Is the Earth becoming greener?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In at least two major eco-regions, the amount of living plant matter is apparently increasing:

Siberia's Arctic landscape is getting greener (http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/40666)


Every spring the Arctic bursts into bloom, turning a blinding white landscape green and brown. In recent years some parts of the Arctic have been getting greener, with Northern Alaska showing a 20% increase in summer greenness since 1982. Some blame climate change for the flourishing vegetation, while others believe that disturbances to the land, such as gas-field development and reindeer grazing, could be a partial cause. A new study shows that the answer isn’t simple.

Sahara desert greening due to climate change? (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html)


Desertification, drought, and despair—that's what global warming has in store for much of Africa. Or so we hear.

Emerging evidence is painting a very different scenario, one in which rising temperatures could benefit millions of Africans in the driest parts of the continent.

Scientists are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing rainfall.

If sustained, these rains could revitalize drought-ravaged regions, reclaiming them for farming communities.

This desert-shrinking trend is supported by climate models, which predict a return to conditions that turned the Sahara into a lush savanna some 12,000 years ago.

Developments such as these are very interesting, and indicate that contrary to the screeching of the doomsters, climate change is not all bad. Of course, projects to prevent increasing desertification elsewhere need our wholehearted support, but the above articles suggest that climate change may in fact help rather than hinder such efforts - hotter air can carry more moisture, increased atmospheric CO2 encourages plant growth, and if the excess CO2 really is a problem then we can help things along by allowing/encouraging the new plant matter to form peat and other natural carbon sinks.

[Pawn Power]

I guess it is possible. People are also a bit more aware of climate change today than they were just a decade ago and governments and organization are doing more greening projects. However, although increased greening is good- it is not a replacement for conservation. The biggest issues with the destruction of rainforest, etc. is not the lost of green per say but the loss of biodiversity which is not replaceable.

[Widerstand]

the loss of biodiversity which is not replaceable.

What exactly is a "loss of biodiversity" and why is "biodiversity not replaceable?"

[bretty]

Biodiversity as in monocropping and the destruction of genetic diversity in both crops, animals, and landscapes. There are certain niche's in environments that cannot be reproduced. It's a fairly apparent phenomenon, even on a macro level in large landscape watersheds the diversity and type of soil and vegetation being replaced by a different structural landscape has degenerative effects on the entire regions watershed.

[WeAreReborn]

Interesting post, I never believed in global warming myself but I do believe that we should protect our environment, well of course improving our technology I'm not a primitivist. But this really puts some perspective on it. Though I must wholeheartedly agree with OP's analysis.

[razboz]

Well i for one disagree with much of what has been said. Because i have time and i think im more right than you here is my own, general analysis of how we can interact with a system more complicated than we can ever fully comprehend (because our brain has limited storage capacity, while the universe does not.)


Developments such as these are very interesting, and indicate that contrary to the screeching of the doomsters, climate change is not all bad. So climate change isn't all bad. But who decided what bad is? The straw "doomsters" would claim that catastrophic climate change is bad in all the important ways. And they'll define what catastrphic climate change is (1 meter rise in sea levels, 5-6 celsius temperature rise over 100 years, accumulation of CFCs etc) and they'll define why it's bad (loss of biodiversity* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity), loss of life-sustaining systems, loss of ways of life for human populations, mass starvation, collapse etc).

But then you come along and also decide what bad is. You decide that bad would be less green on the planet. You decide that bad would be cool, CO2-poor winds, and deserts. Presumably bad would be less farming space, and fewer humans.



Of course, projects to prevent increasing desertification elsewhere need our wholehearted supportOf course they do, because deserts, like many systems on our small planet, must expand at the expense of other systems. Such a system is neighbouring agricultural land, and pastures which are key to the survival of adjacent humanand non-human populations. But desertification is not the only process that would be affected by increased leafey growth. Anthropogenic climate change skeptics often reason that climate change has happened before, and it wasn't so bad. It may be useful then, to know that whenever one ecological group has multiplied, it has always destroyed its environment. Plants have proliferated before, and they filled the atmosphere with oxygen annihilating many 'dominant' life-groups to whom oxygen was toxic.

Slash and burn new growth?

Maybe not, but it could be useful to think of out own growth in terms of 'natural' boom and bust cycles. As we displace life around us, we've precipatated a loss of biodiveresity on a massive scale. As species go extinct, it's entire systems of energy conversion that come into jeopardy. Undoubtably life will continue, but a mass extinction would make us all unhappy cookies.


allowing/encouraging the new plant matter to form peat and other natural carbon sinks. It's not relief we should feel toward this, but resignation. Because climate change and plant growth are responsible for some of the greatest changes in the history of life, and everytime billions of species were winked out in a geological spark. Species that were once found on all the continents and in all the seas were left as nothing but strange fossils.

Did they also see the plants growing with joy? Did they watch the tundra melt, and beleive their futures assured?

