James Lovelock: We Can’t Save the Planet, it’s Too Late

30 Mar 2010. Lovelock: ‘We can’t save the planet’. Professor James Lovelock, the scientist who developed Gaia theory, has said it is too late to try and save the planet. BBC Radio.

Below is a summary, the full audio interview is at the BBC article above.

The man who achieved global fame for his theory that the whole earth is a single organism now believes that we can only hope that the earth will take care of itself in the face of completely unpredictable climate change.

Interviewed by Today presenter John Humphrys, videos of which you can see below, he said that while the earth’s future was utterly uncertain, mankind was not aware it had “pulled the trigger” on global warming as it built its civilizations.

What is more, he predicts, the earth’s climate will not conveniently comply with the models of modern climate scientists.

As the record winter cold testifies, he says, global temperatures move in “jerks and jumps”, and we cannot confidently predict what the future holds.

‘The world doesn’t change its climate conveniently’

Prof Lovelock does not pull his punches on the politicians and scientists who are set to gain from the idea that we can predict climate change and save the planet ourselves.

Scientists, he says, have moved from investigating nature as a vocation, to being caught in a career path where it makes sense to “fudge the data”.

‘Science has changed in our lifetime’

And while renewable energy technology may make good business sense, he says, it is not based on “good practical engineering”.

Renewable technology ‘doesn’t really work’

At the age of 90, Prof Lovelock is resigned to his own fate and the fate of the planet. Whether the planet saves itself or not, he argues, all we can do is to “enjoy life while you can”.

Posted in World's Best Scientists | Comments Off on James Lovelock: We Can’t Save the Planet, it’s Too Late

Greg Craven: What’s the Worst that Could Happen?

Greg Craven. 15 Dec 2010. What’s the Worst That Could Happen? A Veteran of the Climate Change Culture Wars Explains Why America Isn’t Listening and What To Do About It. American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting.

Nothing we’ve done has worked. Giving information hasn’t worked. Climate crusades haven’t worked. Striving for social change hasn’t worked. Pleading on behalf of future generations, and all the other species on the planet which are threatened by the next great extinction from us–on the magnitude of the Permian extinction, where over 90% of every organism on the world perished.

If you share even a pale shade of that sentiment, it is your supreme moral duty to come down into the fray and fight for your life, your kids’ lives, and our life, because the civilization that has so generously granted you your position–make no mistake–your position of extreme privilege in the history of humankind, the privilege of pursuing your own selfish gratification in the pleasure of finding things out. . . . That civilization is teetering over the precipice, staring down into the abyss. You must be the hand that reaches out, grabs hold, and pulls us back from the brink of extinction. The hand of a hero. You.

Full article:

This is not a talk. This is a primal scream. For help. For salvation. For the lives of my children. And I will not apologize. I will not yield. I will charge the stage and scream my message if I must. I am in the zone. I am over the edge. I am gone. I am enlightened. I am maniacal. I am insane. I am terrified at what I have just become. All of my life has been to serve this single moment. And you may need to forcibly remove me to the hospital, screaming like a madman. But you will not stop me. For I have revelation to bring.

I am a fanatic of science. I love you, and what you do. What I bring you is the loving but eviscerating criticism of the outsider looking in. So I’m going to give you the gift of brutal frankness. Because you have done an abhorrent job at communicating climate change to the public so far. Because what you’ve been giving them up to now, as a scientist, is information. And with the terrifying divergence between public opinion and scientific opinion in the last few years, with public opinion in the U.S. plummeting over the last several years, that strategy clearly is not working.

So it is time for a radical change in tactics. [Applause.]

Don’t applaud just yet, I’m about to call you insane. [Mild laughter.]

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. And I’m sorry you have to hear this, but it’s best to come from a friend. You have become insane. You have brought them information when they needed emotion. What you must bring them now, as a citizen, as a father, as a mother, as an aunt, as a grandparent, who knows better than anyone else what the physical world will bring in the future, you must give them yourself.

This talk was supposed to be about becoming better communicators about climate change. My answer to the question “What can be done about it?”—about America not listening—was “You must become better communicators by understanding the psychology of the individual, the foibles of the brain, how they are exploited by the ruthless denial machine, and how we can work with that.”

And in short order I’d vomited up 20,000 words, just to give the briefest of overviews. I am filled with it. But when the hard drive with the only copy of my speech text on it crashed at 1 a.m. this morning, I realized, thankfully, that that would have been the wrong speech to give. Tragically ineffective.  Because I realized, as the result of two watershed conversations yesterday, one with a marketing expert on the plane, and one with an atmospheric chemist at dinner, that my message to you now is that you must stop communicating as scientists. You must begin communicating as citizens, as a father, as a mother, with whatever feelings are in your heart, with your fears, speak to them of your hopes, let them know about your befuddlement at the divergence. And tell them frankly, forthrightly, sincerely, about any terror that you are ignoring, with your head down, soldiering on, hoping that someone, somewhere, sometime will fix the problem.

Well I’ve got sober news for you. You, in this room, in this community of science—you are that someone. You are the ones we have been waiting for. You are the last battle reserves in civilization’s last stand. And you damn well need to saddle up and come down off that hill as the cavalry, to turn the tide of battle when all hope seems lost. So sound your bugle call and come down into the bloody fray.

My journey in climate change has gone from dawning realization, to “holy shit!” to terror and fierce urgency to protect my children, and now sadly, inevitably, to despair. And to leaving the ship to itself, to build my lifeboat for my family, before what others have wrought take us below the icy water. You say you want to have an effect on the public? If you trod a journey at all similar to mine, think, visualize, take five minutes to meditate on the impact it would have if you took off your goddamned scientist hat for just a moment, and put on your citizen hat. And said frankly to the public through the largest mouthpiece you can: “As a scientist, here’s my understanding. As a citizen, here’s my hope, my vision. And as a mother, here’s my contingency plan, here’s my lifeboat.”

If you obliterated your comfort zone and the hard line of purity of your scientific sensibilities–that you do cling to, with the faith of a god–and you actually went forth as an actual advocate, a sentiment normally anathema to the constitution of a scientist, imagine if you went out into the fray bearing your heart, with your emotion and the authority of your understanding as your weapon. For what you’ve been giving them as a scientist up to now is information, and with that increasing divergence between public and scientific opinion, we must change.

Shall we continue with that? You have been insane. . . . Please—come back to the world. Nothing we’ve done has worked. Giving information hasn’t worked. Climate crusades haven’t worked. Striving for social change hasn’t worked. Pleading on behalf of future generations, and all the other species on the planet which are threatened by the next great extinction from us–on the magnitude of the Permian extinction, where over 90% of every organism on the world perished. Despite all our hopes, even finally getting an enlightened leader, who gets it, who gets the problem, and installs a perfect team of science advisors. Even that hasn’t worked, and that seemed our last best hope. In fact we’ve gone backwards.

