countries population growth will eventually solve itself.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Preventing fertilizer and manure from washing away in rivers is also an option.
Re: (Score:2)
a much more costly and less effective one...
Re: (Score:2)
But you'll be happy that we did when we start running out of topsoil and phosphorous.
Runoff [Re:The planet needs less people] (Score:5, Interesting)
Preventing fertilizer and manure from washing away in rivers is also an option.
Yep. The articles don't bring that out adequately, but a very large amount of deoxygenation, particularly coastal deoxygenation, is due to runoff, not warming. (The Missisippi-delta dead zone in the gulf of Mexico is the poster case).
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what you taste like.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Overpopulation not only can be a solvable problem, it is already solved.
Since 2000 there has been 2 billion children on Earth. There is no sign that this number will increase in the future.
Re:The planet needs less people (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, yeah.... no.
One reason countries like China pollute is because we buy cheap ass products from them that nobody would have any reasonable chance to manufacture without quasi slave labor and then dumping the dreck into the rivers.
Sure, their morals are questionable but we keep giving them money for that behavior knowing full well how that gimmick can only cost a buck.
Re: The planet needs less people (Score:3)
I'm guessing that the war on cheap crap will go about as well as the war on drugs.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? We are all going to live in space.
Re: The planet needs less people (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Farmers rarely bear the brunt of the damage, which mainly affects fishing fleets and coastal areas. Two years ago, the meat industry in the US was found to be responsible for a massive dead zone measuring more than 8,000 sq miles in the Gulf of Mexico.
It's not just the number of people it's more what they do.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Spare us the Malthusian bullshit. (Score:4, Insightful)
Population is still growing, despite the growth slowing down, and it's still growing rapidly in plenty of places.
Billions of people only consume minimal resources, and they want more.
A lot of resources are already being used up quicker than they are replenished, including fossil fuels, topsoil and fossil water.
Re:Spare us the Malthusian bullshit. (Score:4, Informative)
I have told you before but I will happily repeat myself. There are 2 billion children on Earth. This has been the case since 2000. There are no signs of this number rising in the future.
Population growth only happens because those children are growing up. Once that is over, population will be stable. There is no point in worrying about it, since you cannot ethically stop those already born children from growing up.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, poor countries.
But poor people have much less impact on the environment than rich people. That's not necessarily true in every case (e.g. slash and burn agriculture), but it's true in most cases and certainly in this one.
So logically speaking we should be considering reducing the population of wealthy countries as well as slowing the rate of growth of poor ones.
Re: (Score:2)
But poor people have much less impact on the environment than rich people. That's not necessarily true in every case (e.g. slash and burn agriculture), but it's true in most cases and certainly in this one.
So logically speaking we should be considering reducing the population of wealthy countries as well as slowing the rate of growth of poor ones.
Unsupported assertion. We could instead reduce the wealth of the most wealthy people in wealthy countries (who tend to have more impact) and spend their money on environmental restoration. More population means a larger tax base means more money to spend on such projects. But first, we have to wrest control of government away from corporate rapists.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
So logically speaking we should be considering reducing the population of wealthy countries as well as slowing the rate of growth of poor ones.
Good this is super easy. Almost all wealthy nations have a birth rate below the replacement rate today; it would drop even lower if you eliminated first generation immigrants. Literally all you have to do is STOP letting people from the shit-holes come into Western Europe and the States.
Boom you'll have a rapidly declining number of 1st world middle class carbon foot prints.
There is exactly zero reason to believe the the shit-hole nations would not follow the same demographic trends the 1st world did over
Re: (Score:2)
Good this is super easy. Almost all wealthy nations have a birth rate below the replacement rate today; it would drop even lower if you eliminated first generation immigrants
Except a declining population brings with it a host of other problems. Here in Canada, and I expect in the US as well, the population pyramid is becoming inverted, with a larger percentage of old people (the baby boom generation) who require more health care and social services and fewer working age people to pay for those services.
We need immigration to keep the population steady rather than declining at the very least. At the extreme of this phenomenon is Japan. It will be interesting to see how that w
Re: (Score:2)
Except a declining population brings with it a host of other problems.
Temporary ones.