Probably not, because most of the living things im talking about were unicellular, invertebrate or with no real central nervous system to speak of.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well i for one disagree with much of what has been said. Because i have time and i think im more right than you here is my own, general analysis of how we can interact with a system more complicated than we can ever fully comprehend (because our brain has limited storage capacity, while the universe does not.)

But unlike the rest of the universe, we can analyse and collate information in a systematic manner, aided by tools such as computers, and store the results outside of our own heads. We are not limited by the size of our own skulls, not any more.


So climate change isn't all bad. But who decided what bad is? The straw "doomsters" would claim that catastrophic climate change is bad in all the important ways. And they'll define what catastrphic climate change is (1 meter rise in sea levels, 5-6 celsius temperature rise over 100 years, accumulation of CFCs etc) and they'll define why it's bad (loss of biodiversity* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity), loss of life-sustaining systems, loss of ways of life for human populations, mass starvation, collapse etc).

But then you come along and also decide what bad is. You decide that bad would be less green on the planet. You decide that bad would be cool, CO2-poor winds, and deserts. Presumably bad would be less farming space, and fewer humans.

You do realise that greener environments support more diverse life, don't you?


Of course they do, because deserts, like many systems on our small planet, must expand at the expense of other systems. Such a system is neighbouring agricultural land, and pastures which are key to the survival of adjacent humanand non-human populations. But desertification is not the only process that would be affected by increased leafey growth. Anthropogenic climate change skeptics often reason that climate change has happened before, and it wasn't so bad. It may be useful then, to know that whenever one ecological group has multiplied, it has always destroyed its environment. Plants have proliferated before, and they filled the atmosphere with oxygen annihilating many 'dominant' life-groups to whom oxygen was toxic.

I don't think we'll be suffering from too much plant growth any time in the foreseeable future. Remember that there's a species of large mammal that currently populates all but one continent in large numbers.


Slash and burn new growth?

Maybe not, but it could be useful to think of out own growth in terms of 'natural' boom and bust cycles. As we displace life around us, we've precipatated a loss of biodiveresity on a massive scale. As species go extinct, it's entire systems of energy conversion that come into jeopardy. Undoubtably life will continue, but a mass extinction would make us all unhappy cookies.

Which is why it's a good idea to encourage plant growth globally, in order to cushion the natural cycles, if any.


It's not relief we should feel toward this, but resignation. Because climate change and plant growth are responsible for some of the greatest changes in the history of life, and everytime billions of species were winked out in a geological spark. Species that were once found on all the continents and in all the seas were left as nothing but strange fossils.

Yes, but those creatures, as far as we can tell, were as thick as two short... slices of tree fern, we have the potential to be exceptional.


Did they also see the plants growing with joy? Did they watch the tundra melt, and beleive their futures assured?

Probably not, because most of the living things im talking about were unicellular, invertebrate or with no real central nervous system to speak of.

Complex life took a long time to get going, that's why.

[razboz]

But unlike the rest of the universe, we can analyse and collate information in a systematic manner, aided by tools such as computers, and store the results outside of our own heads. We are not limited by the size of our own skulls, not any more.

Well yes, but all of you done is slide the problem along a little. Computers (of the non-quantum variety at least) are only small extensions we can make, and have to reach a maximum size depending on available energy resources.


You do realise that greener environments support more diverse life, don't you?

No. Have you ever been to any industrial farm? Plenty of green, not much diversity.


I don't think we'll be suffering from too much plant growth any time in the foreseeable future. Remember that there's a species of large mammal that currently populates all but one continent in large numbers.

Agreed, probably won't get too much wild plant growth. But i think that was the point i was trying to make. Your large mammals have grown to be quite numerous and have a lifestyle which is quite onerous. We see symptoms of climate chaos and point to them as being good or bad with no real precedent or understanding. I mean similar things have happened before, and we can model quite a lot based on the information we do have-- but these give us incredibly good precedent to say that when one species or, one group, gains such predominance, mass extinction follows very shortly. Is it a cause or an effect? To be honest, i have a sincere beleif that the research does not show beyond the shadow of a doubt that we have figured exactl what in the past triggered climate change, and what was a result of it. Im sure we'll find that most things do both. And some things do neither.


Which is why it's a good idea to encourage plant growth globally, in order to cushion the natural cycles, if any.

Aha! Good thinking. But we're probably agreed that you need large events to change anything 'globally'. So if humans can't change the environment (which i don't beleive btw) how could they encourage a form of life they spend so much time and resources destroying in the wild?


Yes, but those creatures, as far as we can tell, were as thick as two short... slices of tree fern, we have the potential to be exceptional.

Anything that manages to be exceptional with our accidental genetic baggage would have to be some kind of post-human entity as different to us in every way as we are to those creatures.


Complex life took a long time to get going, that's why.

And once it did, it spent the (very) short time it was around making it impossible for any other kind of life to have any fun.