So . . . what hope do we have left? You. And the gravitas that your scientific authority brings you. It is an unbearable burden to you, I know. It is inconceivable to you. It is anathema.

But sometimes burdens that cannot be borne must be borne, because there is no remaining option. That moment is now.

I went through the harshest, most unimaginable hell doing my climate change crusade over the last three years. Three and a half years ago I posted a single innocuous video on YouTube—a ten minute whiteboard lecture drawing a decision grid for risk analysis, proposing how confused but sincere laypeople can possibly make sense out of the shouting match about climate change when they don’t have the expertise, they don’t have the time, they don’t have the training, and they’ve got to get their kids to school. I gave the URL of that video to exactly 153 people: my students, on the last day of the school year. The following Monday it had 10,000 views. As of now, three and a half years later, it has over 8 million.

If you harness the power of the viral–if you design whatever best, most authentic message you can from your heart and your fears and your intellect, and you insert into that message “Please—pass this on. And when you do, tell them to pass it on, and preserve that message. . . .” Then you touch ten people, they each touch ten people, and as I’m sure you’re aware, in just 5 steps that’s over 100,000 people that have been touched. By you. That is power. Claim it.

The reason it was hell for three and half years is because I was also a teacher. And I was supposed to be a father, and a husband, although I abrogated all three of those responsibilities to work through the night, every night, for weeks and months at the end. Abusing my body with a case of red bull every 24 hours, and sleeping 2 hours, and then continuing. Because I had that fierce urgency that the time has passed. That with the inertia of policy, of social change, of energy infrastructure, of the collapse of carbon emissions, and of the inertia of the climate system, by the time you realize it is your last stand, by the time you can identify what is indeed your last chance—because we’ve been saying it for years, devaluing its effect—it is in the past. It can only be identified with certainty in hindsight.

And you’ve got to know: the public requires certainty before making a decision. They misunderstand the basic nature of science, and that science cannot provide certainty–it can only provide “good enough to go on.” So tell them that. Unhitch them from the con man in their brains that keeps them holding on to something that they can never get from science, which is “The Answer.”

So why did I go through that hell? Why did I knowingly and deliberately choose to inflict grievous harm to my wife, my children, and my health? Why did I do it? You might guess I did it for the security of my daughters. You might guess I did it for personal satisfaction. Or ego. You might guess I did it for moral absolution so that I could say I did all I could. But the brutal fact is: I did it because I couldn’t not do it. Every minute of every day I realized that I was constitutionally incapable of not doing this, because it concerned my two beautiful daughters and their safety. Because the decision to have kids is the decision to have your heart walking around raw outside of you for the rest of your life. And I discovered that I have a Papa Bear button and I will go through anything, I will sacrifice anything, I will bear the impossible and destroy anything that gets between me and their safety. And at this point in the game, I will abandon ship and run for the lifeboat with my family to create what resilience I can for me and mine.

How tragic, how sad, how pathetic that I have come to that. But that pathos has power if it is shared in a way that no information, no data, no evidence can ever bring. You know it is the last stand when the hippie liberals start to collaborate with the survivalist nut jobs. And that’s happening right now. I’m a member of those discussion forums. (Don’t tell anyone please, especially my wife.) [Mild laughter.]

If you share even a pale shade of that sentiment, it is your supreme moral duty to come down into the fray and fight for your life, your kids’ lives, and our life, because the civilization that has so generously granted you your position–make no mistake–your position of extreme privilege in the history of humankind, the privilege of pursuing your own selfish gratification in the pleasure of finding things out. . . . That civilization is teetering over the precipice, staring down into the abyss. You must be the hand that reaches out, grabs hold, and pulls us back from the brink of extinction. The hand of a hero. You.

You must stop selfishly pursuing your pleasure in finding things out. To be frank: fuck your research. We. Need. You. I know I am almost certain to outrage you with my impertinence and the audacity of my message. And my word choice, for substituting ‘fuck for ‘screw’. [Mild laughter.] And that’s the lesson you must absorb into the fiber of your being, for the meaning of communication is not what you intend, or the information. The meaning of communication is the response it elicits in the listener. And that’s where we have failed. So while you may be likely to forget the details of my rant, you will always feel the emotional aftertaste of it. And that is the purpose of communicating the science of climate change to the lay public. To give them an emotional aftertaste.

Every single time I’ve spoken, and caused a huge emotional impact–I’ve had people come up to me crying, saying that’s the best speech they’ve ever heard in their lives, and I thought I had bombed the speech! I’d done it at the last minute, my script wasn’t complete, I’d fumbled it, I’d gone over time, I’d talked too fast. I was horrified. And people came up saying, “Thank you. You changed my life!” What the hell? What was going on? So I asked, a bunch. And they all said it was because I had opened my heart to them. Because I was authentic. Because I came alive when I was talking about my daughters.

Note: none of those are intellectual things. None of those are even information. The are not abstract, they are concrete. They are not in the future, they are in the present. They are now. They’re not a concern. They are a terror. They are a fierce and eviscerating urgency. What they are is impacting. What they are is the potential to spread like a virus and enlist an army to fight the war for civilization itself, and for you and your family along with it. You are not doing it for “the children.” You are doing it for your children.

Because you can’t not do it. Your role, your job–the one we have assigned you and gladly supported–has always been to stand on the hill overlooking the bloody battlefield and give reconnaissance and convey information about what’s ahead. But there comes a time in the last stand for every single support troop, no matter how far removed, to pick up a weapon, come down into the fray, and fight to the death for what they stand for. To charge into the face of annihilation itself and fight with their teeth, tearing out the jugular of their enemy with their bloody mouth if they have no weapons left. That time is now.

If you do not believe that, if you do not feel that, I challenge you to be intellectually honest–that part of you that you hold up as better than any other profession, and I support you in that opinion–you are the only rational thinkers on the planet. Beware, psychological research shows that people don’t generally make decisions rationally. If you don’t agree with this–that this is the time to radically challenge your comfort zone, and your traditional mores of never letting feelings or opinions on policy pass your lips–I’m not going say “If not now, then when?” I’m going to say: detail an operational definition of a test to test whether a situation would merit that extreme action or not. Come up with the characteristics. And then I defy you to compare them to the situation now. If you do that, forget everything I’ve said. I absolve you. That’s all I ask. But if your intellectually honest operational definition tells you that the time is now. . . .

