Twenty Five Percent
How does one react to the fact that, according to the IUCN’s Red List of Threatened Species, 25% of mammals on this planet are at risk of extinction?
That’s one quarter of all mammals on earth.
How in the hell did we allow it to come to this? That there would be a time in our history in which a quarter of all mammals on this planet would be facing the possibility of extinction. I realize that I’m repeating myself, but I am simply stunned.
And the foremost cause? Loss of habitat primarily due to deforestation.
As the population of the planet increases, and room and resources are required to facilitate such growth, animals are paying the price for it. In fact, according to the authors of the report, 25% could be an underestimate.
It is a good thing that animals do not possess the ability to take up arms and coordinate some sort of counter offensive, because put into human terms they would be fighting for their very survival, something that, given our own rationales throughout history, we would be unable to condemn them for.
And rightly so.
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Monday, October 6th, 2008 at 12:53 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 6th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
There really needs to be a cap on population growth. I don’t know what that would entail, but we’re really in the midst of a population crisis, one that isn’t sustainable. At the current growth rate, people will be standing shoulder to shoulder on every single piece of habitable land by the year 2500.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
It’s shocking. I’ve seen, first hand, how deforestation has affected the habitats of many primates in Borneo; without trees, tree-dwellers simply have nowhere to go. Their gene pool shrinks, their source of food diminishes. Forced into palm plantations and villages they face new threats. It’s easy to stop buying hardwoods but just you try to avoid buying products containing palm oil. It’s nigh-on impossible…
October 6th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
I have shared the same opinion for a long time. What I can’t work out though is how you get people to stop having kids for a while without stomping on their basic rights. To take it even further, if everyone was temporarily sterilized at birth (not sure how that would be done) then there would be no unwanted pregnancies either.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
we are already seeing population control. and have for many years….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Trees are also the lungs of the world. Through deforestation we are, also, effectively suffocating the whole planet.
By the way Matt, I have always found this an interesting source of information:
http://www.stwr.org/
“Share the World’s Resources”…[sustainable economics to end world poverty]
October 6th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
nature always finds a way to balance itself out.us included.
may not be bears knocking at our doors,but surely disease or climat or simply us shooting ourselve in the foot will eventually restore balance.surely will be messy considering the damage done.
but necesary.or,it might simply be too fast and too late and well see this garden turn to sand.either way,best wishes to all<3
October 6th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
The other thing to consider is what impact these declining populations, extirpations, or outright extinctions will have on the ecosystems that currently contain these mammals. If for instance you take an apex predator out of an ecosystem where it controls the population of another species, the absence of that predator will result in unsupportable growth in the prey species, which in turn wreaks havoc on the rest of the plants and animals in that ecosystem. If these numbers are accurate the ripple effect could be disastrous.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
And this is what happens when large areas of forest are cleared to raise meat for human consumption:
“An average American consumes about 125 kg of meat, including 46 kg of poultry meat. While the Indians are still lagging behind, the Chinese are fast catching up with the American lifestyle. The Chinese consume about 70 kg of meat on average each year, inclusive of 8.7 kg of poultry meat. The Indian average is around 3.5 kg of meat, much of it (2.1 kg) coming from poultry. If you put all this together, the Chinese are the biggest meat eaters, and for obvious reasons - devouring close to 100 million tonnes every year. America is not far behind, consuming about 35 million tonnes of meat in a year. India devours far less, with not more than 3 million tonnes of annual meat consumption.
The methane gas released by meat is considered to be 23 times more potent as a climate change agent than carbon dioxide. Multiply this by the 55,000 million cattle that are reared the world over for meat consumption, and you have a fair idea of how much additional heat is being generated. Imagine if China and America alone were to reduce its meat consumption by just ten percent every year – would the world’s environment not become much cleaner and cooler? “
[Source:Share the World's Resources]
Vast areas of the Amazon basin are being cleared for the very same. Another good reason to cut down on your red meat consumption…
October 6th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Unfortunately for the animals, they’re not civilized enough to take up arms and fight back. They can only do what is innate in them to do when we set up shop and go jogging in their back yard, case in point the rising number of ‘unprovoked’ bear attacks. And despite our human rationale, we do condemn them for it by shooting them in the head leaving their babies alone to die and featuring them on next week’s installment of “When Good Animals Go Bad”. Perhaps if the unprovoked attacks were for a good cause, like say oil, then it would be something worthy of our ‘human’ empathy.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
It is going to be a lonely future.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
“Humans aren’t they only species on the planet, they just act like it.”
One day, when we’ve driven every other species on Earth to extinction we’ll look at the IUCN’s Red List of Threatened Species and see HUMANS written in capital bold letters across the page… we fail to recognize our true dependency on the natural world around us; the very animal and planet species we’re driving to extinction are an important part of our survival.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Few things are as sad as that fact that we are destroying so many life forms. This sounds funny but in the Matrix movie, humans are compared to parisites… and in some ways I’d have to agree.
‘The world is stoping and we keep going.’
BTW - I’m listening to the Massey Hall version of Giant… and I’m fucking loving it! It’s given me goose bumps.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Yup, I think this photo sums it up rather nicely.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
As Jane just pointed out so well, I don’t think population control is the answer but rather controlling the population’s greed for consumption.
I could just hear Sarah Palin’s take on that one: “I’m not one that would attribute the extinction of the polar bear or other mammals on this plant as man-made.”
If we keep on raping the earth like this, the only thing that will stop us is one big giant Sunami wave hitting the entire west coast… Nature has a way of balancing things out in the end.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Oops! I meant “planet” of course…
October 6th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
This is where the hardcore “Rightwing” fucking greedy capitalists would come in and claim bullshit. These are the same people who would say those numbers are somehow false while they continue to perpetuating the lies like global warming is NOT happening and NOT a product of over consumption of fossil fuels.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
I don’t think anyone is really suggesting the use of forced sterilization.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
patrick bell– No, those are the same people who would say, “So…?”