[Patchd]

I heard that contrary to popular belief, trees produce more CO2 than they do O2, and in fact most of our oxygen can be attributed to algae, or plankton (I can't remember which one) ... is it true science folk?

[Pawn Power]

What exactly is a "loss of biodiversity" and why is "biodiversity not replaceable?"

bada-bing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity

[Pawn Power]

Interesting post, I never believed in global warming myself but I do believe that we should protect our environment, well of course improving our technology I'm not a primitivist. But this really puts some perspective on it. Though I must wholeheartedly agree with OP's analysis.

Doesn't really mater much what you believe because the vast majority of people who study this stuff for a living (climate scientists) do!

[Pawn Power]

I heard that contrary to popular belief, trees produce more CO2 than they do O2, and in fact most of our oxygen can be attributed to algae, or plankton (I can't remember which one) ... is it true science folk?

I don't think that is true about trees. Come on! This is biology 101. Trees (like most plants) get their biomass through photosynthesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis)which CO2 is taken in and Oxygen is released.

However, it makes sense that algae produces more oxygen just because their is much more algae than other plant matter (because oceans make up most of the earth surface).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well yes, but all of you done is slide the problem along a little. Computers (of the non-quantum variety at least) are only small extensions we can make, and have to reach a maximum size depending on available energy resources.

The beautiful thing about technology is that it's self-reinforcing; we can use computers to design better computers, or even hook up powerful computers to each other over the internet to make the equivalent of a larger machine.


No. Have you ever been to any industrial farm? Plenty of green, not much diversity.

Have I not made it obvious that I don't want to cover the Earth with monocultured fields? I'm a proponent of compact agriculture geographically integrated with urban areas, themselves designed to use space efficiently.


Agreed, probably won't get too much wild plant growth. But i think that was the point i was trying to make. Your large mammals have grown to be quite numerous and have a lifestyle which is quite onerous. We see symptoms of climate chaos and point to them as being good or bad with no real precedent or understanding. I mean similar things have happened before, and we can model quite a lot based on the information we do have-- but these give us incredibly good precedent to say that when one species or, one group, gains such predominance, mass extinction follows very shortly. Is it a cause or an effect? To be honest, i have a sincere beleif that the research does not show beyond the shadow of a doubt that we have figured exactl what in the past triggered climate change, and what was a result of it. Im sure we'll find that most things do both. And some things do neither.

There are many improvements to the way we utilise resources that can be done. We can improve matters by a factor of four at least through better designs and more efficient use of natural resources.


Aha! Good thinking. But we're probably agreed that you need large events to change anything 'globally'. So if humans can't change the environment (which i don't beleive btw) how could they encourage a form of life they spend so much time and resources destroying in the wild?

You appear to be under the misapprehension that I deny climate change and/or that I deny it's mainly anthropogenic nature. Not so. I am merely pointing out that it may have unforseen effects which on balance may actually be beneficial to humans. A greener Earth would allow for more efficient agriculture, natural sequestration of excess carbon, and more diverse and sturdy ecosystems.


Anything that manages to be exceptional with our accidental genetic baggage would have to be some kind of post-human entity as different to us in every way as we are to those creatures.

Except this time we won't have to wait eons for natural selection to do it, thanks to technology.


And once it did, it spent the (very) short time it was around making it impossible for any other kind of life to have any fun.

Erm, complex life is the only type of life that could conceivably "have fun".

[L.A.P.]

god, I hope so.

[Ovi]

Sahara desert greening due to climate change? (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html)

And the article concludes with

"Half the models follow a wetter trend, and half a drier trend."
Ha ha ha

[Ovi]

Developments such as these are very interesting, and indicate that contrary to the screeching of the doomsters, climate change is not all bad. Of course, projects to prevent increasing desertification elsewhere need our wholehearted support

Desertification means degradation of land in arid areas. On the other hand, if one region becomes wetter, others might become dryer and there isn't anything we can do to reverse aridification.


but the above articles suggest that climate change may in fact help rather than hinder such efforts - hotter air can carry more moisture, increased atmospheric CO2 encourages plant growth

Oversimplification at its best. Above 29 degrees C, plant yield drops dramatically, so global warming might not increase yields. Increasing CO2 concentration reduces the level of protein in plants (http://indymedia.org.au/2010/05/14/rising-carbon-emissions-threaten-crop-yields-and-food-security?page=83), as well as that of phosphorus, potassium and zinc (http://www.grist.org/article/scherer-plantchem/)


, and if the excess CO2 really is a problem then we can help things along by allowing/encouraging the new plant matter to form peat and other natural carbon sinks.
Much of the peat bogs have already been dried out. To actually increase these carbon sinks, we would have to increase the ares occupied by bogs beyond what it was before human intervention and I don't see that happening any time soon.