You shall spill your blood. You shall soak the earth with your viscera. You shall scream the alarm until your throat runs raw. And then you shall pick up rocks and bang them together as the alarm until your hands become a bloody pulp. What shall be your future regrets if you choose? Will they be that you stood by, hopeful, desperate, unaffected, impotent while your children were slaughtered before you? Or will it be that you went too far, destroyed your career, your life, in your panic to save them?

This is your power. This is your purpose. This is your insignificant role in an infinite, uncaring universe. You will not be denied. You will charge the stage of the world and scream your message if you must. This is the most important thing here. This is the most important thing now. And I shall not yield. I shall not back down. I shall stand. And I will be heard. Because I have need to be all afire, for I have mountains of ice about me to melt.

Incidentally, nothing you can say critically after this can touch me. It’s strange to feel what it’s like to be inside the madman. I’ve always wondered. But it struck at 1 a.m. this morning. And I know what the face of god–which I don’t believe in–but this morning, for the first time in my life, I feel that level of faith: that this is what must be done.

[Sigh of relief that this exceedingly uncomfortable speech is done.]

I am Greg Craven. I am my daughter’s . . . [unable to speak] . . . I’m kind of exhausted. . . .

I am Greg Craven. Hear my name. I am my daughter’s father. On behalf of my children, please–I beseech you–and I thank you for your time. Sorry.

[Applause. Polite? Mildly enthusiastic? Scornful? Happy this ridiculously inappropriate rant is done? (I’m told this was the first time the word “fuck” has ever been used onstage at an AGU meeting, with hundreds of thousands of scientific presentations given over the decades.  So . . . I’ve got that going for me.)]

Posted in Extinction Experts | Comments Off on Greg Craven: What’s the Worst that Could Happen?

Martin Rees, cosmologist: Will the Human Race Survive the 21st Century?

In his book “Our final century: Will the Human Race Survive the Twenty-first Century?: Martin Rees gives us at 50/50 chance of making it to 2100.  He thinks we’ve been lucky to survive even the past 50 years.  Some of the ways in which he sees us driven extinct are:

  • Environmental degradation
  • Resource depletion
  • Terrorism / Bioterrorism
  • Destruction of the biosphere

Rees, like Ward and Gribbin, believes that we may be the only intelligent life in the universe, and therefore have a responsibility to carry on successfully and not drive ourselves extinct.

I disagree with Reese that nanotechnology or our experiments with high-speed particle collision experiments could drive us extinct, especially since the materials and energy to make computer chips and run these energy-intensive experiments is not going to exist much longer.  In the coming “Age of Wood” after Collapse, the ability to do research that advanced will simply be impossible.

I don’t agree with Rees about colonizing other worlds.  We simply don’t have a method of propulsion to do that, nor have we even figured out how to get humans to Mars and back without serious damage to their health.

Martin John Rees, Baron Rees of Ludlow, OM, FRS (born 23 June 1942 in York[1]) is a British cosmologist and astrophysicist. He has been Astronomer Royal since 1995 and Master of Trinity College, Cambridge since 2004. He was President of the Royal Society between 2005 and 2010.

Posted in World's Best Scientists | Tagged , | Comments Off on Martin Rees, cosmologist: Will the Human Race Survive the 21st Century?

Prince Charles warns of ‘sixth extinction event’

Louise Gray. 8 Sep 2011. Prince Charles warns of ‘sixth extinction event’.  Mankind faces extinction, the Prince of Wales has warned, unless humans transform our lifestyles to stop mass consumption, run away climate change and destruction of wildlife.  The Telegraph.

In his first speech as the new President of the Worldwide Wildlife Fund (WWF) UK, Prince Charles suggested ‘surviving ourselves’ should be a priority.

Referring to himself as “an endangered species”, he warned that the world is already in the “sixth extinction event”, with species dying out at a much faster rate than at any time since the death of most of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

Despite campaigning for years on global warming, he said climate change was not the only problem but merely speeding up the “rapacious” destruction of natural resources like water, land and food that humans need to survive.

The Prince said if the world carries on “business as usual” then the human race itself could be in danger.

“We are, of course, witnessing what some people call the sixth great extinction event – the continued erosion of much of the Earth’s vital biodiversity caused by a whole host of pressures, from the rising demand for land to the corrosive effects of all kinds of pollution,” he said. Related Articles

“This is an important point that needs to be stressed more than it is, because its ultimate impact is plainly not at all clear to most people – without the biodiversity that is so threatened, we won’t be able to survive ourselves.

Alluding to his “spiritual connection to nature”, the Prince said mankind must also protect other species from extinction.

“It may not seem to make much difference economically if the swallows, swifts and house martins no longer turn up each spring, but what would life be like if we just accepted their extinction because their habitats have been destroyed?

The Prince follows in the footsteps of his father the Duke of Edinburgh who was President of the UK arm of WWF UK before taking on the top role of the international organisation.

The Royal joked that as a “rare species” himself, he has always felt a close connection to the work of WWF.

“Perhaps I warmed to your work from such an early age because, from the outset, you stood up for endangered species!

The WWF was set up 50 years ago to protect endangered species like the panda but Prince Charles said that the challenge today is far greater.

He said the only way to protect wildlife and ultimately the humans who rely on these ‘ecosystem services’ is to transform the world economy so that growth is not at the expense of nature.

He referred to a “sustainability revolution” that would force people to change their lifestyles so they consume less petrol, food and other resources.

“History will not judge us by how much economic growth we achieve in the immediate years ahead, nor by how much we expand material consumption, but by the legacy for our grandchildren and their grandchildren,” he said. “We are consuming what is rightfully theirs by sacrificing long-term progress on the altar of immediate satisfaction. That is hardly responsible behaviour. There is an urgent need for all of us to concentrate our efforts on sustaining, nurturing and protecting the Earth’s natural capital and, moreover, reshaping our economic system so that Nature sits at the very heart of our thinking.

In a speech at St James’s Palace to environmentalists, staff the Prince warned that the WWF “may regret” taking him on.

He has faced criticism for his views on the environment and voiced frustration at the failure of governments to address the issue, but he insisted that by working together humanity will “perform remarkable feats of innovation to secure a stable environment”.

“As many of you will know, I have been harping on about these challenges for many years and although this leads to inevitable criticism from some quarters, I must tell you that I put up with it because the issues we face are so important. None of us must be afraid to be stand up and be counted.”

Posted in Extinction Experts | Tagged , | Comments Off on Prince Charles warns of ‘sixth extinction event’

Acid Oceans: how sea life is affected

April 30, 2014 Ocean acidity is dissolving shells of tiny snails off U.S. West Coast

Biologists have found the first evidence that acidity of continental shelf waters off the U.S. West Coast is dissolving the shells of tiny free-swimming marine snails, called pteropods, which provide food for pink salmon, mackerel and herring.

