Environmental Disasters! (we saw coming)

[Perfect_Speed4069]

I don't believe this is done out of depression. It seems to me to be more of a testament to the fragility of that what the meme describes as priceless. One could actually argue these acts are expressions of art itself, it's textbook situationism.

Perhaps not depression, but almost certainly despair. And a helpful reminder of the value we attach to some things, and not others.

 

[florduh]

One could actually argue these acts are expressions of art itself, it's textbook situationism.

This is an interesting perspective I hadn't considered. Personally, I have no issue with this form of protest. I just happen to believe, if you're willing to risk prison, there are more productive forms of "protest".

Anyway. And I must stress, this next comment has NO relation to my previous comment. But has anyone seen this movie:

 

[Perfect_Speed4069]

This is an interesting perspective I hadn't considered. Personally, I have no issue with this form of protest. I just happen to believe, if you're willing to risk prison, there are more productive forms of "protest".

Anyway. And I must stress, this next comment has NO relation to my previous comment. But has anyone seen this movie:

Pity my poor nieces who each got a copy of this for Christmas

 

[florduh]

Pity my poor nieces who each got a copy of this for Christmas

Nahhh. They probably thought it was cool . I would've killed to have an uncle who shopped at Verso growing up.

 

[olysh pops]

Ocean warming leads to massive coral bleaching worldwide

The consequences of 2023, the hottest year since records began, already visible on corals, one of nature's most endangered resources threatened by human-induced climate change. Although it is not yet possible to measure actual mortality in polyp colonies, as the process is ongoing, marine heat waves have pushed many of the planet's reefs into a lethal zone.

On Monday April 15, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Atmospheric Observing Agency (NOAA) confirmed that the Earth is "experiencing a new global coral bleaching event".

Source : Le Monde, April 2024


"It's like living in an oven"

Since May, a series of heat waves have swept across the northern part of the Indian subcontinent causing hundreds of deaths, particularly in large cities. The region's impoverished inhabitants are the first to suffer.

In the space of 10 days, at least 49 people died in Karachi due to the heat, according to a report by provincial authorities dated Tuesday, July 2. In reality, the heat wave there probably claimed the lives of several hundred people in only a week. "Our morgues usually see between 25 and 30 bodies arriving every day," said Faisal Edhi, director of the Edhi Foundation, which manages mortuaries and a fleet of ambulances. "Between June 21 and 27, this number soared to 830."

Source : Le Monde, July 2024


World record average temperatures for the month of June, according to the European Copernicus service

After more than a year of uninterrupted monthly records, "the global average temperature over the last twelve months, from July 2023 to June 2024, is the highest ever recorded", according to Copernicus, i.e. "1.64°C above the pre-industrial average of 1850-1900", when mankind's greenhouse gas emissions had not yet warmed the planet.
June 2024" marks the thirteenth month in a row of record global and the twelfth month in a row to exceed the pre-industrial 1.5°C above pre-industrial averages" (1850-1900).

"This is not a statistical incongruity, but illustrates a significant and ongoing change in our climate", says Carlo Buontempo, Director of Copernicus' Climate Change Service (C3S), at the end of a month marked by severe heatwaves in China, India, Mexico, Greece and Saudi Arabia, where over 1,300 people died during the Mecca pilgrimage.

Source : Le Monde, July 2024


Extreme heatwave claims several lives in western USA

On Tuesday, July 9, heatwave warnings affected more than 160 million people in the USA, a country hit by an extreme heat wave that has led to record temperatures and several deaths the American West in recent days, according to local local media. The mercury is also abnormally high in the East and South. South, but it's in the West that the heat is most brutal.

In California, Arizona and Idaho, dozens of cities have set set absolute or seasonal temperature records in recent days. "This is a record-breaking heat wave," summarized Daniel Swain, climatologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, during an online press briefing this weekend. In California, some residents are enduring "not only the hottest day they've ever but also the hottest day their parents or grandparents have ever experienced", he added.

Source : Le Monde, july 2024

 

[Bologna]

I don't believe this is done out of depression. It seems to me to be more of a testament to the fragility of that what the meme describes as priceless. One could actually argue these acts are expressions of art itself, it's textbook situationism.

Nah. The action can be twisted to justify anything trapped in one's own mind, but not mine. I see it for what it is TO ME: fuckin stupid. You wanna make a statement? Ruin your own shit and stay the fuck away from me.

 

[AndyO]

Ocean warming leads to massive coral bleaching worldwide

The consequences of 2023, the hottest year since records began, already visible on corals, one of nature's most endangered resources threatened by human-induced climate change. Although it is not yet possible to measure actual mortality in polyp colonies, as the process is ongoing, marine heat waves have pushed many of the planet's reefs into a lethal zone.