[Ele'ill]

In at least two major eco-regions, the amount of living plant matter is apparently increasing:

Siberia's Arctic landscape is getting greener (http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/40666)

I can't read the article right now but it would imply that areas that were once too cold or covered in permafrost are now not- and thus plants are starting to grow in colder areas.

This is not necessarily a good thing.




Sahara desert greening due to climate change? (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html)



Developments such as these are very interesting, and indicate that contrary to the screeching of the doomsters, climate change is not all bad. Of course, projects to prevent increasing desertification elsewhere need our wholehearted support, but the above articles suggest that climate change may in fact help rather than hinder such efforts - hotter air can carry more moisture, increased atmospheric CO2 encourages plant growth, and if the excess CO2 really is a problem then we can help things along by allowing/encouraging the new plant matter to form peat and other natural carbon sinks.

And kill hundreds and thousands of species which will absolutely devastate the biosphere in ways we know and in ways we cannot even yet imagine.

This brings up the issue of sentience and animal rights. Those that kill hundreds and thousands of species for industry yet berate those that fight dogs and roosters.


I find it a bit dishonest of you to suggest that such radical changes in such a short amount of time can be 'positive' and I find it more alarming that there is a trend from the technocrats to belittle or dismiss those critical of human impact.

Do you know what it looks like when there's very little input from environmentalists? We're living it now. Meltdowns, oil spills, perpetual toxic waste dumpage so on and so forth.


It seems that on one hand there's a 'we will get it right, technocracy will be sustainable' and then on the other 'there's nothing sacred or special about the natural world- we're humans and we should control it by any means neccessary'

It sounds extremely uncertain and it sounds like two parties of the technate covering each other's asses.

[Ele'ill]

New life isn't significant in itself in every situation- I can open a wound on my leg and offer new life to being growing and multiplying but that's probably the last place (on earth) that I would want that specific stuff to be thriving.

[Technocrat]

Some futurism for you:

Could the Northern Rim be the next superpower?
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Canada+world+superpower+waiting/3526942/story.html

Could Antarctica eventually be the only habitable continent?
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/why-antarctica-will-soon-be-the-ionlyi-place-to-live--literally-561947.html

[Summerspeaker]

Various folks have tried to recast climate change as a positive because of the potential of warmer world to support more life. Maybe, but I suspect the disruption caused by such a relatively sudden shift would outweigh any long-term benefits. We don't really know enough about how the atmosphere functions to rule out the possibility of extremely bad outcomes (http://www.amazon.com/Six-Degrees-Future-Hotter-Planet/dp/142620213X).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I can't read the article right now but it would imply that areas that were once too cold or covered in permafrost are now not- and thus plants are starting to grow in colder areas.

This is not necessarily a good thing.

Vegetation makes for better carbon sinks than barren deserts. This, along with life's proven archealogical record of being very good at surviving, implies that the Earth's biosphere has a significant ability to correct for deviations from this eon's climatic norm. Aside from bacteria, plants are among the planet's most responsive branches of life.


And kill hundreds and thousands of species which will absolutely devastate the biosphere in ways we know and in ways we cannot even yet imagine.

We have to face the fact that our presence on this planet is going to have an effect - now, we can either wail and gnash our teeth while mortifying our flesh in penance for abusing Mother Earth (spread doomtacular apocalyptic tales about Gaia's Revenge and try to get everyone to move towards a subsistence lifestyle - good luck with that by the way), or we can grow up, realise that the universe is not here for our pleasure, and take matters into our own hands for purposes other than short-sighted profit.

Whatever we choose to do, species are going to become extinct. We at least have the potential to be more judicious than nature as to what goes extinct, but that would be for our benefit, not the Earth's - whether that "benefit" is increased human happiness or the fulfilment of some quasi-religious commitment to a deified Nature.

The only way for humans to have no more further impact on Earth is for us to move away, which isn't happening any time soon, and certainly not soon enough for my liking.


This brings up the issue of sentience and animal rights. Those that kill hundreds and thousands of species for industry yet berate those that fight dogs and roosters.

Pain and conflict don't make sausages tastier, but they are central to the experience of animal fights. There's a well-known correlation between sadism directed towards animals and psychopathy - no such correlation exists for those who eat meat or wear fur.


I find it a bit dishonest of you to suggest that such radical changes in such a short amount of time can be 'positive' and I find it more alarming that there is a trend from the technocrats to belittle or dismiss those critical of human impact.

Do you know what it looks like when there's very little input from environmentalists? We're living it now. Meltdowns, oil spills, perpetual toxic waste dumpage so on and so forth.

If we listened to environmental scientists more often, then doubtless the world would be a better place. If we listened to most environmentalists however, the world would be in a far worse situation than now. This is is because environmentalists aren't actually scientists, rather they cloak themselves with a sciencey-looking halo in order to gain legitimacy with the general public, their real audience.


It seems that on one hand there's a 'we will get it right, technocracy will be sustainable' and then on the other 'there's nothing sacred or special about the natural world- we're humans and we should control it by any means neccessary'

It sounds extremely uncertain and it sounds like two parties of the technate covering each other's asses.

