Scientists call for rethink on consumption, population

[MindMover]

Last edited Wed Apr 25, 2012, 07:58 PM - Edit history (1)

(Reuters) - Scientists have called for a radical rethink of our relationship with the planet to head off what they warn could be economic and environmental catastrophe.

In a report published on Thursday by the London-based Royal Society, an international group of 23 scientists chaired by Nobel laureate Sir John Sulston called for a rebalancing of consumption in favor of poor countries coupled with increased efforts to control population growth to lift the estimated 1.3 billion people living on less than $1.25 a day out of poverty.

"Over the next 30-40 years the confluence of the challenges described in this report provides the opportunity to move towards a sustainable economy and a better world for the majority of humanity, or alternatively the risk of social, economic and environmental failures and catastrophes on a scale never imagined," the scientists said.

The 133-page report, which Sulston describes as a summary of work done over the last two years, comes against a backdrop of austerity-hit governments reducing subsidies for renewable energy, global car companies falling over themselves to meet demand for new cars in rapidly growing economies like China and Brazil, and increasing pressure to exploit vast reserves of gas locked in rocks around the globe through the controversial process known as ‘fracking'.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-science-consumption-idUSBRE83O1J120120425


Poll Question: Do you think our current political environment can react to climate change?
If No, do you have any suggestions to effect change

8 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	1 (13%)
	No
	7 (88%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[mike_c]

1. voted no, and the fix is rather obvious, but entirely impossible....

We have to assign higher priority to environmental protection and sustainability, instead of profitability and business. It will never happen. Garrett Hardin was entirely correct.

Still one of the most prescient and depressing papers of the twentieth century: The Tragedy of the Commons.

[izquierdista]

2. There is a way out

We need to reforest the planet. More trees cool the earth and turn atmospheric CO2 into biomass. They also increase the local humidity, making the water cycle work to the advantage of growing plants. This increase in humidity leads to an increase in cloud cover and it has been calculated that a 2% increase in cloud cover over the surface of the Earth would reflect enough solar radiation back into space to counter the effect of the increased CO2 level. Global warming is NOT a one-parameter problem with atmospheric CO2 as the only parameter.

Replanting mangroves along tropical coastlines will lessen the effects of rising sea levels. Replanting the Sahel will provide fodder for animals and food for people. It may even be possible to replant the Sahara with species that can survive on less than 4" of rain a year. Replanting can even extend to the Arctic; it is now warm enough in Greenland that experimental tree farms are yielding a timber harvest. In the United States, it would mean replacing much of the riparian forests in the plains states and increasing the density of plants in the desert southwest. It is possible, but it gets done one tree at a time, covering 100 square feet at a time.

The effects of deforestation are well known. North Korea is one of the most deforested countries on the planet. Decades of people foraging for firewood and anything edible has wiped out most of the ecosystem. Unfortunately, the effects of deforestation take a long time to manifest themselves and reforestation requires much planting and then letting it grow for several years. If Kim Jong Un started tomorrow planting millions of trees, maybe in another decade there would be adequate firewood, building lumber, fruits, nuts, and other forest products that could support his population.

It's not something that any one government can do, but it is something where every person can do his share. To do a worldwide level of reforestation would require much effort, on the order of trillions of trees. As a point of comparison, approximately 7 trillion beverage cans are consumed worldwide in a year. Now, if we could just get Bubba to plant a tree every time he opens a beer.....

[RobertEarl]

3. can react?

Sure it can, and eventually it will react. But will it act to alleviate the worst changes before it gets worse? Maybe.

As for me, i saw this coming 30 years ago and have not reproduced any RE's and have reduced consumption to about $20 a day. And i still live better than 90% of the rest of us 7 billion.

All the while watching the politicians and most Americans ignore the writing on the wall.

Cheerios!

[kenny blankenship]

4. Nothing will happen on climate change in the US

until there is a democratic transformation of our political system. Even then, it won't always be easy convincing people that they may have to endure some harsh changes, and they may have to sacrifice some, to avoid disaster for their children and childrens' children. The outcome is uncertain at best. In fact it is dismal. But until money is chased out of our political system there is no chance whatever.

The choice as always is Socialism or Barbarism, but now the choice and the consequences of failing to choose is getting quite a bit more stark and desperate.