On Monday April 15, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Atmospheric Observing Agency (NOAA) confirmed that the Earth is "experiencing a new global coral bleaching event".

Source : Le Monde, April 2024

I saw the Great Barrier Reef in late 2021, I went back in late 2023. Depressing AF man

 

[Bologna]

Nah. The action can be twisted to justify anything trapped in one's own mind, but not mine. I see it for what it is TO ME: fuckin stupid. You wanna make a statement? Ruin your own shit and stay the fuck away from me.

And if you require my respect for said statement? At least have the balls to set YOURSELF on fire... and you might have a shot.

Edit: after all, we could use less...:

Ween - So Many People in the Neighborhood

 

[186°]

Nah. The action can be twisted to justify anything trapped in one's own mind, but not mine. I see it for what it is TO ME: fuckin stupid. You wanna make a statement? Ruin your own shit and stay the fuck away from me.

And if you require my respect for said statement? At least have the balls to set YOURSELF on fire... and you might have a shot.

Ok, whatever makes YOU more outraged

 

[Bologna]

Ok, whatever makes YOU more outraged

Haha! "outraged"....

Nothing could be further from the truth.

My turn to ASSuME now...?

Ok, whatever stupid fuckin' action YOU support

How's that?

 

[olysh pops]

In Russia, giant forest fires ravage more than a million hectares of woodland

"Today, there are more than 500 forest fires in the country", said the country's Minister of Emergencies affected by the consequences of climate change. More than a million hectares of forest are on fire in Russia, and larger areas than in previous summers, announced the authorities on Wednesday July 10 of this country, which is particularly exposed to the consequences of climate change.

Giant forest fires ravage large swathes of Russia's forests every year often in remote and sparsely populated regions, but sometimes threatening inhabited areas.

Since the beginning of the year, "we have recorded almost 6,000 natural fire outbreaks on a surface area of over 3.5 million hectares", said Emergencies Minister Alexander Kurenkov. While the number of fires is down on last year, "the surface area of burnt land has increased by a factor of 1.5", he continued , adding that over 6,000 people have been mobilized to fight the fires.

Source : Le Monde, July 2024


Brazil: the Amazon rainforest, plagued by fires, experiences its worst first half-year in twenty years

Since these data began to be compiled by the Brazilian Institute for Space Institute for Space Research (INPE) in 1998, only two years have seen more Amazon fires identified in the first half of the year : 2003 (17,143) and 2004 (17,340). The total observed from January 1ᵉʳ to June 30, 2024 is significantly higher than for the same period in 2023 (8,344), according to satellite data available on Monday 1ᵉʳ July.

According to Romulo Batista, spokesman for the Brazilian branch of Greenpeace, "climate change is contributing" to the increase in forest fires, caused in particular by an exceptional drought that hit the Amazon in 2023.

In the Pantanal, a region that has been in the news for the past few days, with clouds of smoke and red skies due to the fires. 3,538 fires have been recorded since the beginning of the year an increase of 2018% compared to the first half of 2023. This also represents an increase of almost 40% compared to 2020, when all levels had been beaten and 30% of the biome was affected by fire during the year.

Source : Le Monde, July 2024


The speed of global warming is faster than ever before

The climate is changing faster than ever. Global warming is now increasing at a rate of 0.26°C per decade, a record in the global records, according to a new scientific study published in Earth System Science Data, Wednesday June 5, by an international group of 59 leading scientists from 44 institutions. Results that are tragically illustrated on a daily basis in many countries, from extreme heatwaves in India, Pakistan and Mexico, the heat dome in California or the deadly floods in southern Brazil.

There is "no doubt" that that the world is now warming faster than the rate of + 0.18°C per decade between 1970 and 2010. The warming also accelerated between the decade 2010-2019 decade analyzed in the latest IPCC report and that of the Earth System Science Data (2014-2023).
"Although this acceleration is broadly in line with climate models, it is nonetheless a worrying sign that climate impacts will worsen more rapidly", warns the scientist.

Source : Le Monde, June 2024

Edit :
Forest fires: evacuations ordered in western Canada

A heat wave coupled with persistent drought is causing a large number of a large number of "out-of-control" fires in Canada's western provinces. Particularly near Fort McMurray, capital of oil sands development.

Alberta is not the only province hit by forest fires, and evacuation orders have been where evacuation orders have been issued. On Tuesday, the community of community of Kahntah, in northeastern British Columbia, was ordered to leave. Provincial authorities, who fear more forest fires in the coming days as a result of the heat wave heat wave that has hit this western territory, combined with persistent drought, have requested reinforcements. Nearly 200 additional are required.