There's nothing contradictory about those two statements. In any case we're going to have an impact on the environment; so let's at least ensure that impact is controllable as well as sustainable.

[Klaatu]

...but the above articles suggest that climate change may in fact help rather than hinder such efforts - hotter air can carry more moisture, increased atmospheric CO2 encourages plant growth, and if the excess CO2 really is a problem then we can help things along by allowing/encouraging the new plant matter to form peat and other natural carbon sinks.

There is the argument that increasing atmospheric CO2 level will increase plant growth (thus food crop yields)
CO2 is usually the limiting reactant in the photosynthesis reaction, given sufficient water, sunlight, etc.

I don't doubt that that argument has some merit. After all, we must feed nearly seven billion mouths...



This is is because environmentalists aren't actually scientists, rather they cloak themselves with a sciencey-looking halo in order to gain legitimacy with the general public, their real audience.

Where is your proof that environmentalists know nothing of science? In fact, the average enviro has a much keener knowledge of science than the average sit-at-home hillbilly NASCAR watcher... Or the average Bible-thumping bloviator... Or the average politician pot-smoker...

I personally have connections with some of this country's top research scientists on the topic of air pollution, for example.
Therefore I take offense to your misguided remark.

[Amphictyonis]

I don't think that is true about trees. Come on! This is biology 101. Trees (like most plants) get their biomass through photosynthesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis)which CO2 is taken in and Oxygen is released.

However, it makes sense that algae produces more oxygen just because their is much more algae than other plant matter (because oceans make up most of the earth surface).

And when water from the ocean evaporates oxygen is released to the atmosphere. But so are all the chemicals we dump into the ocean.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Where is your proof that environmentalists know nothing of science?

Asking me to prove a negative, nice. Unfortunately for you, evidence doesn't work that way.


In fact, the average enviro has a much keener knowledge of science than the average sit-at-home hillbilly NASCAR watcher... Or the average Bible-thumping bloviator... Or the average politician pot-smoker...

The average enviro only knows as much as their affiliated environmental organisation can be bothered to tell them. I see this all the time, especially with regards to nuclear power - green orgs will give sermons to their flock about the evils of radiation, yet remain deathly silent on the fact that most exposure to radiation on the part of the general public is natural.

[Ele'ill]

Vegetation makes for better carbon sinks than barren deserts. This, along with life's proven archealogical record of being very good at surviving, implies that the Earth's biosphere has a significant ability to correct for deviations from this eon's climatic norm. Aside from bacteria, plants are among the planet's most responsive branches of life.

Archealogical records dating back to when and is their a trend developing which indicates a slow down in the biosphere's ability to 'self correct' and does that self correction involve correct in a manner that further eradicates species living in an area.

It is no longer self correcting for natural changes in the biosphere but is correcting for natural changes in the biosphere and our incompetent industrial presence within it.




We have to face the fact that our presence on this planet is going to have an effect - now, we can either wail and gnash our teeth while mortifying our flesh in penance for abusing Mother Earth (spread doomtacular apocalyptic tales about Gaia's Revenge and try to get everyone to move towards a subsistence lifestyle - good luck with that by the way), or we can grow up, realise that the universe is not here for our pleasure, and take matters into our own hands for purposes other than short-sighted profit.

We have to determine what the effect is going to be- what's sustainable. I think that growing up would involve the realization that much of our consumption (or what we consume for pleasure) isn't necessary and has an addictive and sedative quality to it. I think that a lot of the Global North's culture is useless.

We have to determine whether or not everyone having two tv's, three cars, plenty of oil, a case of beer a week, kid toys for their children, redwood floors and tables, so on and so forth is worth the expense of a degrading biosphere and worth the expense of entire species.

We've talked about this before and how there are currently ways to - for example- farm trees so that the forests are actually growing and increasing in size despite deforestation for things such as wood floors and tables etc.. my problem with this is that in the new world the entire global population will have the ability to have these things and while the profit motive will not be there the demand will be and it will be even larger than it is now.

This is just one example



Whatever we choose to do, species are going to become extinct. We at least have the potential to be more judicious than nature as to what goes extinct, but that would be for our benefit, not the Earth's - whether that "benefit" is increased human happiness or the fulfilment of some quasi-religious commitment to a deified Nature.

I'm in a rush right now as my roommate just ran out of gas (lol) and I have to pick them up.

The difference is that our industrial methods are creating mass extinctions at an alarming rate- far more so than what 'nature' would generally allow for. (ok, pending an asteroid collision and such)


The only way for humans to have no more further impact on Earth is for us to move away, which isn't happening any time soon, and certainly not soon enough for my liking.