My comment: this is really scary, it means the destruction of the bottom of the food chain in the ocean is happening far sooner and faster than anyone expected!

N. Bednarek, et al. Limacina helicina shell dissolution as an indicator of declining habitat suitability owing to ocean acidification in the California Current Ecosystem. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2014; 281 (1785)

 

Hardt, M. J., Safina, Carl. Aug 2010. Threatening Ocean Life from the Inside Out. Carbon dioxide emissions are making the oceans more acidic, imperiling the growth and reproduction of species from plankton to squid.  Scientific American.

Threatening Ocean Life from the Inside Out

SLOW SPERM … now that’s a problem,” said Jonathan Havenhand, his British accent compounding the gravity of the message. “That means fewer fertilized eggs, fewer babies and smaller populations.” We were sharing a hilly cab ride along the glistening northern coast of Spain to attend an international symposium about the effects of climate change and excess atmospheric carbon dioxide on the world’s oceans. As researchers, we were concerned about the underappreciated effects of changing ocean chemistry on the cells, tissues and organs of marine species. In laboratory experiments at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, Havenhand had demonstrated that such changes could seriously impede the most fundamental strategy of survival: sex.

Ocean acidification–a result of too much carbon dioxide reacting with seawater to form carbonic acid–has been dubbed “the other CO2 problem.” As the water becomes more acidic, corals and animals such as clams and mussels have trouble building their skeletons and shells. But even more sinister, the acidity can interfere with basic bodily functions for all marine animals, shelled or not. By disrupting processes as fundamental as growth and reproduction, ocean acidification threatens the animals’ health and even the survival of species. Time is running out to limit acidification before it irreparably harms the food chain on which the world’s oceans–and people–depend.

RAPID SEA CHANGE

THE OCEAN’S INTERACTION with CO2 mitigates some climate effects of the gas. The atmospheric CO2 concentration is almost 390 parts per million (ppm), but it would be even higher it the oceans didn’t soak up 30 million tons of the gas every day. The world’s seas have absorbed roughly one third of all CO2 released by human activities. This “sink” reduces global warming– but at the expense of acidifying the sea. Robert H. Byrne of the University of South Florida has shown that in just the past 15 years, acidity has increased 6 percent in the upper 100 meters of the Pacific Ocean from Hawaii to Alaska. Across the planet, the average pH of the ocean’s surface layer has declined 0.12 unit, to approximately 8.1, since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

That change may not sound like much, but because the pH scale is logarithmic, it equates to a 30 percent increase in acidity. Values of pH measure hydrogen ions (H+) in solution. A value of 7.0 is neutral; lower values are increasingly acidic, and higher values are basic. Although 8.1 is mildly basic, the declining trend constitutes acidification. Marine life has not experienced such a rapid shift in millions of years. And paleontology studies show that comparable changes in the past were linked to widespread loss of sea life. It appears that massive volcanic eruptions and methane releases around 250 million years ago may have as much as doubled atmospheric CO2, leading to the largest mass extinction ever. More than 90 percent of all marine species vanished. A completely different ocean persisted for four million to five million years, which contained relatively few species.

If we continue to emit greenhouse gases at current rates, scientists estimate that atmospheric CO2 will reach 500 ppm by 2050 and 800 ppm by 2100. The pH of the upper ocean could drop to 7.8 or 7.7–as much as a 150 percent increase in acidity compared with preindustrial times.

Most people envision the ocean as a giant pool of water. But the ocean is more like a layer cake, with each layer created by unique combinations of salinity and temperature. The warmest and freshest (least salty) floats from the surface down 50 to 200 meters, sometimes deeper. Plentiful oxygen and sunlight support the blooming base of the food chain: single-celled phytoplankton that, like plants, use sunlight to create sugar. The phytoplankton nourish zoo-plankton–small animals ranging from minuscule shrimplike crustaceans to the larvae of giant fish. Zooplankton are eaten by small fish, which feed bigger animals, and so on.

Winds help to mix the surface and deeper layers, sending oxygen down and bringing nutrients up. But the flux of nutrients between surface and seafloor also occurs through the movement of animals, alive and dead. An extensive class of tiny crustaceans called copepods migrate every night, under the cover of darkness, from middle and even deep layers to the surface to dine on the banquet created by the day’s rays. Many fish and squid follow their movements, while deep dwellers wait for that bountiful food to rain down, in the form of sinking remains. As organisms rise and fall, they pass through waters with different pH values. But as acidification changes this pH profile, it could harm the organisms.

THE INSIDE ANGLE

AT THE SCALE of individual marine animals, acidification can force creatures to spend more energy on restoring and maintaining their internal pH balance, diverting energy away from important processes such as growth and reproduction.

Even small increases in seawater CO2 concentration can cause rapid diffusion into the bodies of water-breathing animals. Once inside, CO2 reacts with internal fluids, creating hydrogen ions, making the bodily fluids or tissue more acidic. Species employ various mechanisms to balance their internal pH. These actions include producing negative ions such as bicarbonate that soak up, or buffer, the extra hydrogen ions; pumping ions in and out of cells and intercellular spaces; and reducing metabolism to absorb fewer ions and “wait out” the period of high H+ concentration. But none of these mechanisms is meant to handle a sustained drop in pH. As an organism struggles to regain an acid-base balance, it sacrifices energy. Basic life functions such as synthesizing protein and maintaining a strong immune system can also become compromised.

Most species possess at least some buffer molecules. Fish and other active species stockpile them to reduce temporary pH declines that result from extended swimming bursts. Just like in a runner, muscles shift to anaerobic (nonoxygen based) metabolism during sprints, which uses up ATP (the main fuel molecule) more quickly, causing extra H+ ions to accumulate. But few species can stockpile enough buffering to last across extended timescales. If small pH changes occurred gradually over tens of thousands of years, a species might evolve adaptations, for example, by retaining chance generic mutations that result in greater production of butter molecules. But species generally cannot adapt to changes occurring over mere hundreds of years or less. Similar changes produced in the lab over days to weeks are lethal.

In past eras when CO2 concentrations rose, species with less well-buffered systems fared poorly. Declines in pH may especially harm deep sea species, whose stable environment leaves them ill equipped to adapt to change. (For this reason, proposed strategies to combat climate change by pumping large quantities of CO2 into the deep sea are worrisome; they could destabilize the habitats of a wide array of creatures.)

POOR GROWTH AND REPRODUCTION

THE INTERNAL EFFECTS of ocean acidification vary across different developmental stages of life. A small but growing body of research points to a variety of potential trouble.