This is so thoroughly depressing that I can’t even fully consider what it means. What can you possibly say to that? What a world we’re headed for… the only animals behind bars in zoos and all the green spaces on earth turned brown and grey.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
MAD: Yeah I love (see loathe) Sarah Palin’s take on stuff like this. It’s ironic to see her and her family in pictures of a caribou hunt, yet she’s in favour of opening up area 1002 of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge which could have a dramatic negative impact on one of the major caribou herds that travel across the NWT, Yukon, and finally Alaska. Her way of looking at it is that we can drill up there with no negative impact on the environment. Really? In 1989 there were 173,000 animals in that herd. Today there’s maybe 100,000. Why the decline? Nobody really knows. Somebody I spoke with about 2 weeks ago told me that last year, due to 2 consecutive heavy winters, the Porcupine River was swollen well beyond it’s normal level and while he stood on the opposite bank he watched the Porcupine her try to cross the river as they’ve done for millenia. He said about 300 females were swept away by the current and drowned.
How will we know whether or not we’ve had an impact? When they get added to the above list - and even then people like Palin will doubt the validity of the claim.
October 6th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Until that percentage includes greedy mother fuckers, it doesn’t matter.
Because those who should care don’t. And those who do just can’t turn things back around on their own…it’s going to take a planet of people to do so. Unfortunately, not all are on board with the program because “what’s in it” for them?
October 6th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
“Yup, I think this photo sums it up rather nicely.Yup, I think this photo sums it up rather nicely.”
Brilliant image.
October 6th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
We’ll have to start eating bugs instead of mammals to save the forests.
I’m not kidding, bugs are the food of the future. Environmentally friendly, rich in protein, easy to farm, and (presumably) no guilt wrt quality of life.
Personally, I would prefer mine mushed and shaped into something that looks like chicken.
I’m tempted to make a snide remark comparing politicians to cockroaches here, but I don’t want to gross anybody out …
October 6th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Hey, I’ve got an idea. Let’s formulate a “Rescue Plan”.
October 6th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
I wonder if 25% of species were threatened 25 years ago, we just hadn’t learned about them yet… Darwin’s theory may still apply. While the animals may not have guns or knives, they are equipped… Mind you I’m not saying that we are necessarily going in the right direction or anything. However, I do believe people may be going a little back in time now…
It’s hard to hear all the news and all the facts without simply feeling so powerless, I find comfort living in my values knowing and of course hoping that “good” will prevail.
It is up to the voice of “reason” to speak up for themselves… I wonder what the stats are on humans on the verge on extinction… I’m thinking it must be more than 25%
October 6th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Peter Raven, perhaps the world’s leading specialist on tropical botany, has stated that 25% of the world’s plant species are seriously threatened.
Same for all insect species including those responsible for pollination which for example humans depend on.
Bees are disappearing but whether this will kill agriculture is disputed.
there’s a new seed archive in a northern fortress; does a mammal DNA archive exist?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgbKMSzylSI
October 6th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
What did you have in mind Deb? Something along the lines of building a Noah’s Ark - using one of the huge floating hotel/cruiseships and loading it up with 2 of every endangered species? Sounds crazy but something along those lines would work - at least to keep the species alive until we figure out how do get this conversation thing right….
October 6th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
and humans think they are higher evolved… HA!
October 6th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
I’m just tired of thinking about how much money is spend into coming up with these facts, disputing them, then making up models for next 50 years which will turn out to be wrong anyway. Darwin’s theory may still apply, but it was all based on observations. You cannot see what is naked to the eye and cannot account for all the factors.
Humans on the verge of extinction - I hear Russia, Germany and Japan aren’t doing so well. Africa is uncertain - high birth rate but the AIDS crisis… Hunger can be overcome, it is not a new phenomenon.
Everybody knows the answer - the extinction cycle is not a new event, the speed with which change is happening is, and it is because of us. Change is not new since, first cyanobacteria changed the climate - for the better (from our perspective). Then the trees changed the climate, once again for the better (from our perspective). Now we are changing the climate. Problem is, it is bad for the threatened species, but neither will it benefit us. It would be truly parasitic behavior if we were to find a new host to move to. The Earth will move on though.
October 6th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
I guess those 25% of mammals will join the 99.9999% of all species that have existed on earth, that are now extinct.
And it’s true that we have exceeded our carrying capacity on this planet. There’s a reason tens of thousands of people starve to death every single day. We don’t have food to support everyone. Well, I shouldn’t say that’s true. After all, rice gets dumped into the Atlantic simply because it’s not cost effective to transport it anywhere, at times.
Another thing about species, is that we don’t even know the ballpark of the number of species that exist on our planet. The error is huge. thousands of species are discovered every day.
I think we’re improving somewhat, though. The Buffalo were killed off to starve the Indians. Eskimo Curlews used to fly so thick in North America that they would darken the sky for days at a time, until they were killed off. At least we’re starting to give a damn. The next step is to do something. And that will be the hardest step.
Doing something is always the hardest step to take.
October 6th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
This makes me so mad I could cry. It brings me back to the day when i went to the shelter with my dad at nine years old, trying to find a turtle for my birthday, and instead my father asked me if i wanted a dog. The dog itself was the only one not barking for attention, and my dad found that interesting enough to want to take him home. there was a huge sign that said he wasn’t good with kids, but that didn’t seem to stop my father, who has always been stubborn.
we just had to get my mom to agree and she really didn’t want the responsibility of another life, as she already had two young children, with not much help.
when i found out they were going to put the dog down, i marched up to the cage, sat down and told my mom and dad firmly i wasn’t going to leave or allow anyone near him. i screamed and cried until my mom agreed to take him home. it’s been 15 years now, and the dog, an Akita named Kimo, is my best friend and loyal as any other animal could get. I fought for his life and he remembers it.
I know this post is about endangered species, but wildlife are not the only kinds of animals endangered in this world, and any news on animal cruelty just breaks my heart and reminds me of the chance i got to save a life, and how many other animals won’t ever get that chance. Human Beings are the worst when it comes to respecting the basic right to life of other species. it’s just terrible.
October 6th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Good points John.