Source : Le Monde, July 2024

 

[chillAtGVC]

...the problem is we are leaving our small communities for large cities... most, if not all problems are where the population is greatest... people lose compassion for other's when there is more people in general... In my experience...

..."the solution to pollution is dilution"...

They also concentrate problems like sourcing drinking water, disposal of trash and sewage. There are a host of problems with large cities. For years I have been saying that we need to build more, smaller cities not larger and larger ones.

 

[CANtalk]

Great Barrier Reef already been dealt its death blow - scientist

A leading climate scientists says it's just not possible for some ecosystems to adapt to climate change.

www.rnz.co.nz

 

[florduh]

They also concentrate problems like sourcing drinking water, disposal of trash and sewage. There are a host of problems with large cities. For years I have been saying that we need to build more, smaller cities not larger and larger ones.

People living in large, densely populated cities are putting much less of a strain on the environment than people living in the boonies, where everything needs to be shipped over long distances. The average Manhattanite is living a much more environmentally friendly life than a rural resident.

If by "large cities" you mean urban sprawl, yes that's a problem. But building more, smaller cities will damage the environment much more than having fewer, more densely populated cities.

 

[186°]

People living in large, densely populated cities are putting much less of a strain on the environment than people living in the boonies, where everything needs to be shipped over long distances. The average Manhattanite is living a much more environmentally friendly life than a rural resident.

If by "large cities" you mean urban sprawl, yes that's a problem. But building more, smaller cities will damage the environment much more than having fewer, more densely populated cities.

It is not like that every human settlement is necessarily damaging the environment. Plenty of innovative but also traditional ways to live in a non harmful way exist (at least in theory). You are right, the average individual environmental footprint is smaller in big cities compared to rural areas. But big cities are just overwhelming. Maybe, for many people big cities seem to be impossible to imagine to change, tear down, rebuild and transition to the next evolutionary cultural and ecological state and that's probably why they think it is easier to just build a new city from scratch. Also, we all know that the biggest problem is not the missing knowledge or will of people to make "better places", it's the assholes that blissfully destroy what others have built, who just take more than they need, more than they are entitled to and more than they ever can consume. Assholes who just don't care about others and the fact that we are living together. The problem is not humans or the size of a city, the problem are the assholes.

 

[Knewt]

The basic problem is too fucking many people. More people means more assholes, pollution, emissions, etc. A graph of human population growth looks like the first half of a classic bell curve, and if you were awake in school, you know what the second half of the curve looks like. COVID is a precursor of much worse things to come.

 

[186°]

The basic problem is too fucking many people. More people means more assholes, pollution, emissions, etc. A graph of human population growth looks like the first half of a classic bell curve, and if you were awake in school, you know what the second half of the curve looks like. COVID is a precursor of much worse things to come.

I once thought that, too, but honestly I have to disagree, strongly. I think it is a tough argumentative line to walk on when we are talking about "too many people". I would say, yes, we are too many fucking people in a sense, that it makes the world even more complex and complicated, too complex to find easy answers and solutions.

But fact is, there is enough food for everyone and even for more people. It is a matter of distribution not a matter of scarcity. Fact is, birth rates drop as soon as countries get more "developed" and the more women get access to birth control. Empowering women is one of the few policy measures that always reduces poverty, it always works. Less poverty means better access to health care and education and less dependency from men and eventually a drop in birth rates. Overpopulation is a problem that could basically solve itself when we care for more solidarity, emancipation and a sustainable socio-economical development.
Often when talked about "too many people on this planet" fingers are pointing to the poorest of poor. But it is the rich people who fuck up this planet. Fact: the richest 10% are responsible for almost half of the green house gas emissions.

Yes, more people means also more shitheads in absolute numbers. But the number of people is not the problem. It is the assholes and fascists. Any demand for "less people!" isn't a solution for anything. It doesn't even point at the core of the problem. The problem is that a few people are bullying others and living at their cost and the cost of future generations. IMHO

 

[florduh]

It is not like that every human settlement is necessarily damaging the environment.

Sure. If we all agree to overthrow the Industrial Revolution and live in a 17th century agrarian society, we build a bunch of new, small, distantly separated communities. That wouldn't be damaging to the environment. It would also mean we're reducing the global population by billions through starvation.

But if we're talking about a society with our current technological level, no. More densely populated cities put less of a strain on the environment.

I'll go even further. If we built at the same density as Manhattan, we could fit every single person in the United States into an area the size of Texas. If your sole concern is reducing environmental impact, we'd be better off all living in a Megacity and leaving like 90% of the continent as a nature preserve.