Re: (Score:2)
The countries with the biggest populations and the fastest growing populations need to consider their part in the balance for a sustainable future.
How about the countries with the largest per capita emissions, largest per capita energy consumption, and largest per capita waste do their bit too.
Re: (Score:2)
So, your solution would, for a hypothetical, crack down on a country with a population of 10,000 people if that country had per capita energy consumption and emissions 1000x the world average, while ignoring a country of 1,000,000,000 with per capita energy consumption and emissions 90% of the world average?
Even though the larger population country was 90x the
Re: (Score:2)
Why? So the "less people" that survive whatever culling we come up with, can still pillage and rape the planet?
Perhaps we can also pillage less?
Re:The planet needs... better farming (Score:2)
There are farming best management practices that can reduce or eliminate farm run-off of fertilizers, manure, sediment, etc. into rivers, which are the major cause of these coastal dead zones. Relatedly, the US could also stop supporting corn-derived ethanol. Corn farming run-off is particularly bad compared to other crops, in addition to the problem of diverting crop land to very inefficient fuel production instead of feeding people.
Ocean Acidification (Score:2)
According to this link [sciencenews.org], ocean acidification is interfering with the formation of the silica shells of diatoms. Since most of the oxygen we breath is produced in the ocean by phytoplankton such as diatoms and coccolithophores, this should concern all of us. In my opinion, ocean acidification could be the most concerning issue for the sustainability of civilization in the long term. In the short to medium term I am most concerned with widespread crop failures due to shifting precipitation and drought patterns
Re: (Score:2)
ok, how do we get there? ;)
The obvious answer is less sex. You start first though
Seriously , if you want less people you have to have a reason because it either means killing people or getting a very large number of people to suffer by overcoming their natural appetite to reproduce. So unless you are going to claim a moral imperative to save the plant for future generations rooted in something a lot more significant than 'the common good' or some vague painful empathy for a group of people who currently d
Re: The planet needs less people (Score:3)
Re:The planet needs less people (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that poor people don't want to live mud hut subsistence lifestyles, they want a much more American-like consumer standard of living, which is resource intensive. And their governments, which are often authoritarian, know that they can remain in power if they can kick-start their economies to deliver these standards of living.
Sure, the planet could sustain 10+ billion people if we all lived a low-tech, agrarian lifestyle, but nobody wants to if they have glimpsed or gotten a taste of a Western lifestyle. "Live poor" is not a desirable choice and its an awful sales pitch.
I can only guess the reply is some kind of ultra-planned, highly managed blend of high tech and low-tech that is a utopian/dystopian fantasy, unreachable from our existing state of affairs.
Re:The planet needs less people (Score:5, Informative)
Sure, the planet could sustain 10+ billion people if we all lived a low-tech, agrarian lifestyle,
It would be easier with high tech, using robots in agriculture. Plants work best planted in "guilds" which provide self-support. Some plants take nitrogen out of the soil, some plants put it in. Ditto for carbon. Some plants need shade, others need support. Some plants provide shade, others provide support. The "three sisters" of corn, beans and squash are the canonical example, but there are others. But we plant monocultures instead to enable machine cultivation. If the machines are smarter, and more dextrous, they can handle mixed crops. And while we're still better at picking crops than robots are, that is rapidly changing — but they're better than we are at determining ripeness. They can detect photosynthesis or sugar content of each piece of fruit, each ear of corn, etc. We can literally have better food, with lower environmental impact, using more complicated machines.
We can also have homes with lower environmental impact which are actually nicer to live in. For example, earth bag homes which are designed with airflow and solar gain in mind. The house may be made out of dirt, but that has actual advantages, and you can still finish the inside. And you use automation to open and close windows, shutters, awnings etc. in order to maintain the interior conditions.
I can only guess the reply is some kind of ultra-planned, highly managed blend of high tech and low-tech that is a utopian/dystopian fantasy, unreachable from our existing state of affairs.
That last part is the rub. Prying control of the system away from the hands of those who don't give one shit about anyone but themselves is by far the hardest part. We have the answers to most problems, but not the one of actually being permitted to solve them.
Re: (Score:2)
It will take an authoritarian approach to "pry control" and the side effects of such an effort will wind up sowing the seeds of chaos.