With the shear numbers of us here on the planet- even a primitivist lifestyle has the potential to 'fuck shit up'- the difference again is this- is the industry necessary to survival or is it for pleasure. How can we allow for entire species to be killed off so that people can have hardwood floors (as an example)




Pain and conflict don't make sausages tastier, but they are central to the experience of animal fights. There's a well-known correlation between sadism directed towards animals and psychopathy - no such correlation exists for those who eat meat or wear fur.



If we listened to environmental scientists more often, then doubtless the world would be a better place. If we listened to most environmentalists however, the world would be in a far worse situation than now. This is is because environmentalists aren't actually scientists, rather they cloak themselves with a sciencey-looking halo in order to gain legitimacy with the general public, their real audience.



There's nothing contradictory about those two statements. In any case we're going to have an impact on the environment; so let's at least ensure that impact is controllable as well as sustainable.


I'll finish this up later- gotta jet!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Archealogical records dating back to when and is their a trend developing which indicates a slow down in the biosphere's ability to 'self correct' and does that self correction involve correct in a manner that further eradicates species living in an area.

It is no longer self correcting for natural changes in the biosphere but is correcting for natural changes in the biosphere and our incompetent industrial presence within it.

Indeed. But despite our runaway success as a species of large land mammal I don't think our presence so far has been significantly worse than any of the catalogue of what we call natural disasters that have occurred so far - the biosphere has survived sudden events of global impact such as asteroid strikes or supervolcano eruptions, as well as slower turns into less favourable conditions such as global ice ages or volcanic flooding from mantle plumes (which left their mark in the form of geological formations such as the Deccan and Siberian traps).

As mass extinction events go, we're pretty genteel.


We have to determine what the effect is going to be- what's sustainable. I think that growing up would involve the realization that much of our consumption (or what we consume for pleasure) isn't necessary and has an addictive and sedative quality to it. I think that a lot of the Global North's culture is useless.

We have to determine whether or not everyone having two tv's, three cars, plenty of oil, a case of beer a week, kid toys for their children, redwood floors and tables, so on and so forth is worth the expense of a degrading biosphere and worth the expense of entire species.

We've talked about this before and how there are currently ways to - for example- farm trees so that the forests are actually growing and increasing in size despite deforestation for things such as wood floors and tables etc.. my problem with this is that in the new world the entire global population will have the ability to have these things and while the profit motive will not be there the demand will be and it will be even larger than it is now.

The thing is, we have a truly enormous capacity to do a whole lot more with a whole lot less. Even within the context of the capitalist price system, there is much we can do (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Factor-Four-Doubling-Halving-Resource/dp/1853834068) - and we can do so much more if and when we get the opportunity to reshape our civilisation in a more sustainable and egalitarian mold - without sacrificing quality of life for most Northerners and in the process greatly improving the lot of the global South.

For example, take transportation. Cities built mostly for the benefit of fossil-fueled private vehicles are clearly unsustainable. But we don't have to build cities that way! There is no physical reason why we cannot have cities built around public transport, electrically powered by nuclear and renewables. Even then, small motorised vehicles need not completely disappear. If they are needed for any reason, who needs petroleum-guzzling private motors, when one can simply borrow any of a variety of electric, hydrogen or biogas-powered vehicles from a communal motorpool? Such an arrangement would avoid the current absurd situation where large numbers of people possess their own vehicle, or even multiple vehicles, which spend most of their time sitting on the kerb doing fuck-all. It would enable any qualified operator to use a vehicle specific to their current situation without requiring every home to waste space on garages and parking spaces, and do so with much, much fewer vehicles, eliminating a truly enormous amount of obscene waste that characterises the current mode of production.

And that's just transportation. Our current relationship to food is currently just as dysfunctional if not more so, with the current system being truly breathtaking in the sheer amount of waste and spoilage occurring; we currently produce enough food to feed everyone in the world twice over - hats off to Norman Borlaug! - but with the shameful qualifier that people still go to bed hungry and that most of the food is wasted, not because of our innate venality, but because otherwise food would be too cheap! I don't know about you, but that strikes me as completely and utterly insane, and only possible in a world where the bottom line is more important than human welfare, and where society is guided not by some noble endeavour to make life better and better for everyone, but by the profit and loss accounts of utterly amoral organisations where psychopathy ensures a quick rise to the top.

I'm not going to belabour the point any more; suffice to say that I have very many good reasons to believe that the problem ultimately lies not with consumption, but how that consumption is served.


The difference is that our industrial methods are creating mass extinctions at an alarming rate- far more so than what 'nature' would generally allow for. (ok, pending an asteroid collision and such)

Pending? Life has managed to claw it's way back from multiple asteroid strikes and global ice ages throughout Earth's history, so I don't think we need worry about keeping the biosphere intact unless we come close to doing something really stupid like melting the Earth's crust. What's more important is maintaining Earth as a home fit for our species, and by necessity this entails an amount of due care and attention greater than we are currently serving. But it need not entail the dismantling of industrial society.