Indeed, the very first spark of life–fertilization–can be affected. In the lab, scientists simulate acidification by pumping extra CO2 bubbles through seawater tanks. As Havenhand had explained during our cab ride, sperm of the Australian sea urchin Heliocidaris erythrogramma moved 16 percent less and swam 12 percent slower when experimenters lowered seawater pH by 0.4 (within the range predicted by 2100). Fertilization success dropped by 25 percent. In the wild, a 25 percent redaction could lead to significantly diminished adult populations over time. Although individual sea urchins release millions of sperm and eggs, the sperm do not remain viable for very long; they have to find and fertilize an egg within a few minutes. In a big, turbulent ocean, sluggish sperm may never reach their destination at all.

Acidification also thwarts early larval stages of several species. Samuel Dupont, down the hall from Havenhand at Gothenburg, exposed larvae of a temperate brittlestar a relative of the common sea star–to pH reduced by 0.2 to 0.4 unit. Many showed abnormal development, and fewer than 0.1 percent survived more than eight days. In another study, fewer embryos of the snail Littorina obtusata hatched when exposed to lower pH waters, and those that did hatch moved less frequently and more slowly than normal.

A change of 0.2 to 0.4 pH all at once is more dramatic than species in the wild are experiencing, and some species might be able to adapt to gradual change. But for others, the effects of even slight acidification come on strong and last. Scientists suspect ocean acidification explains recent mortality in larval oysters along the coast of Oregon, for example, sending some oyster growers scrambling to find enough babies to stay in business.

Adult animals suffer as well, especially when it comes to growth. Sea urchins and snails move slowly, but growing slowly is problematic. In 2005 researchers at Kyoto University in Japan determined that a CO2 concentration 200 ppm higher than today’s value, pumped into seawater for six months, reduced growth rates for the sea urchin species Henticentrotus pulcherrimus and Echinometra mathaei and for the strawberry conch Strombus lubuanu. The 200-ppm increase is equal to that predicted over the next lour to rive decades. Slowed growth leaves individuals smaller for longer, making them more susceptible to predators and potentially reducing their reproductive output.

Acidification also makes it harder for some phytoplankton species to absorb iron, a micronutrient critical for growth. Researchers at Princeton University indicate that a 0.3 pH decline could reduce phytoplankton iron uptake by 10 to 20 percent. In addition to being an important link in the food chain, phytoplankton produce vast amounts of oxygen that we breathe.

In other experiments, the sediment dwelling brittlestar Amphiura filiformis grew arms at greater rates under lower pH but lost significant muscle mass. Strong muscles are required for feeding, building burrows and escaping predators. A pH decline of 0.3 to 0.5 suppressed the immune system response of the common blue mussel within one month. Reduced strength, growth, immune function or reproduction can cause long-term population declines–bad news for the victims, as well as for the many other species (including humans) that rely on them for food and even habitat. Grazing by sea urchins, for example, helps to keep coral reefs and kelp forests healthy, and the mixing of sediments by the brittlestars’ movements is critical to making the sediments livable for many other species.

For some creatures, ocean acidification can simply mean the end. When a sample of copepod species common off the California coast (Paraeuchaeta elongata) was exposed to water that was 0.2 pH below normal, half of the organisms died within a week. The fish we prefer to eat, from tuna to salmon or striped bass, depend on an abundance of specific copepods to support the prey that supports them.

Several species of fish, such as the spotted wolffish (Anarhichas minor), have shown remarkable tolerance in the lab, because they maintain a relatively large stockpile of buffers and store extra oxygen in their tissue, which is handy because H+ ions interfere with the blood’s ability to absorb oxygen from the water. Even very adaptable fish, however, may struggle if their food supply dwindles. Other species are not so well prepared. Highly active squid, for example, have no oxygen stores–they use all they have all the time. Less oxygen in their blood would limit their ability to hunt, avoid predators and find mates. For the commercially important squid Illex illecebrosus, a pH drop of just 0.15 could cause significant harm.

The message of lab studies as well as the geologic record is that ocean acidification forces animals to struggle harder, which today they are already doing because of other human-induced stressors such as warming waters, pollution and overfishing.

ACID ADAPTATION?

LAB EXPERIMENTS PERSIST for weeks to months. Climate change occurs over decades and centuries. Some species could adapt, especially if the) have a short reproductive cycle. Each time an animal reproduces, genetic mutations can arise in the offspring that might help the next generation adjust to new circumstances. Ninety years– the predicted time frame for pH to decline by 0.3 to 0.5 unit–is extremely short, however, for genetic adaptation by species that reproduce at relatively slow rates and that may already be stressed by the 30 percent pH decrease. Species extinctions often result from slow declines over centuries or more; a decline of just 1 percent of individuals per generation could cause extinction in less than a century.

Alarmingly, the pH drop observed so far and the predicted trajectory under current emissions trends are 100 times faster than any changes in prior millennia. Left unchecked, CO2 levels will create a very different ocean, one never experienced by modern species.

Adaptation is even more unlikely because the effects of acidification, and the other struggles creatures face, interact. For example, increased CO2 levels can narrow the temperature range in which an individual can survive. We already see such constraints on corals and some algae, which become heat-stressed at lower temperatures than normal if exposed to higher CO2.

OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE

SCIENTISTS HAVE CONSISTENTLY underestimated rates of climate change, from Arctic ice melt to sea-level rise. Increasingly, experts recommend limiting atmospheric CO2 to prevent dangerous levels of global warming. But the targets should be set with ocean acidification in mind as well. Unabated acidification could completely restructure marine ecosystems, with cascading effects across the food chain. Some species might thrive on a new combination of plankton while others suffer, but there is no telling if the species that we depend on most (or like the best) will be the winners. The changes could also hurt tourism and erase potential pharmaceutical and biomedical resources.

Ocean acidification also changes the rules for the planet’s entire carbon cycle. Although the oceans now absorb a vast quantity of human emissions, the absorption rate slows as the sea-water CO2 concentration increases, and CO2 “backs up” at the sea surface. As a result, atmospheric CO2 concentration will rise even faster, accelerating global weather changes.

Such consequences warrant emissions targets that limit pH declines to no more than 0.1 over the next century. More and more, reducing the atmospheric CO2 level to 350 ppm seems like the rational target. Stabilizing at 450 ppm by 2100, as some have suggested, could perhaps keep an additional pH decline to 0.1. But even that number could doom coral reefs and make it impossible for some animals to build shells, especially in the Southern Ocean, which encircles Antarctica. Because of its cold temperatures and unique circulation patterns, the Southern Ocean will start dissolving shell and skeletal structures sooner than other oceans. It is far easier to prevent further acidification than to reverse changes once they occur; natural buffering systems would need hundreds to thousands of years to restore pH to preindustrial levels.