The problem is almost never the utopian end state -- they are plenty of contrasting utopias to choose from -- the problem getting there is always that people stand in the way, sometimes selfishly, sometimes not, and utopia isn't achievable when there is resistance.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, the planet could sustain 10+ billion people if we all lived a low-tech, agrarian lifestyle
You do realize right that we feed more people with less land under cultivation than in the past right?
Low-tech living is NOT the answer; agricultural technology is the only reason we can sustain the current population. So please be sure to draw a distinction between low-impact living and low-tech living because its very very important to successfully addressing these challenges.
Re: (Score:2)
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY
100% agree with you, here! The 17th killed the power of the States, and broke the entire system.
Re:The planet needs less people (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the planet could support 10+ billion people with a lifestyle similar to most urban dwellers. Not much more land area than that in Texas to house everyone at densities similar to the average in NYC or Los Angeles proper. The Columbia River alone has enough fresh water to give everyone around 200 liters of fresh water a day. Plenty of agricultural land in the rest of the US and Southern Canada to feed everyone. And that's just North America.
We have the ability to provide the resources, we just have pretty unequal distribution, and it's usually not between countries, but inside countries. Greed is what causes the issue, and when it's backed by strong-man tactics, then you get poverty of the masses with the few elite Government rulers at the top living in absolute luxury.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, the planet could sustain 10+ billion people if we all lived a low-tech, agrarian lifestyle, but nobody wants to if they have glimpsed or gotten a taste of a Western lifestyle.
No, the planet could not sustain 10 billion people living in a low-tech agrarian lifestyle. We'd starve without the large engineering projects that brought us airports, seaports, highways and bridges, hydroelectric dams (or just dams in general for flood control and navigable waters), nuclear power plants, and so on.
This doesn't require 21st century technology to get to 10 billion people but that would certainly help. We likely reached the technology level required in the 1950s when the "Green Revolution"
Negative growth [Re:The planet needs less people] (Score:5, Informative)
Every child born in the US has a far greater negative effect on the environment than a whole family in a developing country. If you want depopulation than start at your own house.
This is true, but turns out that the United States has already implemented negative population growth: birth rate is lower than replacement rate.
That's due to the demographic transition [uwc.edu]. The United States has low poverty rate (compared to the third world), and low poverty rate means low population growth.
alternate site (Score:5, Informative)
Or, Try this as an alternate site for more info: https://www.oceanscientists.or... [oceanscientists.org]
Climate change news! (Score:2, Interesting)
Here is some climate change news: the Obamas just bought a waterfront 6,892-square-foot seven bedrooms and nine bathrooms vacation home in Martha's Vineyard last week! This will go nicely with their 8,000 sqft house in DC and private jet to shuttle them between the vacation home and their DC home. Good thing they signed the Paris Accord. I wonder if they are at the climate conference explaining how we need to conserve.
Re:Climate change news! (Score:4, Insightful)
Explain. That is the absolute crux of the issue. Why would someone who claims to care for the environment (and signed the Paris Accord) BUY 6,892 sqft WATERFRONT PROPERTY on 30 acres just for a VACATION HOME? There is no will to make real change, but people will continue to bleat out the message whenever they get a chance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Climate change news! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That is the absolute crux of the issue. Why would someone who claims to care for the environment (and signed the Paris Accord) BUY 6,892 sqft WATERFRONT PROPERTY on 30 acres just for a VACATION HOME?
Nope, that is an absolute Ad Hominem, combined with a false dilemma.
Even with their big arse home Obama has done more to reduce climate change that you ever will in your crappy little life. Turning off an AC is nothing compared to implementing national policy.
But hey I'm doing my bit, my monitor is only at 75% brightness, look how fucking green I am.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, that is an absolute Ad Hominem, combined with a false dilemma.
Even with their big arse home Obama has done more to reduce climate change that you ever will in your crappy little life. Turning off an AC is nothing compared to implementing national policy.
No its not an Ad Hominem its a legitimate criticism. A good leader sets a good example. The example Obama sets is here look at me aspire to my massively carbon intensive lifestyle!
Obama has done JACK SHIT for the environment he has used political power to force YOU ME and EVERYONE else he could coerce to do some good things perhaps but he as evidence by his personal choices is doing NADDA.