One of the things I think we need to do is to get a good grasp on what it is that we truly understand about these and other species. We spend more time debating the science that we do utilizing it it seems. One thing is for certain; we don’t know as much as we think we do and secondly, the answers are not that complicated or sophisticated. A couple of examples:
Humpback whales: A couple of years ago, First Nations hunters found a harpoon tip in an animal that they harvested which, after some (what I think was) carbon dating turned out to be 180 years old. Assuming the whale was moving towards full-size before there was an attempt to harpoon it, this means the whale was about 200 years old. Nobody had any idea unti that time that they lived that long. So - if we don’t understand basic biology, like the lifespan of these sea mammals, how can we prevent ourselves from doing them harm?
Caribou: I recently was at a meeting for the Porcupine Caribou Management Board and one of the statistics that they threw out there was simple, yet astonishing. In the interests of maintaining a healthy population but still allowing First Nations hunting, they asked hunters to shoot only 1 cow over 10 years and the other 9 years bulls - the result of this would be ADDING 23 animals to the herd every year. They are having a great deal of success with hunters volunteering to go this route.
Do the science, understand the science, and utilize the science - it may be the only way
October 6th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Another thing about species, is that we don’t even know the ballpark of the number of species that exist on our planet. The error is huge. thousands of species are discovered every day
Not to be picky, but not many mammals remain undiscovered. Undiscovered species are mostly birds and insects that dwell in Rainforests (even here in B.C.). With any luck they will be gone before we know about them.
There’s a new seed archive in a northern fortress; does a mammal DNA archive exist?
I don’t think there is a mammal DNA archive, but in Peru they have a gene bank for potato seeds in order to protect biodiversity in case any disease should spread. They are very good to their potatoes :)
October 6th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
I read this today while eating lunch…I had to put my sandwhich down for a few minutes until I could overcome the sick-to-my-stomach feeling. We’re ruining this planet and the animals are paying the price for our arrogance.
What’s worse is when I say this to someone and they laugh and roll their eyes…yeah, like I’m the crazy one.
It’s fucking bullshit man…
October 6th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Brian, on the caribou point - while science did provide the number, I think our main problems stem from the fact that we lost common sense. Back when people thought ahead to future winters and the fact that caribou or whatever else may be the main source of their food, they would not be shooting young cows and bulls since they will destroy the population. While written a while back, “Never Cry Wolf” gives a lot of good points on sustainable hunting (both from wolf and human perspective).
I was blindsided when I saw an elementary school that has a plot of land to grow vegetables during the year not so much to be “green” but to show kids that they do not come prepackaged from the supermarket.
October 6th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
When I was a child my father had a list of extinct and endangered species from the World Wildlife Federation.
It was typed in small probably 10pt font and on a piece of paper the width of a receipt and when unfolded could probably encircle the average car. I was only in my early teens but was astonished that that many animals were on their way out or gone forever. Watch “Life After People” on the History Channel. Intriguing Show.
October 6th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
That’s why I said species, not mammals. And what you really mean by ‘not many,’ is about 50 per day. Close to 17 000 species were discovered in 2006. And not mostly in the rainforests. There are areas of rich biodiversity on certain shorelines, coral reefs, and at the depths of the ocean.
All we can really discern from our environmental impact is that we’re causing other species to become extinct, as we expand ourselves, which is typical of any species in an ecological system expanding numbers and territory.
Sure it’s a bad thing. But then again, we’re the ones with the crazy idea that we will be on this planet until the sun burns out, which is a statistical near-impossibility.
October 6th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
“This is where the hardcore “Rightwing” fucking greedy capitalists would come in and claim bullshit. These are the same people who would say those numbers are somehow false while they continue to perpetuating the lies like global warming is NOT happening and NOT a product of over consumption of fossil fuels.”
You just proved why I don’t bother arguing anymore (except this one - which I expect to receive extensive criticism for not acting as the person does above - amazing how people can refuse to listen to all sides of a situation, even if they believe it to be wrong)
1) Rather than argue a real point, based on scientific fact, you chose to name call
2) Rather than acknowledge that not everyone agrees with every “fact” found in the paper claimed to be from a “consensus” and we need a balance of opinions in order to keep things in order, you choose to label them denialists and claim they are capitalists that don’t care about anything but themselves
3) The world is not black and white, sorry but it is not and CO2 is not the only thing going on that is causing problems for species on the planet
4) If you examine data with a bias towards your theory, and write articles to back it up, and have people in your camp claim to validate your research, how can you call that peer reviewed, fair, and scientific fact?
5) Consensus has nothing to do with scientific fact, in fact, consensus are broken by scientific discoveries
6) The planet is far too complex for science to fully understand, and even if you are a climatologist you are NOT an expert on every single aspect of the planet, sorry but you are NOT! You have a summary of many facets, but you are not an expert on everything! Anyone who actually studies any facet of science to a major extent (volcanologists, physicists, archeologists, geologists, etc…) they will tell you the world is far to complex to be modeled with any real certainty
But of course, while simply trying to say don’t go screaming in the streets that the sky is falling and it is all because of CO2 and bashing those who call even one or two claims into question
– instead –
i) work on teaching people how to not waste energy
ii) not to eat so much
iii) to walk/cycle instead of driving where possible
iv) to use more natural light and more efficient light bulbs and appliances
v) to explore alternative fuels/energy sources further and actually make them feasible to the point where they are attractive to corporations for mass production and governments for mass deployment
vi) respecting the environment with recycling and not throwing your trash on the ground like it is your house
vii) educating people on business opinions and how businesses think - why? so you can know your enemy better and work WITH them to reduce their impact on the environment
etc….
While saying this I know too many won’t listen and would rather complain and accuse those that don’t agree wholeheartedly because some things are questionable as being denialists, instead of actually trying to have an intelligent debate and learn something from one another. All the while missing the point that “denialists” (not actual clueless people) and AlGorians actually want the same thing, and that is to reduce our impact on the planet.
So without adieu… I await those who have a bias before they read, don’t process what I write, don’t consider any view counter to their own to jump on top of me as they have done so many times before.