What can be done? For a start, the Obama administration should enact a National Ocean Policy–the first ever for the U.S.–because it could effectively coordinate action to combat these multiple threats. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should move forward with including CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Water Act, giving states authority to enforce CO2 emissions limits. Establishing marine protected areas would allow species to recover from overexploitation; higher numbers would give their populations and gene pools more resilience in responding to climate changes. Adjusting fishery catch limits so they meet scientific recommendations rather than political desires would help. And signing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which the U.S. has put off for decides, would make the nation a leader in marine stewardship.

More science is needed, too. Funding to support research initiatives by the European Project on Ocean Acidification and to implement the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act will deepen understanding of acidification’s effects. But a dramatically scaled-up monitoring network to detect acidification is also required. An international team, led by Richard Feely of the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle and Victoria J. Fabry of California State University, San Marcos, has created a blueprint for integrating acidification monitoring into existing ocean tracking programs, such as OceanSITES, and the recommendations should be followed as soon as possible. In addition, expanding efforts to combine field data with laboratory experiments, such as the California Current Ecosystem Interdisciplinary Biogeochemical Moorings project, will ensure that scientists’ experiments simulate realistic conditions.

Ultimately, the solution to ocean acidification lies in a new energy economy. In light of recent lethal coal mine and offshore drilling explosions and the catastrophic Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the U.S. has more reason than ever to forge a safer energy strategy for the planet. Only a dramatic reduction in fossil fuel use can prevent further CO2 emissions from contaminating the seas. An explicit plan to shift from finite, dangerous energy sources to renewable, clean energy sources offers nations a more secure path forward. And it offers the planet, especially the oceans, a chance for a healthy future.

Comment on this article at www.ScientificAmerican.com/sciammag/aug2010

KEY CONCEPTS

The pH of seawater worldwide is dropping (acidifying) as oceans absorb ever more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Experiments show that the struggle by copepods, snails, sea urchins and brittlestars to balance the changing pH inside their bodies impairs their ability to reproduce and grow. Many species are unlikely to genetically adapt to ocean acidification, because the change is occurring too quickly.

As species wither, the marine food chain could be disrupted; human action is needed to curtail further acidification.

–The Editors

FUTURE DATA

Carbon dioxide and pH sensors were deployed on buoys in the Pacific Ocean in December 2009 by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, which provides data to California Current Ecosystem research projects. Such information will improve forecasts of ocean acidification trends.

MORE TO EXPLORE

The Dangers of Ocean Acidification. Scott C. Doney in Scientific American, Vol. 294, No. 3, pages 58-65; March 2006.

Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Marine Fauna and Ecosystem Processes. Victoria J. Fabry et al. in ICES Journal of Marine Science, Vol. 65, No. 3, pages 414-432; April 2008.

European Project on OCean Acidification: www.epoca-project.eu

Elizabeth Kolbert. November 20, 2006. The Darkening Sea. What carbon emissions are doing to the Ocean. The New Yorker.

Posted in Acidification, Extinction, Oceans | Comments Off on Acid Oceans: how sea life is affected

John Gribbin, Astrophysicist. If we destroy ourselves, a grave injustice to the universe

Below are a few paragraphs from Hirshfeld’s excellent book review of:    John Gribbin. 2011. Alone in the Universe: Why Our Planet Is Unique.

Humans are a miracle of blood, bone, and brain, a volatile mixture of compassion and brutality whose most enduring accomplishment is the acquisition of knowledge about our world. We occupy a unique position in the cosmic scheme of things. Having crowned humanity as the apex of galactic intelligence, Mr. Gribbin warns that there is no second chance: If we destroy ourselves, we will have done a grave injustice to the universe, removing perhaps the only means it has to ponder itself.

As John Gribbin points out in his grimly plausible book, “Alone in the Universe,” there is a world of difference between habitable planets and inhabited planets. The author’s conclusion: Earth is the sole abode of intelligent life in the galaxy, the product of a profoundly improbable sequence of cosmic, geologic and climatic events—some thoroughly documented, some inferable from fragmentary evidence—that allowed our planet to become a unique refuge where life could develop to its full potential.

One consequence of Earth’s tumultuous youth was the thinning of its rocky crust. This has provided the planet with a lively tectonic existence, complete with vapor-spewing volcanoes, continents that divide and drift, and an ecologically advantageous global-temperature-regulation system. Earth’s swollen metallic core remained liquid; its constant churning gives rise to electrical currents that generate a far-flung magnetic cocoon that shields us from dangerous solar particles. (The creation of Eden is far more complex than one might have heard.)

Another fortuitous coincidence on Mr. Gribbin’s checklist is the moon’s large size relative to Earth, a ratio unique in the solar system. Without such a gravitational partner to restrain the disrupting tugs of the sun and Jupiter, our planet might suffer paroxysms of axis-tilting. (Try to run a civilization when your once-temperate hemisphere suddenly heels over to an Arctic orientation.)

Mr. Gribbin admits the possibility —even probability—that elementary life forms have arisen elsewhere in the galaxy. But the object of his scientific and statistical scrutiny is intelligent extraterrestrial life. While he cannot prove a galaxy-wide absence of other civilizations, he presents an array of modern, research-based evidence that renders that conclusion eminently reasonable. He even suggests a decades-long survey of infrared emissions around stars (possibly arising from planetary atmospheres, even water vapor). This would yield the true number of “wet-Earth” planets in the galaxy—in his estimation, zero.

One leg of Mr. Gribbin’s argument rests on the theorized life expectancy of advanced civilizations, which he claims is much more fleeting, on a cosmic timescale, than we care to admit. Our species has inhabited this planet for about one hundred-thousandth the age of the galaxy, and it was merely a century ago that we began to transmit radio waves. If technological civilizations did arise before ours, they might have succumbed to war or environmental degradation well before our primate ancestors stood upright.

The rosy alternative—a long-surviving society—seems even less plausible. With millions of years of technological advancement, why haven’t they migrated throughout the galaxy by now? Or why haven’t we picked up the least shred of their radio-wave chatter? Of course, Mr. Gribbin dismisses such questions: These purported civilizations never existed.

Our civilization’s own halting steps into outer space so far suggests an uncertain future for the exploration or colonization of extrasolar worlds. The idea that we—or our robotic avatars—might be the first species to traverse the galaxy presumes a fundamental change in space propulsion, which at present (except in Hollywood) is unsuited to cosmic distances.