With the shear numbers of us here on the planet- even a primitivist lifestyle has the potential to 'fuck shit up'- the difference again is this- is the industry necessary to survival or is it for pleasure. How can we allow for entire species to be killed off so that people can have hardwood floors (as an example)

People in general don't want hardwood floors in particular - that's a demand created by markets. What people really want (and need) is nice flooring for their home, which could be made out a variety of sustainable materials - hemp, flax, wool, animal skins, concrete, smooth stone, toughened glass, recycled plastic, vulcanised rubber, etc etc.

[Klaatu]

(Klaatu) "Where is your proof that environmentalists know nothing of science?"


Asking me to prove a negative, nice. Unfortunately for you, evidence doesn't work that way.
I guess that classifies your statement as being only one subjective opinion.


The average enviro only knows as much as their affiliated environmental organisation can be bothered to tell them.

Not necessarily so. I am a member of an organization in which myself and others do a lot of research and fact-finding.
And everyone is knowledgeable on all of our agenda, as we openly share information with each other.

It is simply wrong-headed to claim that everyone who supports a certain ideology within such and such group is just
an ignorant puppet. Perhaps you have seen these things, but I have seen otherwise.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Not necessarily so. I am a member of an organization in which myself and others do a lot of research and fact-finding.

Googling articles on the internet doesn't count. Do you have a lab? Do you know the basics of a controlled experiment that is a fair test? Do you do any fieldwork? What papers have you published?

[Lord Testicles]

I don't think that is true about trees. Come on! This is biology 101. Trees (like most plants) get their biomass through photosynthesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis)which CO2 is taken in and Oxygen is released.


Deciduous trees will likely be responsible for the production of CO2 during the autumn and winter months so their net contribution might be lower than you think.

[Klaatu]

Googling articles on the internet doesn't count.

Sure it does, when the research papers are published by scientists from universities, etc.

I am actually a "research-paper researcher." I don't do experiments myself, although I do teach.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Sure it does, when the research papers are published by scientists from universities, etc.

I am actually a "research-paper researcher." I don't do experiments myself, although I do teach.

Really? In that case then I'm a fucking researcher as well! :rolleyes: Where do I pick up my shiny certificate to hang up on my wall?

[Klaatu]

Really? In that case then I'm a fucking researcher as well! :rolleyes: Where do I pick up my shiny certificate to hang up on my wall?

Oh c'mon now. A "researcher" is simply someone that seeks out information. A reseacher does not necessarily have to be
someone that has a lab and does experiments.

For example, a private investigator or police detective "does research" on his case.

Have you ever written a "research paper" in college? You go out sleuthing for facts to write your paper, or submit these
facts to someone that can use them. That is the definition of "researcher." It does not necessarily require expertise either.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So you admit you don't actually do science, but just crib the work of people who do.

Aside from your teaching, what is it that you do that sets you apart from what journalists are supposed to do?

[Klaatu]

but just crib the work of people who do.


I don't know what that means. Do you mean that I plagiarize? :confused:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't know what that means. Do you mean that I plagiarize? :confused:

No, I mean that you ride the coat-tails of those doing the real work.

[Klaatu]

Anything wrong with collecting links to papers already published online, and posting those links all in one place,
so that others can easily access them? I've contributed to this list of papers on air particulates:

http://burningissues.org/forum/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=15&sid=f8602fc701556381253ebe5c859dd2eb

This is "riding coat-tails?" Or is it "performing a public service?"

I like to help people be informed of their civil rights and health rights. That is why I am a Marxist.
(i'm going to put that into my signature right now)

[Summerspeaker]

I'm rather confused by this attack on environmentalism as a whole. That's a awfully large group of people - a number of them radical leftists and many more fairly sympathetic - to indict.

As far as scientists go, remember that they're just people like anybody else. I turned away from that path myself, but I have considerable personal experience with researchers. Because of specialization, they're not necessarily well-informed about even the broader scientific picture, much less about any social or political considerations.

[Klaatu]

As far as scientists go, remember that they're just people like anybody else. I turned away from that path myself, but I have considerable personal experience with researchers. Because of specialization, they're not necessarily well-informed about even the broader scientific picture, much less about any social or political considerations.

You bring up an important point. The (scientist) researchers themselves are very busy doing the laboratory work. It is people like myself, an air pollution activist, that bridge the link between these scientists and the general public, and even more importantly, the authorities. The average government regulator is probably not as well-informed as the scientists and we activists. For example, we can all thank Ralph Nader for pushing for safer cars. We can thank Rachel Carson for bringing many environment issues into the public conscienceness. Hell we can thank Hollywood for making movies like "On the Beach" and "Kiss Me Deadly" for convincing the clueless public* of the inherent dangers of nuclear radiation.

*back in the 1950s, when the US government claimed that nuclear-type military ordnance was no big deal - really!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm rather confused by this attack on environmentalism as a whole. That's a awfully large group of people - a number of them radical leftists and many more fairly sympathetic - to indict.