October 6th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
i wonder if those numbers take in consideration the cohesiveness of all things.
when one falls all connected follows.just a matter of when.
in this case i expect it to be much faster than expected.
drastic changes in most of our industries individual practice$(feeding those industries)would be required to prevent it.
le grand menage.but who wants that?
lonely indeed..
nature will probly recover better than humans.seeds grow after lifetimes in the sand.evolution would probly start over,given the right conditions.seems a waste of a wonderfull past doesnt it.
:| sorry about that.still gonna publish it;)
October 6th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
October 6th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
satch: You have a logic complex (it is a common affliction of people who make sense and feel like nobody is listening to you).
Sorry - there is no cure that I know of.
October 6th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
“Our environmental problems originate in the hubris of imagining ourselves as the central nervous system or the brain of nature. We’re not the brain, we are a cancer on nature.”
-Dave Foreman
We have changed our environment so much that now we have to modify ourselves. We move too quickly not realizing the consequences that keeps growing on our backs. Living too comfortably has made us our own enemies.
Inhabitants in third world countries damage the environment as they strive to make a living doing what ever they can, their population growing drastically so families can put their children in the same line of work, therefore enhancing the damage even more. Nature of course, paying the price.
We have created a dangerous cycle that has evolved overtime and now animals are being forced out of their ecosystems overpopulating other ecosystems creating dilemma’s within the food chain.
We just keep moving…
October 6th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
– instead –
i) work on teaching people how to not waste energy
ii) not to eat so much
iii) to walk/cycle instead of driving where possible
iv) to use more natural light and more efficient light bulbs and appliances
v) to explore alternative fuels/energy sources further and actually make them feasible to the point where they are attractive to corporations for mass production and governments for mass deployment
vi) respecting the environment with recycling and not throwing your trash on the ground like it is your house
vii) educating people on business opinions and how businesses think - why? so you can know your enemy better and work WITH them to reduce their impact on the environment.
Who’s to say I don’t do that? In fact, that is what we do as teachers…including myself. And if you think for a second I mimic those thoughts I just wrote above towards my students you’d be far off. I’d be out of a job if I did. I teach how to think critically. I teach how to get information and to examine all side of the argument before forming an opinion. And if you say that the statement I made above was made from an ignorant point of view….that is your prerogative After years of reading and listening to many points of view it’s the basic conclusion I’ve reached.
I dunno…in my mind it makes sense that human greed and over population just might play a MINUTE role in where we are.
October 6th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Ps…Physical Geography with a large emphasis on Climatology is what I did my first undergrad degree in. Though I don’t profess to be an expert in the physical environment, I believe I do have a better understanding of it than the average person.
October 6th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Patrick Bell,
I used you as an example of how people become emotional and argue accordingly rather than with logic and reasoning. I wanted to bring to light the views that “it’s so obvious” are actually just as bad as those, whom I am willing to bet are very few in number, who are true denialists.
In many previous posts on the environment, either by Matt or Dale, if you see 80 comments, about half will be in agreement, with comments like “it’s so obvious” and the like. The other half will consist of comments adding value in support, rather than just agreement, comments by those whom disagree with some of the information presented, and the attackers. The attackers resort to name calling and just scream “it’s so obvious that you’re a denalist” instead of actually acknowledging the facts presented that counter some of the information in the main post. Not every piece of information presented by an AlGorian or a !AlGorian (! is “not” in the language of C, logical inversion) is factual in a scientific perspective or even a logical perspective.
So I was simply trying to demonstrate that this point of view, while to some extent is true, it is not the only thing and is actually part of a mosaic. Greed is not the only thing causing the weather patterns to change.
More on weather…
On youtube, true, not a collection of every single scientist in the world in an auditorium, I’ve watched some interesting videos on climate change. The scary parts is that, even before we had fossil fuel burning (as in 1000 years ago, 500 years ago) the climate demonstrated significant change in a very short period of time. As in a decade separated drought and harsh winters from the familiar ones we have today, but centuries ago. Then, suddenly and not fully understood but they can say what happened, the climate stopped dancing around and went into a mini-ice age. That’s the scary part, the climate can change very quickly.
How far back does the modern records go? 1000 years? No. Entire populations were devistated, animals, plants, humans et.. al, by these drastic shifts in climate conditions.
The latest predictions are that the ocean currents (supported by oceanology) will cause extreme weather (violent storms) along coastal regions, long and harsh winters for England/Ontario/Quebec regions, extreme drought in the plains, etc…
Scientists can see what happened weatherwise throughout history, and have said that the in between the mini-ice ages there are calm periods with warmth, much like we’ve enjoyed. However, before the longer periods of stability (be-it ice age or warmth) we had a large variety in weather and it was extreme, and quite unexpected, as in one decade it is hot, the next cold and harsh.
According to articles I have read, in support of the IPCC, the maximum number of people this planet can sustain is 8 billion. I don’t think anyone disagrees that we are influencing the climate, the planet for that matter. What used to be several decades of topsy-turvy weather is now only a decade apart.
Population control is a touchy subject if it is done by humans to humans. How can one decide who lives or dies? How can a committee decide who lives or dies?
I think mother nature, as she has done before, will decide and she won’t be selective! If what happened in the past will happen again, and 4 million years worth of historical data says history repeats itself, then we can expect to see the weather get worse, then suddenly change.
Many species will die, and a few will evolve and adapt. As others have said, instead of spending money trying to prove one way or another, it is too late to prove, we should focus on cleaning up the planet, and preparing ourselves for those unpredictable climate shifts. Which will it be? More warming? Or a mass freeze? Many think mass freeze. Some say “steady as she goes.” But all need to be aware of the possibilities, and all need to put emotions aside and prepare for as many different scenarios as possible.
And since things are extremely complex, be flexible enough to adapt. So don’t think “the world will freeze, lets get jackets and insulate to handle -100C” or “the world is going to bake and be under water, lets buy a boat”. Instead, prepare yourself for both by being able to adapt to whatever mother nature brings!