Posted in World's Best Scientists | Tagged , , | Comments Off on John Gribbin, Astrophysicist. If we destroy ourselves, a grave injustice to the universe

Birth Control won’t stop population growth

Russell Hopfenberg, at the Duke University School of Medicine, has written that global food supply is the variable which best accounts for human carrying capacity, and that human population will continue to grow as long as food supply increases. He states that birth control is useless at a large scale.  Locally, individual families who limit the number of children they have, simply leave more food available for those who don’t choose to limit their families.  Therefore, the only way you can lower human population is to limit food availability.

3 May 2007. Special guest: Dr. Russell Hopfenberg on food supply, carrying capacity, and population.

Russell Hopfenberg and David Pimentel. 6 Mar 2001. Human Population Numbers as a Function of Food Supply.

Human Carrying Capacity is Determined by Food Availability. Population and Environment, Vol 25 #2 109-17.

Even though birth control won’t solve the world’s problems, women ought to have the right to control their lives and their bodies, and the way that some women have been brainwashed and deluded is explained quite well by Jill Lepore:

Jill Lepore. 14 Nov 2011. Birthright. What’s next for Planned Parenthood? The New Yorker.

Lepore’s article about the history of how birth control became politicized is excellent.  If a woman’s right to control her own body and life can be taken away because of political vote-getting strategies, I wish “Right to Lifers” would realize they’ve been duped and get a grip on reality, women’s rights, and  the ecological effects too-many-people are having on the planet.  Sigh. Not going to happen.  A few points made:

  • Nixon came out against abortion to win the Catholic vote.  Abortion wasn’t a partisan issue until Republicans made it one.
  • “…cuts to family planning represent the opening salvo in an all-out war on women’s health.”
  • Many women, especially poor women, have been desperate to limit their families, but for a long time information on contraception was illegal.

 

 

 

Posted in Population, What to do | Comments Off on Birth Control won’t stop population growth

Mass Extinction in Oceans is happening NOW

ScienceDaily (Aug. 20, 2012) — Life in the world’s oceans faces far greater change and risk of large-scale extinctions than at any previous time in human history, a team of the world’s leading marine scientists has warned.  The researchers compared massive sealife extinctions of the past with what is happening now in the seas and oceans. Three of the five largest extinctions of the past 500 million years were associated with global warming and acidification of the oceans — and also loss of oxygen, pollution, habitat loss, and human hunting fishing — all of these trends apply today.

Unless action is taken now, the consequences of our activities are at a high risk of causing, through the combined effects of climate change, over-exploitation, pollution and habitat loss, the next globally significant extinction event in the ocean. The researchers wrote the paper out of their concern that the oceans appear to be on the brink of another major extinction event (Harnik).

The speeds of many negative changes to the ocean are close or equal to the worst-case scenarios. Consequences that already match worst case scenarios include:

  • the rate of decrease in Arctic Sea Ice
  • accelerated melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets
  • sea level rise
  • release of trapped methane from the seabed.
  • biodiversity loss

These worst case effects are having the following impacts:

  • lowering the distribution and abundance of marine species
  • lowering the amount of life in the sea
  • increasing harmful algal blooms
  • increasing health hazards in the oceans
  • causing massive losses of of large, long-lived fish species, resulting in a simplification and destabilization of food webs in marine ecosystems

The magnitude of the cumulative impacts on the ocean is greater than previously understood because the synergistic sum of each negative impact is greater than the a single factor.  For example, invasive species, harmful algal blooms, dead zones, biodiversity loss, and coral bleaching are increasing due to:

  • overfishing
  • physical disturbance
  • climate change
  • nutrient runoff
  • increased temperature and storm intensity
  • toxicity of heavy metals increases with acidification
  • uptake of plastics by fauna and the pollutants that adhere to plastic

Timelines for action are shrinking. The longer the delay in reducing emissions the higher the annual reduction rate will have to be and the greater the financial cost. Delays will mean increased environmental damage with greater socioeconomic impacts and costs of mitigation and adaptation measures.

The end result will be a marine ecosystem collapse, which obviously will affect us badly, since millions, if not billions of people, depend on the ocean for part or most of their sustenance.

References

Harnik, Paul G., Heike K. Lotze, Sean C. Anderson, Zoe V. Finkel, Seth Finnegan, David R. Lindberg, Lee Hsiang Liow, Rowan Lockwood, Craig R. McClain, Jenny L. McGuire, Aaron O’Dea, John M. Pandolfi, Carl Simpson, Derek P. Tittensor. Extinctions in ancient and modern seas. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2012; DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2012.07.010

State of the Oceans

Summary of the conclusions and recommendations of the international Earth system expert workshop on ocean stresses and impacts

Posted in Extinction, Mass Extinction, Oceans | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Mass Extinction in Oceans is happening NOW

One Child Per Woman — or NONE

Many ecologists and scientists see one, or even no children at all, as the only option to avoid a die-off in the usual unpleasant ways — genocide, war, starvation, and disease.

I’ve said one-child per woman for many years, but I think Stephanie Mills “no children” is the only solution now that we’re past global peak oil (which happened in 2005).  She writes “There needs to be a steep decline in human numbers.  Our last chance for it to be volitional rather than apocalyptic is for the vast majority of people now on Earth not to reproduce. Once birth control and abortion are universally and freely available and the various pronatalist policies tucked away in the tax code have been abolished, but artfully, so that children don’t wind up deprived as a result, propaganda might be the one acceptable means of civic action available to deal with overpopulation: an all-out attempt to change public opinion about reproductive behavior.  And I’m not talking about a “stop at two” or even “one is plenty” campaign, but “Just Don’t Do It!” (Mills 1997).

Alan Weisman, in The World Without Us, proposes

If this somehow began tomorrow, our current 6.5 billion human population would drop by 1 billion by the middle of this century. (If we continue as projected, it will reach 9 billion.) At that point, keeping to one-child-per-human-mother, life on Earth for all species would change dramatically. Because of natural attrition, today’s bloated human population bubble would not be reinflated at anything near the former pace. By 2075, we would have reduced our presence by almost half, down to 3.43 billion, and our impact by much more, because so much of what we do is magnified by chain reactions we set off through the ecosystem.

By 2100, less that a century from now, we would be at 1.6 billion: back to levels last seen in the 19th century, just before quantum advances in energy, medicine, and food production doubled our numbers and then doubled us again. At the time, those discoveries seemed like miracles. Today, like too much of any good thing, we indulge in more only at our peril.