Yes, more people means also more shitheads in absolute numbers. But the number of people is not the problem. It is the assholes and fascists. Any demand for "less people!" isn't a solution for anything. It doesn't even point at the core of the problem. The problem is that a few people are bullying others and living at their cost and the cost of future generations. IMHO

Completely agree here, brother. Humans aren't the problem. Capitalism is the problem. Reducing the number of humans so that .01% of us can live like gods just goes to show you that Capitalism is a Death Cult.

 

[186°]

Sure. If we all agree to overthrow the Industrial Revolution and live in a 17th century agrarian society, we build a bunch of new, small, distantly separated communities. That wouldn't be damaging to the environment. It would also mean we're reducing the global population by billions through starvation.

But if we're talking about a society with our current technological level, no. More densely populated cities put less of a strain on the environment.

I'll go even further. If we built at the same density as Manhattan, we could fit every single person in the United States into an area the size of Texas. If your sole concern is reducing environmental impact, we'd be better off all living in a Megacity and leaving like 90% of the continent as a nature preserve.



Completely agree here, brother. Humans aren't the problem. Capitalism is the problem. Reducing the number of humans so that .01% of us can live like gods just goes to show you that Capitalism is a Death Cult.

Thanks for challenging me on this one

Sure, parts of me can totally see that this is a possible future scenario. But I don't accept it as the only one. How is the quote? "It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism", right? I'm aware of many dark future scenarios. Dystopian future imaginations absolutely dominate pop culture... It is so easy to predict that things are going downhill. Just lay back and take a bet on who was most right in the end when we suck on our last dime.

I studied the earth in my old life. Here's my opinion: Making 90% of the land a nature reserve wouldn't even be enough. Almost all the land is already altered by centuries of human activities. In some places, leaving "nature" by itself would be better for "the environment" than the current overused status, but it is a) not true for many totally degraded areas and b) by far not enough to get the environmental systems back to a healthy state we can profit of. Also, not everything we touch dies. There are so many examples of people making literal desert land a productive, green oasis.
So here's my take: To ensure the survival of humanity, we must actively transform the environment we have changed into a garden that is useful to us in many ways. Does this mean back to nature, simplicity, medieval techniques? "Live in a 17th century agrarian society", as you said. I don't think so. I don't know what the future will bring but I refuse to think of just one possible grey-toned outcome. My future is blooming. The only thing that stops the climate disaster is keeping fossil fuels in the ground. The old ones in the mines and under the sea. The younger carbon we have to keep in untouched wetlands and in the soils because there it is very useful. The only thing that sucks CO2 out of the air (in a human timescale) are plants. We need to put a lot of that organic matter back into our soils (like composting at a global scale). This keeps them/makes them fertile, stores water, prevents desertification, ensures food (and energy) safety and stabilizes whole societies. Therefore we need people living outside of the cities maintaining all that stuff. We need gardeners and people who assemble photovoltaic on huge areas of land. So that people in the city can eat and have power. That is why people need to and can live sustainably outside of cities in the future. No, even more than that. In this scenario it will be possible to not only life with zero negative environmental impact but even to be a net amount positive impact for the "nature" (i.e. human survival). In your distopian future this is only thinkable in "distantly separated communities", a technological setback and a population reduced "by billions through starvation". Yeah, could happen, I'm not denying that. I think it is more probable that we die of starvation because our soils are either degraded or flooded than that we collectively loose all of our technological knowledge. So, we have the knowledge. I say, because of that knowledge and technological level we have: it was never easier in the whole history of humans to make a better place for everyone than it is now. It is a hell of a difficult task, but it was never easier.

 

[florduh]

Thanks for challenging me on this one

Sure, parts of me can totally see that this is a possible future scenario. But I don't accept it as the only one. How is the quote? "It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism", right? I'm aware of many dark future scenarios. Dystopian future imaginations absolutely dominate pop culture... It is so easy to predict that things are going downhill. Just lay back and take a bet on who was most right in the end when we suck on our last dime.