No one can claim to know for certain because it is impossible to take everything into account. If we as a society were able to predict the weather with 100% accuracy, we’d be able to predict our own behaviour. And since we’re all still here, we clearly can’t predict as well as we think we can.
So observe, be flexible, adapt, and be respectful.
October 6th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Snatch…I can’t argue with one thing you said there. I’ve read all the same things. Of course you’d know that there was a mini-ice age in the 1700’s.
Although I may sling shit at certain groups because I can be a “knee jerk” kinda guy, my family and I try very hard to do our best, given our means, to act environmentally responsible.
Perhaps my belligerent response to Matt’s post about “greedy capitalists” might just be tied to my bitter feelings after watching the CEO of Lehman Bros. try and say sorry after walking away with millions and millions of investor’s money when his company collapsed.
October 6th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
To quote Eddie Izzard
“But with dogs, we do have “bad dog.” Bad dog exists. “Bad dog! Bad dog! Stole a biscuit, bad dog!” The dog is saying, “Who are you to judge me? You human beings who’ve had genocide, war against people of different creeds, colors, religions, and I stole a biscuit?! Is that a crime? People of the world!”
“Well, if you put it that way, I think you’ve got a point. Have another biscuit”
October 6th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
No one can claim to know for certain because it is impossible to take everything into account. If we as a society were able to predict the weather with 100% accuracy, we’d be able to predict our own behaviour. And since we’re all still here, we clearly can’t predict as well as we think we can
True, so true. We’ve only known about rogue waves for a little over 10 years, and that is with all the observations, spying and satellite imagery of the oceans. We are so clever.
Patrick, I wish you would share your better understanding :)
The numbers are just numbers
Invented by fallen civilizations
When one falls, others may thrive despite…
In the Great Scheme of Things it does not matter
All in this together but have to stand alone
Everyone heard The Man - have to consume to save
Economy - buy cars, help the Industry…
Save the Siberian Tiger.
October 7th, 2008 at 12:34 am
Fishermen have known of rogue waves for longer than that. I truly believe that some who spend their time exposed to and working within the elements learn/know of things long before science ever proves them to be true. It’s just that no one really listens to them.
October 7th, 2008 at 5:05 am
I was thinking about this yesterday and realized, we must take steps now to arm ourselves with the ability to undo some of the damage we’ve done.
What that means, I think, is that we must immediately begin taking genetic samples from all of those endangered species, and preserve them so that we might later have a hope of recreating those species once they go extinct.
I say “once they go extinct” because it is inevitable that some of them are beyond saving at this point. We can save some of them, but not all. Therefore we need to have the tools necessary to cover that scenario.
We need to start as soon as possible, because we need enough genetic samples to be able to recreate a viable breeding population. If we let the numbers dwindle too low, we will no longer have that and all we’ll be able to produce are clones incapable of increasing their own numbers.
I wonder if anyone is putting pressure on the international community to begin this process?
October 7th, 2008 at 5:35 am
“The methane gas released by meat is considered to be 23 times more potent as a climate change agent than carbon dioxide.”
I love Carbon Dioxide. I wish I could produce more of it. Green groups are dramatically overestimating the importance of carbon dioxide, when other polar-bonded gases are responsible for absorbing several times more. Nitrogen emissions are actually more important, occurring from both combustion and agricultural activities, both of which have and will continue to accelerate dramatically, much to the planet’s demise.
Recently there has been much talk and research into effectively ‘filtering’ the atmosphere. It is stupidity. We will continue to pump such gases into the atmosphere more quickly than we can remove it and the ecological impact of the activities causing them will go unchecked. The only effective way is literally to cut back on consumption while doing our darnedest to produce more environmental ways of manufacturing and recycling. I especially think recycling, minimization of waste and a more utilitarian approach to many things would be well worth it. Very, very few people need their SUVs or any of the other crap they are shelling out the big bucks (and environment) for.
October 7th, 2008 at 6:16 am
Snatch…I can’t argue with one thing you said there. I’ve read all the same things. Of course you’d know that there was a mini-ice age in the 1700’s.
Although I may sling shit at certain groups because I can be a “knee jerk” kinda guy, my family and I try very hard to do our best, given our means, to act environmentally responsible.
Perhaps my belligerent response to Matt’s post about “greedy capitalists” might just be tied to my bitter feelings after watching the CEO of Lehman Bros. try and say sorry after walking away with millions and millions of investor’s money when his company collapsed.
Yes, there was one in the 1700’s and it helped the set the stage for the Black Plague.
I do agree, the greedy capitalists really have hurt … well… everyone (including the planet). I am not arguing that. I just think the less bashing we do and the more manipulating we do, the better our odds of achieving what we want.
We clearly can’t put them all on an island and sink it, as they are like weeds, remove one and more will come in their place.
Sometimes justice won’t be served, but maybe in a small way it will be. Perhaps the rich CEO’s will bite into their milk-fed, dark-raised veal sandwich and it will be chewy. To them, that’s like losing a kid to one of us. Or maybe their Jag’s will get a scratch from harsh weather. Or maybe Windows will crash while they are in the middle of transferring their millions around and they’ll lose a few thousand dollars?
Or maybe they’ll stop at the side of the road, 1km past driving by the starving families without homes, stop, think, then the sun hits them in the eyes as it nears the horizon, and they have a change of heart. The image of the little girl starving is burned in their minds and hearts and they decide to donate and help!
What really matters is teaching the youth and those around you how not to be like those that don’t care.
October 7th, 2008 at 6:23 am
To: Eric In Ottawa
There is a huge DNA bank called the Frozen Zoo for endangered animals. I think it is in Ca.
October 7th, 2008 at 6:55 am
satchboogieca
I’m sorry you feel that all you see is angry, irrational responses to your point of view. I’m will try to not be emotional or insulting.