Re: (Score:2)
Even with their big arse home Obama has done more to reduce climate change that you ever will in your crappy little life
I will support his national policy, but I'm going to follow his example as much as possible in my own crappy life, and not give a shit about anything until forced by law. Seems fair.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"waterfront property" There's your clue, figure it out.
Obviously well situated for conclaves with the Deep Ones to recommit their subservience.
Don't worry. Trump will break the streak. (Score:2)
Damn socialists! (Score:2, Interesting)
Get a Clue (Score:4, Interesting)
And yet it's many of our country's conservatives who fight tooth and nail against any new regulation and roll back any they get the opportunity to. Our country is not an environmental disaster primarily due to the efforts of our Left.
Re: (Score:2)
Crashing the economy was obviously a step towards Gaia's health.
Crashing of the economy is how you get Brazil, where wealthy people can't drive across town because they'll be kidnapped, and where they set the rainforest on fire to make more room for cash crops.
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone read the actual article? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a lot of details about how this is from a Climate Emergency! causing the oceans to become devoid of life.
Oceans are expected to lose about 3-4% of their oxygen by the end of this century, but the impact will be much greater in the levels closest to the surface, where many species are concentrated, and in the mid to high latitudes.
OK, so the concern is that warming can cause a 3-4% reduction in oxygen levels over the next 80 years. But that is equivalent to a change in temp by less than 1 deg C, or a 10 meter depth change [fondriest.com], both of which happen pretty much every day to fish living in the euphotic zone, but several times over.
This is akin to a person moving from sea level to 300 meters altitude over 80 years [higherpeak.com]. That dramatic drop in oxygen will cause an immediate cessation of all lift, right?
The problem of dead zones has been known about for decades, but little has been done to tackle it. Farmers rarely bear the brunt of the damage, which mainly affects fishing fleets and coastal areas. Two years ago, the meat industry in the US was found to be responsible for a massive dead zone measuring more than 8,000 sq miles in the Gulf of Mexico.
Huh. Not climate change, but pollution from farm runoff. Algal blooms from fertilizer runoff [noaa.gov] is well known, and that algae definitely creates dead zones. But that's not from Climate Emergency! but agricultural processes and policies.
“Ending overfishing would strengthen the ocean, making it more capable of withstanding climate change and restoring marine ecosystems – and it can be done now,” explained Rashid Sumaila, professor and director of the fisheries economics research unit at the University of British Columbia.
So more fish consuming the dissolved oxygen is a good situation, given the increasing temperatures of the sea? Really?
This isn't about climate change, this is about dire warnings about #CurrentPopularDisaster and dressing it up with Climate Emergency!
Re: (Score:3)
Why bring left or right into this? Do you think that everyone who doesn't push your narrative must be far right?
Because you know what that makes you, right?
Okay Doomer! (Score:2)
More doom and gloom over a problem that's been solved.
How has the problem been solved? I will explain.
We know how to get energy that is cheaper, more reliable, safer, and just as abundant as fossil fuels. The O2 and CO2 in the air correlates highly with that in the ocean since the water will exchange the O2 and CO2 with the air from this large boundary between the two we call an "ocean". If we increase CO2 or O2 in the air then it increases in the water.
What are these energy sources? They are onshore wi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Cool! (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And to the non meat-eaters: keep eating palm oil.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: But what about the money? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I've had this discussion with many here. There is a real difference between what you 'feel' you want and what someone else 'who may not be from your background or society' _should_ do. If there is any such thing as _should_ that you can expect form someone else, it must come from an absolute that is outside of the speaker and relevant to the point of imposing itself on the subject. Otherwise _should_ only means 'feel what I feel and do what I do or else....'.
Re: (Score:2)
Over fishing is such a problem, so all countries should stop fishing now!
Overfishing is indeed a problem. This is a well-known problem in economics, it's known as the "tragedy of the commons." The fish in the oceans don't belong to anybody, so no individual fishermen benefit from not fishing, although all the fishermen, together, would benefit from all the fishermen fishing less.
We would actually harvest more fish with less work if the fishing fleets took fewer fish (seems a paradox, but it's true: by allowing the stock to increase, pulling in fewer fish actually results in m