The "radical leftists" are a minority, in case you haven't noticed. Environmentalism is no longer the "totally radical" anti-establishment wheeze that it used to be, it has now been appropriated by the ruling class for their own agendas. This is demonstrated by the fact of green parties running in bourgeois elections.

Not only that, but just because some of them are radical leftists, does not mean they are immune to being misinformed.


As far as scientists go, remember that they're just people like anybody else. I turned away from that path myself, but I have considerable personal experience with researchers. Because of specialization, they're not necessarily well-informed about even the broader scientific picture, much less about any social or political considerations.

Which is why I pay less attention to what individual scientists say and more attention to what the field as a whole is saying.

Hence why I accept anthropogenic climate change, but I refuse to be cowed by green activists and other doom-mongers constantly playing up the worst potential effects of global warming. Not only is it dishonest, but it also hurts their own cause - if you constantly preach that the world is going to end, but in the eyes of the public you're speaking to, the world is most definately not going to hell in a handbasket, then you're going to lose a lot of credibility.

Not only that, but now we have a global recession on our hands and politicos and businessmen are itching to enact the kind of austerity measures that enviros have been calling to for ages. Once people, especially the less well-off, start feeling the pinch of these measures, I don't think you're going to get anywhere by telling them to "consume less" - which is a mantra that seems common to the environmental movement, along with "there are too many people", which ignores the fact that the world's wealth is unevenly distributed.


You bring up an important point. The (scientist) researchers themselves are very busy doing the laboratory work. It is people like myself, an air pollution activist, that bridge the link between these scientists and the general public, and even more importantly, the authorities. The average government regulator is probably not as well-informed as the scientists and we activists. For example, we can all thank Ralph Nader for pushing for safer cars. We can thank Rachel Carson for bringing many environment issues into the public conscienceness. Hell we can thank Hollywood for making movies like "On the Beach" and "Kiss Me Deadly" for convincing the clueless public* of the inherent dangers of nuclear radiation.

*back in the 1950s, when the US government claimed that nuclear-type military ordnance was no big deal - really!

For every Ralph Nader there are dozens of politically-minded activists pretending at science who are willing to lie and distort the facts (http://futurejacked.blogspot.com/2007/09/more-lies-greenpeace-has-told-me.html) about their chosen target.

[Ele'ill]

I think you're painting anybody that criticizes industry as inferior. Most of the radical leftist environmentalists hate Green Peace more than you do. Green Peace is not an extension of the 'radical left'.

[Summerspeaker]

Those supposed lies are debatable points of view almost certainly offered in good faith. The hundreds of thousands of years (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/radwaste.html) thing is true for high-level waste according to the U.S. NRC. And nuclear power definitely enables weapons programs - in their origins the two can hardly be separated.

My primitivist comrades dislike Greenpeace on the basis that the organization has gotten soft as of late. Make of that what you will. I don't know a great deal about them myself.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think you're painting anybody that criticizes industry as inferior. Most of the radical leftist environmentalists hate Green Peace more than you do. Green Peace is not an extension of the 'radical left'.

I never said it was - read my post again. I said that radical leftists are a minority, so it's hardly likely that they would be represented by a major mainstream organisation such as Greenpeace.


Those supposed lies are debatable points of view almost certainly offered in good faith. The hundreds of thousands of years (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/radwaste.html) thing is true for high-level waste according to the U.S. NRC.

The longer lasting radioisotopes are the weakest in radioactive intensity.


And nuclear power definitely enables weapons programs - in their origins the two can hardly be separated.

Wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle#Advantages_as_a_nuclear_fuel). Thorium, which is three times as abundant as uranium, cannot be made into nuclear explosives.

[Summerspeaker]

Wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle#Advantages_as_a_nuclear_fuel). Thorium, which is three times as abundant as uranium, cannot be made into nuclear explosives.

Thorium technology is interesting but it's relatively rare and not what most of us think of as nuclear power. I doubt Greenpeace was talking about thorium - I certainly wasn't.

[B0LSHEVIK]

I didnt read any of the prior comments. But on the OP question, is the Earth getting greener?

No. Deserts are growing in a process known as desertification which is aided by man's own destructive agricultural practices. But that is in the short run, ie next 100-250 years. The overall impact of anthropogenic climate change are pretty uncertain. For all we know our bad habits today might spark a steamy neo-jurassic tommorow! (not literally, think over thousands years maybe).

But no the earth is not getting greener, not currently.

[B0LSHEVIK]

I didnt read any of the prior comments. But on the OP question, is the Earth getting greener?

No. Deserts are growing in a process known as desertification which is aided by man's own destructive agricultural practices. But that is in the short run, ie next 100-250 years. The overall impact of anthropogenic climate change are pretty uncertain. For all we know our bad habits today might spark a steamy neo-jurassic tommorow! (not literally, think over thousands years maybe).

But no the earth is not getting greener, not currently.