6) The planet is far too complex for science to fully understand, and even if you are a climatologist you are NOT an expert on every single aspect of the planet, sorry but you are NOT! You have a summary of many facets, but you are not an expert on everything! Anyone who actually studies any facet of science to a major extent (volcanologists, physicists, archeologists, geologists, etc…) they will tell you the world is far to complex to be modeled with any real certainty
This belief that we can not fully understand how the planet functions is no longer true. With the development of the Chaos Theory and digital modeling, science can finally looked at the complexity of the world with the intellectual tool to see the interdependency of all the world systems. The minutia of each aspect is not fully understood, but the majority of scientist who are using Chaos Theory principles feel they finally know how it all fits together. Look at weather forecasting. We use to have trouble forecasting for 3 days but now weekly forecasting is fairly accurate and 15 day forecasting is about as accurate as our 3 days forecasting use to be.
“I wanted to bring to light the views that “it’s so obvious” are actually just as bad as those, whom I am willing to bet are very few in number, who are true denialists.”
I have to respectively disagree with you. It is obvious. This is why people are so frustrated. Everything in world is interdependent. No one thing can be a solution but your list is a good start. Obviously, you’re halfway to becoming a supporter of the fact it is obvious.
As to global climate change, we are not experiencing just a natural cycle of climate change. Here is one truth that has been researched and validated by different scientific fields. We are not feeling the true effects of humankind’s emissions of various gases (CO2, methane) into the atmosphere because we have two systems working together to mask the full effect of how we much we have truly changed the planet. The particle pollutants that we first started trying to control 30-40 years ago is masking the effect of global warming since particles in our atmosphere cool the planet. But since we have had a fair amount of success reducing these particle pollutants, their is a point coming soon when the two curves, particle pollution going down and global warming gases increasing, will cross and the true effect of greenhouse gases will be felt quickly and intensely. It is the study of water vapor and its change in our atmosphere that has laid the foundation of this statement. While some of the warming may be a natural cycle, through ice core research, the earth has never seen this increase in greenhouse gases. I could go on but it gets boring for most.
What really concerns me is people like you who continue to discount what our scientific community has done in the last five years to make it a fact, Humankind is dramatically changing the Earth. We are not experiencing natural changes. It is like the banking system. So many were saying everything was fine but many experts (mostly Ethics professors) spoke loud and clear that greed is a virus in our monetary policy and would lead us to disaster. Now we have experts who have been saying we only have decades to change our ways or the trend towards a warmer planet with much less water vapor in our atmosphere (thus rain) is assured. I know you can throw experts at me that discount this premise but I will be glad to start citing all the recent work that supports this fact.
Obviously, this is a difficult subject to comment on since both our entries are very long.
Just as we need to overhaul the worldwide monetary system immediately, its is even more urgent that we change our relationship with the Earth and stop abusing our Planet. We, Humankind, is a plague on this planet. We no longer have the resources to support our present population (look at the water crisis). I agree the situation is not black and white. But if we do not rise up against all who try to diminish the crisis we are in, nothing will change.
We need to speak with a collective voice or nothing will change. The time is now, not tomorrow, to make changes. This fact is obvious.
October 7th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Salros,
Please take the time to watch this four part series (listed in order):
The problem is that the models are not all encompassing, and that information is not outdated. The IPCC recognizes this. Yes, I am aware of chaos theory and how it applies and how they have improved but they are still using input from scientists. If you want to correctly model something you need to fully understand it.
Yes they are closer to understanding the planet than ever before, but they are not at 100% and therefor will not have 100% predictions.
I’m not ever going to agree that CO2 is the main problem and this is just recent. I can’t. Why? Well, Al Gore’s 600 000 years is great, but look at 4 million years and you’ll see CO2 levels were higher! That’s the problem with believing what someone says with their data. The basics of science is to reproduce using different methods. And one of the forms of proving your point is to ignore what can be used against your point. In other words, Al Gore ignored the 4 million year cycle because he wanted to make change now.
I agree with what AlGorians want to do, but I don’t agree CO2 is the sole cause and we’re the primary cause of what we see that’s “so obvious”.
We can cite experts all day long and as you said, there’s really no point. Because I don’t agree with CO2 as the end-all-be-all and all our problems are the fault of mankind. That sounds a little vein doesn’t it? There’s no doubt we’ve had an impact.
But let’s consider what everyone on the planet agrees upon (and it ain’t CO2) and that’s we are polluting the planet and that in itself makes the planet less habitable.
But you can’t scare people with pollution because they’ll say “but I’m not dumping toxic waste into the oceans” which is true. But they are in the groundwater when they toss out their old computers and TV’s to the landfills (which many still do). Or when they use plastics for juice containers instead of glass (I know they break, so pay more attention!) and then toss the containers in the garbage.
So we are speaking collectively, but people want to argue over the ‘root cause’. Over the next decade, while science advances, while the AlGorian movement is questioned and more studies are performed, why the climate changes in the way it will (not necessarily as we predict), and HOPEFULLY while we try to clean it up (pollution, oil spills, lakes turned into toxic dumps - Thanks Harper), we’ll see what the climate does.
And why is no one preparing? You can’t stop the planet from revolving on the axis so why would you think you can stop climate change? It WILL change! Should we not throw some resources into how to adapt (not just humans but plants and animals)?
We could spend loads of money to erase carbon footprints of everyone and every company. You know what would happen? The climate will still change. That’s what it does, influenced by us no doubt, but that only changes the frequency of oscillations!
So when we’ve erased our footprints and the climate still changes, the AlGorians will start fighting everyone else saying “you didn’t do enough.” The scientists will then come together and try to work on a way to help us adapt, after the fact. Then others will say “Why didn’t we account for this and try to adapt as well as clean up?” The answer from Al Gore, “you didn’t do enough because you were in denial” — typical answer without an answer.
October 7th, 2008 at 8:03 am
sorry here are the links:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=related
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8&feature=related
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY&feature=related
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno&feature=related
Now before you watch, pretend it is An Inconvenient Truth. In other words try to absorb everything.
Once you do that, then realize what he says, let’s focus on how to adapt, while we clean!
October 7th, 2008 at 8:56 am
There’s a whole constellation of human activities that are causing serious problems for the biosphere.