I studied the earth in my old life. Here's my opinion: Making 90% of the land a nature reserve wouldn't even be enough. Almost all the land is already altered by centuries of human activities. In some places, leaving "nature" by itself would be better for "the environment" than the current overused status, but it is a) not true for many totally degraded areas and b) by far not enough to get the environmental systems back to a healthy state we can profit of. Also, not everything we touch dies. There are so many examples of people making literal desert land a productive, green oasis.
So here's my take: To ensure the survival of humanity, we must actively transform the environment we have changed into a garden that is useful to us in many ways. Does this mean back to nature, simplicity, medieval techniques? "Live in a 17th century agrarian society", as you said. I don't think so. I don't know what the future will bring but I refuse to think of just one possible grey-toned outcome. My future is blooming. The only thing that stops the climate disaster is keeping fossil fuels in the ground. The old ones in the mines and under the sea. The younger carbon we have to keep in untouched wetlands and in the soils because there it is very useful. The only thing that sucks CO2 out of the air (in a human timescale) are plants. We need to put a lot of that organic matter back into our soils (like composting at a global scale). This keeps them/makes them fertile, stores water, prevents desertification, ensures food (and energy) safety and stabilizes whole societies. Therefore we need people living outside of the cities maintaining all that stuff. We need gardeners and people who assemble photovoltaic on huge areas of land. So that people in the city can eat and have power. That is why people need to and can live sustainably outside of cities in the future. No, even more than that. In this scenario it will be possible to not only life with zero negative environmental impact but even to be a net amount positive impact for the "nature" (i.e. human survival). In your distopian future this is only thinkable in "distantly separated communities", a technological setback and a population reduced "by billions through starvation". Yeah, could happen, I'm not denying that. I think it is more probable that we die of starvation because our soils are either degraded or flooded than that we collectively loose all of our technological knowledge. So, we have the knowledge. I say, because of that knowledge and technological level we have: it was never easier in the whole history of humans to make a better place for everyone than it is now. It is a hell of a difficult task, but it was never easier.

I've recommended it before, but it sounds like you'd absolutely love the Kim Stanley Robinson novel The Ministry for the Future.

The Ministry for the Future: A Novel|Paperback

ONE OF BARACK OBAMA’S FAVORITE BOOKS OF THE YEAR“The best science-fiction nonfiction novel I’ve ever read.” —Jonathan Lethem "If I could get policymakers, and citizens, everywhere to read just one book this year, it would...

www.barnesandnoble.com

lol at the Obama recommendation

I completely agree with you that a utopic, sustainable future is within our grasp. If we choose it. We need more utopian and less dystopian near future fiction.

 

[Tellus]

Loving the conversation here. I have some of my own thoughts on this maybe for later to type.

This was interesting:

Americans misunderstand their contribution to deteriorating environment

A global survey suggests 88 percent of people are worried about the state of nature.

arstechnica.com

The basic problem is too fucking many people. More people means more assholes, pollution, emissions, etc. A graph of human population growth looks like the first half of a classic bell curve, and if you were awake in school, you know what the second half of the curve looks like. COVID is a precursor of much worse things to come.

Yea too many people if we choose to live and consume the same way. But like others said there is enough resources for everyone if we make changes

 

[Radwin Bodnic]

We need gardeners and people who assemble photovoltaic on huge areas of land.

This is absolutely not compatible with a low tech utopian future imo.
Photovoltaic needs extractivism to exist and extractivism is one of the most damaging human activities.

We better plant trees on these huge areas of land.

Please take the time to watch this.

 

[florduh]

I've read this short story before. I think it might be a true or somewhat true story. Thanks for sharing the animated film.

This is absolutely not compatible with a low tech utopian future imo.

Out of curiosity, what level of technology do you believe humanity should maintain? No electricity at all? Not being contentious, I'm genuinely curious.

 

[Radwin Bodnic]

Out of curiosity, what level of technology do you believe humanity should maintain? No electricity at all? Not being contentious, I'm genuinely curious.

That's a very good question.
I don't pretend to have the answer and I think this is not something to be defined by one person only.

Electricity relies on extractivism.
1. You need copper. This is what the production of copper looks like for one mine :

2. you need insulators aka plastic.

Whether or not the convenience and power of electricity justify the extraction of petroleum and the production of plastic and whether or not it justifies the extraction and refining of copper is something to be calculated carefully.
My guess is that electricity could be something very harmful considering its outcomes.


Edit : especially considering the impact of production means (solar power Plants, nuclear power plants, dams, gas power plants, coal power plants, etc..)

Edit 2 : one sure thing is that humanity should engage in an energy diet. And electricity is part of it.

 

[186°]

Quote from article in The Guardian:
"All of humanity could share a prosperous, equitable future but the space for development is rapidly shrinking under pressure from a wealthy minority of ultra-consumers, a groundbreaking study has shown."

Title: A just world on a safe planet: a Lancet Planetary Heath-Earth Commission report on Earth-system boundaries, translations, and transformations

It seems like the ultimate science-based guideline to save the planet and make it a better place for all of us was published this week. There it is: a clear aim with clear instructions for policy makers. Including a message to hold those responsible to account.
Here's again the link to the study (open access): https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(24)00042-1/fulltext