If you truly love nature, you should forget about "carbon" and "global warming" and focus on the more serious and imminent threats facing ALL life on Earth, not just us.
The greatest threat to all life on Earth is human over-population.
Over-population makes EVERY environmental issue worse, including global warming (if it's really happening). We are 6.8 billion people going on 9 billion in a mere 40 years. All other species' populations are limited by disease, predators and the resources available to them (food, water, mates). Thanks to our technological innovations in medicine and agriculture, we have temporarily defied our natural limitations and think that we can do so indefinitely with more technology.
Other world-wide threats more important than carbon and global warming:
-Clean fresh water shortage
-Food shortage
-Dying oceans (dead oceans = dead land)
-Honeybee Colony Collapse Disorder (bees pollinate >1/3 of our food)
There are many issues that are more important than "carbon" and "global warming" but no one is paying any attention to them. There is no world summit on over-population, nor is there any media coverage of it. It's a political hot potato, and you can't profit from population reduction. In fact, the predominant economic growth model depends on ever-increasing numbers of humans for its "success", even though our resources are finite.
Carbon on the other hand, can be profitable through cap and trade programs, and taxation. It is becoming a commodity soon to be featured on the TSX, I'm sure! Frankly, I am tired of hearing about it. Even if our carbon emissions are* causing global warming, they are a complete distraction from the more important issues.
*there are scientists who challenge this idea, but those brave enough to do so, do so at their professional peril unless they represent the obvious benefactors--the oil and gas industry.
I am extremely frustrated that everyone is jumping on the carbon-global warming band wagon. With all the media coverage it's hard not to but it sure feels like everyone drank the Kool-Aid and forgot about the most serious threats. So I want to take back environmentalism. I want to take it back from global warming hype, distraction, political platforms, economic agendas, hypocrisy and everything that prevents us from discussing and acting on the most difficult and serious threats facing our planet. Thankfully Sir David Attenborough is on nature's side and has put his energy into creating a wonderful video that does just this. I'll leave it to him....
BBC: How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth?
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I'll start with a couple of limited comments and delve more into this later.
First, the bracketed "if it's really happening" implies that you have doubt whether global warming is happening. Is that what you meant to imply? I think you need to define "climate change" and "global warming" since I know that you do not actually doubt that climate change is occurring but that you quibble with the term global warming. (Although, the term - in the sense of a global average - is correct and the Earth is indeed warming, do point out contrary studies.)
Second - global warming (or climate change) is most definitely linked in at least some way to each of the four issues you feel are more important - how do you separate them, and how can the 'average joe' separate them - or should they? Why should we? How do we address those issues without considering the effect of human-released CO2 and other GHGs?
And last for now - you definitely imply that by being focused on carbon, one is "not on nature's side." I would be very careful that you don't alienate people through your choice of words! I agree that our focus is skewed, and that the media have a huge part in that (and some scientists) but you risk turning readers off because they feel defensive. Is there any merit in having people who may have previously not even THOUGHT about global warming (or climate change, or just plain negative human impacts to the environment) at least paying attention and thinking more critically?
Keep at this - this kind of dialogue is critical. (Even if it is a rant, he he.)
And read this: http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2009/12/08/ElephantsOfDoom/
Oh and finally - the Type A in me needs to know if the embedded YouTube vids can be smaller so my finger doesn't hurt so much scrolling through. (JK)
Your doubt as to the reality of climate change is surprising, T. Even the high-profile "deniers" no longer dispute the weight of evidence (Arctic sea ice, glaciers, extended droughts); they have switched their arguments to doubting whether it is human-caused, and/or to whether we can possibly affect its course, and/or whether it is the most appropriate impending catastrophe on which to focus our efforts. I see you're in that last camp.
But i must agree with Josie above -- they're all interlinked. And i'm starting to believe that they are all "insoluble," at least in the terms of "solutions" that most humans find acceptable.
Certainly climate change is going to provide one "solution" to over-population, in that an awful lot of people are going to die in rather unpleasant circumstances, and others are not going to find it worth reproducing. Peak oil is going to emphasize this, since food production is so energy-dependent, and water shortages will hurry the exterminations along at the point of a gun.
I agree that human over-population is at the root of most of this, and needs to be addressed. I don't even think it can be addressed, except by Malthusian means. No "democratic" government would dare propose such a measure: imagine the denier industry that would make political hay of that!
Dee-pressing. Thanks for posting the Attenborough vids; i'm wading my way through them.
Post a Comment