It’s what we’re doing to the oceans that concerns me the most. They’re the largest carbon sink on the planet the largest source of oxygen and the have the hold the most life. Right now we’re fishing so far down the food chain that jellyfish are a major catch in some areas. The removal of top predators and the introduction of fertilizers from industrial farming is resulting in what is being called the Rise of Slime, where primitive invertabrates like jellyfish and bacteria are dominating the ecosystem.
http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2846&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
It’s also sobering to find that there are approximately 40,000 pieces of plastic debris for every square mile of ocean surface. They’re a major killer of surface feeders who mistake them for food.
October 7th, 2008 at 9:00 am
sorry about the typo, I was kind of deep in thought there.
October 7th, 2008 at 9:26 am
I posted the links directly after the long post to Salros, but there are 4 links so it is awaiting moderation.
Sorry for the delay, it will get there when it passes moderation.
October 7th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Another good link.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/oceans/la-oceans-series,0,7842752.special
What’s going on now only has one other presedent in history as far as I’m aware, when another dominate species converted the CO2 rich Earth atmosphere into an oxygen rich one several billion years ago. The anaerobic bacteria responsible now only exist in marginal areas away fo the highly reactive gas that has made complex life possible.
I wonder what’s going to happen to us (all complex life) as we humans continue to drastically alter the planet to suit our very single-minded needs. Science and technology have given us almost unlimited power to intefer in ‘natural’ processes, but we haven’t developed the understanding to use that power wisely yet.
October 7th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
I believe we started out by using science and technology wisely, but greed won over. We are now suffering the consequences of development of fertilizers and pesticides (science). They, according to some, saved the world from Global famine in mid 20th century. Access to oil is something else entirely - from plastic bags (found in turtles) to engine fuel, a solution to all problems.
When looking at our impact - CO2 is natural as are many other gases that we put out into the atmosphere. Plastic bags, nuclear waste, much of our garbage, toxic run-off from mines, strip-mining, clear-cutting, pesticides, fertilizer, herbicides and many of our drugs are not. They affect environment of our planet and have a great impact on our own health. I think what is going to happen to us is that our medical science will not be able to keep up with the ever-increasing rates of cancers ( their attempts to link it to your genetic predisposition are interesting) or with various other degenerative disorders, particularly of the nervous system that occur in ever younger populations.
In the end, the more we fight, the less we achieve.
Slime will probably win out. I’d like to take on the Jellies.
p.s I really Chaos in the Atmosphere a good summary of Chaos Theory as it applies to meteorology and Global Warming
quote from the article:
Most people eventually heard some version of the question Lorenz asked at a 1979 meeting, “Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?” (Already in 1975 a science journalist had asked, “can I start an ice age by waving my arm?”) Lorenz’s answer — perhaps yes — became part of the common understanding of educated people
October 7th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
One of the other things that may come from this revelation of the loss of 25% of the earth’s mammals is the possibility that this will allow for more invasive species. Over the last 500 years, roughly 50,000 species and variety of plants have been “introduced” in North America and it is estimated that the American economy now spends $138 billion per year dealing with invasive exotic species. Fewer mammals to regulate this could mean that these numbers will increase.
October 7th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
That is shocking.
Although I was a little shocked as well to read the term ‘population control’ right underneath it. NOT a good idea.
October 7th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
One of the other things that may come from this revelation of the loss of 25% of the earth’s mammals is the possibility that this will allow for more invasive species. Over the last 500 years, roughly 50,000 species and variety of plants have been “introduced” in North America and it is estimated that the American economy now spends $138 billion per year dealing with invasive exotic species. Fewer mammals to regulate this could mean that these numbers will increase.
That also means possibility of introduction and spread of foreign diseases. Ball just keeps on rolling…
October 7th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Polarbear:
Thanks, that makes me feel a little better :)
October 7th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
quoting Polarbear:
To: Eric In Ottawa
There is a huge DNA bank called the Frozen Zoo for endangered animals. I think it is in Ca.
It is in San Diego. They currently have samples from about 800 species. Their website CRES Projects: The Frozen Zoo is definitely worth a look
October 7th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Salros and Satch. great argument…and both are very compelling. I’m more in the Salros train of thought, however Satch brings up some great points. Satch, I’ll watch those links later…thanks.
Do we agree on this? That all living things have a predator? Or if they are plant-like they can be comsumed by another energy consumer?
If so, then Man being at the top of the food chain makes man it’s own predator.
All living things seem to have a way of balancing out without man’s intervention right? Eg. If there is an over population of deer in a certain area its because there isn’t a large enough wolf population to keep the deer numbers down. If the deer number are too high then they consume too much undergrowth, etc.
What will take down man’s population? man right? Unless there isn’t an asteroid to hit earth….we’ll slim the populous down via disease, mass crop failures and starvation which may be linked to environmental change…War on a very large scale….economics (depressions??) just some ideas…thoughts?
October 7th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Patrick Bell,
What will take down our numbers?
Pollution, cancer, AIDS, dramatic weather (storms), starvation, wars/genocide, etc..
That’s pretty much what I can think of at this time. Everything that has killed us before, though with the precursor to the Black Plague being extreme weather pattern changes, dramatic shifts, and the rats carrying disease… I suspect something like that will drop our numbers. But I don’t think the people were to blame for it, just one of those balancing things that happens.
I hope my death is quick and painless, and that’s all I request.
Mother nature keeps things in balance, it is called Entropy. Everything tries to get to a neutral state, from electrons in energy levels of atoms to gravity to heat transfer to osmosis.
It has happened before, though I don’t think it was mother nature intentionally kicking Atlantian butt, the volcanic eruption destroyed what is believed to be Atlantis via a massive tidalwave. I was watching A&E/TLC/DISC and there was an awesome show explaining the technology Plato describes, found in ruins. It was amazing, their walls were earthquake proof. This is so cool I’m going to attempt to draw it with ASCII
_________________________________________________
—TOP-BEAM-OF-WOOD———————
__________________________________________________
—BLOCKS—-|B|—BLOCKS—|B|—BLOCKS—
————-|E|————-|E|————-
————-|A|————-|A|————
————-|M|————-|M|———–
//// repeat /// pattern
The Myan peoples suffered a similar fate. It’s amazing we’ve lasted as long as we have.
One thing I know, the rich will fight like hell to avoid being the ones to go.
October 7th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
satchboogieca,
OK, I give on the CO2. But here are some links that you should view which show the scientific data used to make a similar conclusion.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
each video about 8-9 minutes.
Basic conclusion
Particle Pollution - high level but decreasing due to pollution devices.
Gases that cause a temperate capturing effect that cause increase temperature on the rise.
Particle Pollution causes dimming. Dimming effect is depleting fast due to our efficient control of particle pollution.
Industrial, livestock gases increasing in density in our atmosphere causing an isolating effect capture heat. This effect in increasing rapidly.
Conclusion: Whatever change that may occur will happen at a much greater rate then most are predicting. Most likely within 50 years. Could be wrong but very interesting hypothesis.
Based on 40 years of data collected. Very important for all to understand. Knowledge will allow to prepare for unimaginable possibilities. Never say never. Remember 2 planes into two skyscrapers. Now our collasping financial system. I never could have imagine.
October 7th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Looks like my first link did not script properly.
Part 1
October 7th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
OK, Part 1 is Part 2 and you all can find Part 4 if you watch part 3.
October 7th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
I might post this again sometime seeing as it is at the bottom of a lot of comments and I believe it to be of vital importance.
This is a parable written by the most important author of our time, Daniel Quinn,
Sinking Ship
The ship was sinking—and sinking fast. The captain told the passengers and crew, “We’ve got to get the lifeboats in the water right away.”
But the crew said, “First we have to end capitalist oppression of the working class. Then we’ll take care of the lifeboats.”
Then the women said, “First we want equal pay for equal work. The lifeboats can wait.”
The racial minorities said, “First we need to end racial discrimination. Then seating in the lifeboats will be allotted fairly.”
The captain said, “These are all important issues, but they won’t matter a damn if we don’t survive. We’ve got to lower the lifeboats right away!”
But the religionists said, “First we need to bring prayer back into the classroom. This is more important than lifeboats.”
Then the pro-life contingent said, “First we must outlaw abortion. Fetuses have just as much right to be in those lifeboats as anyone else.”
The right-to-choose contingent said, “First acknowledge our right to abortion, then we’ll help with the lifeboats.”
The socialists said, “First we must redistribute the wealth. Once that’s done everyone will work equally hard at lowering the lifeboats.”
The animal-rights activists said, “First we must end the use of animals in medical experiments. We can’t let this be subordinated to lowering the lifeboats.”
Finally the ship sank, and because none of the lifeboats had been lowered, everyone drowned.
The last thought of more than one of them was, “I never dreamed that solving humanity’s problems would take so long—or that the ship would sink so SUDDENLY.
October 7th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Joseph…that is because we are individually intelligent and collectively stupid.
October 7th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
CO2 emmission is a controversial topic currently, but people need to understand the scope of our activities.
Volcanic activity is responsible for about 1 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere a year.
Humans activity puts about 40-50 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere a year.
CO2 transmits visible light and absorbs infrared. Therefore sunlight passes through much of the CO2 in the atmosphere and hits the Earths surface where some is reflected, especailly from surfaces with a high albedo like ice and some is absorbed, especially with dark surfaces like the ocean. Some of this energy is retransmitted as infrared which the extra CO2 in the atmosphere captures, raising the overall heat capacity of the atmosphere.
And while CO2 isn’t the major component in the greenhouse effect, water vapour is, it does help increase the amount of water vapour in the air by increasing evaporation.
More CO2 = high temperatures = more water vapour = even higher temperatures. There’s strong feedback in the system and we screw around with it at our our risk.
On a lighter note here’s a clip that is only tangentaly related to the environment, anyone who watched Hinterland Who’s Who as a kid will love this ( if you’re not too much of an arachnaphobe).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fzURXpftMo
October 8th, 2008 at 12:34 am
Satchboogieca,
I’m afraid that Entropy does not restore neutrality. Order is restored in one place while disorder reigns somewhere else to keep the balance in check - Second Law of Thermodynamics. I think this is why we cannot live in peace without an ongoing conflict :)
October 8th, 2008 at 7:37 am
Interestingly enough, I stumbled across a wikipedia page last night about a novel called “The Green Brain” by Frank Herbert. In it, as humanity plunges further into the last refuges of natural space, some intelligent organism takes control of the remaining species and fights back.
It was published in 1966 (again, according to wikipedia).
So this morning, when I saw this post, I thought how funny and tragic.
How prophetic too.
25% eh.
October 8th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Joseph M: It’s like the gorilla said (and I’m paraphrasing here because I don’t have the book with me) “I failed because I underestimated the complexity of what it was I was trying to teach”
Similarly, my grandfather used to say that, “sometimes we get so caught up in building the perfect fire engine that we don’t notice the house burning down around us”.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:10 am
And at many times we have proven to not be civilized enough when it comes to using them intelligently.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:22 am
How can arms be used intelligently? Beyond hunting they have no logical use that would be good for us as a whole. Creation of bow and arrow really helped us out to get that precious fat and protein that was so beneficial for brain development. It also cut down on losses during the hunts.
There is one use for arms though and it is relevant to the original discussion (we are underestimating its importance) - population control. If we were civilized enough not to use them against each other, think of what the population of the World would be now.
p.s. I am also quite sure that we tend to over-complicate things
October 8th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
@ Joseph M
I kind of doubt it’s been people advocating for more equality and to have their voices heard that are behind all our problems. If not for the much more open cultural environment that has been created over the years it would be difficult to have an open debate about such important issues as Global Warming and habitate destruction.
It’s a sad fact that we still live in a world where a wealthy and powerful minority calls most of the shots. Stifling dissent would make it harder for positive change to occure, not easier.
October 8th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
I think the irony here is that we’re just emitting even more carbon dioxide debating the effects of humans on the planet.
Good thing we’re all typing and not face to face.
October 8th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Just like to say that this post has generated some incredible discussion. I’ve enjoyed reading all your takes on the current state of the natural world.