At such far-more-manageable numbers, however, we would have the benefit of all our progress plus the wisdom to keep our presence under control. That wisdom would come partly from losses and extinctions too late to reverse, but also from the growing joy of watching the world daily become more wonderful. The evidence wouldn’t hide in statistics. It would be outside every human’s window, where refreshed air would fill each season with more birdsong. (Pages 272-273)

I don’t think it will happen locally and certainly not globally because we’re animals, not rational robots.  Even if women globally wanted to do this, they can’t, most women don’t have access to birth control.  Many other women want large families, and above all, don’t want to be told what to do.   Even after the most expensive firestorm in American history in Oakland (1991), people didn’t  want to be told where they ought to park on narrow streets so ambulances and fire trucks could get through in the future.  And you’re going to ask families to limit children?  Not going to happen.

When I mentioned this idea to a native American, she said her people wouldn’t like this at all, because in the past some of the Native Americans had been forcibly sterilized. I’d be better off suggesting “fewer children”.

Mao was warned by scientists of over population back when there 500 million Chinese, but he saw a need for as many as possible to fight wars, and didn’t make birth control available or encourage smaller families.  It wouldn’t surprise me if there weren’t still men in power who think this way.

And the wealthy since agriculture began need people to do the hard work in the fields, and cheap labor in general.

I hope there are enlightened areas in the world that try this out to see if it can be done.

Why reining in population growth voluntarily isn’t going to happen

Tom Butler: “The chance of reining in exponential population growth through intentional and vigorous—yet humane and non-coercive—policies becomes ever less likely, because there is not yet even a national conversation about the problem of growth. James Howard Kunstler has written persuasively about how the “psychology of previous investment” is a powerful barrier to individuals thinking clearly about the crowded, ecologically devastated, and possibly energy-scarce future, and making rational behavioral changes. The psychology of previous investment operates at the community and societal level too. It is exceedingly difficult to abandon past behaviors or infrastructure when so much effort has gone into creating them.”

In America we have now spent more than 2 centuries constructing a national narrative of expansion and progress based on growth. That mythic story is so thoroughly imbedded in common discourse and conventional wisdom that it goes largely unrecognized and uncritiqued. Social critics, including conservationists, who have the temerity to challenge the religion of growth are ignored and marginalized. And so even the activist community has become balkanized in recent decades, with NOGs focused on overpopulation being essentially shunned by conservation and environmental-related nonprofits that should be their natural allies.”

“Despite the innovative efforts of some NGOs to address the cultural norms that contribute to high fertility and miss immigration, I am not sanguine about our chances to make the needed changes before various horses of the apocalypse (war, famine, and plague) dramatically reduce human numbers. Humans, as tribal, small group animals, have little in our evolutionary heritage to help us cope with the challenge of understanding the peril of exponential growth. But if there is any chance to even have a reasonable conversation across the political spectrum about the dire need to address overpopulation, then a more robust dissection of how that growth affects liberty, for nature and people, perhaps can be useful”.

It’s too late to do anything about population

The exponential decline rate of oil, natural gas, and coal plus financial collapse plus consequent unrest and too many other factors to list (enumerated in the “Or a Fast Crash?”, decline, and collapse menu items of energyskeptic) mean it’s too late to adopt one-child-per-woman strategies in America.

Raúl Ilargi Meijer “Mankind may have invented mythological/religious stories of a deity that made us in his own image, stories that serve to make us feel elevated above all other life, and the crowning achievement of creation/evolution, but the reality is that we are no different from the yeast in the wine vat or bacteria in a petri dish, or any and all other organisms for that matter: when confronted with an energy surplus in a given environment, all species will multiply and proliferate until either they run out of space or the energy surplus runs out, and then there is a die-off.

To be exact: the die-off comes before a species can run out of space or energy, because the use of energy produces waste, and no organism can survive in a medium of its own waste (the corollary to the 2nd law of thermodynamics as defined by Herman Daly and Kenneth Townsend in their 1993 book “Valuing the Earth”). Thus, there will always be more space and more energy left even after the population has collapsed. And that collapse is inevitable. No need to worry about how many people need to disappear for any given amount of time.

I’ve often called us the most tragic species, because we have an awareness, we can see ourselves do it, but that doesn’t mean we can stop ourselves from doing it. Perhaps we need to contemplate the limits of our awareness, perhaps if we were fully aware of what we do, we wouldn’t to the damage we do. Or perhaps our awareness simply is no match for the drive to consume all energy available to us, a drive we inherited from more primitive lifeforms. However it may be, what we call our awareness, and our power of reasoning, seem to be applied in the race to consume energy as fast as we can, not to slow down the rate of consumption, even if our survival might hinge on it. What’s ironic is that the drive to consume is very close, if not identical, to the drive to survive that all life possesses.

Note that this describes us as a species, not as individuals. And while individual humans can make “decisions” that may seem very commendable, what happens is that when an individual organism “decides” to lower his/her/its consumption rate, other individuals in the group jump in and take over, so overall consumption for the group keeps rising. This difference between group behavior and – possible – individual behavior is often misinterpreted, I think, to mean that we can make the group do what the individual can do.” (Meijer)

References

Mills, Stephanie. 1997. “From Nulliparity and a Cruel Hoax Revisited” Wild Earth.

Posted in Population, What to do | Tagged , | Comments Off on One Child Per Woman — or NONE

Huge releases of arctic methane

Methane is a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

At the American Geophysical Union Meeting in San Francisco, Dr Semiletov announced he’d found an unprecedented amount of methane bubbling up from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (which he’s been monitoring for almost 20 years).  Which means methane is also likely bubbling up elsewhere in the Canadian arctic shelf, Greenland, etc.

“Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of meters in diameter. This is the first time that we’ve found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures, more than 1,000 meters in diameter. It’s amazing,” says Dr Semiletov. “I was most impressed by the sheer scale and high density of the plumes. Over a relatively small area we found more than 100, but over a wider area there should be thousands of them. Some plumes were a kilometer or more wide and the emissions went directly into the atmosphere – the concentration was a hundred times higher than normal.”

American scientists estimate that there are hundreds of millions of tons of methane gas locked beneath the Arctic permafrost. When the Arctic sea-ice vanishes in summer, resulting in rapidly rising temperatures across the entire Arctic, the trapped methane could be suddenly released into the atmosphere leading to rapid and severe climate change.

Methane from Permafrost melting

Experts have long known that northern lands were a storehouse of frozen carbon, locked up in the form of leaves, roots and other organic matter trapped in icy soil — a mix that, when thawed, can produce methane and carbon dioxide, gases that trap heat and warm the planet. But they have been stunned in recent years to realize just how much organic debris is there.

A recent estimate suggests that the perennially frozen ground known as permafrost, which underlies nearly a quarter of the Northern Hemisphere, contains twice as much carbon as the entire atmosphere.

Temperatures are warming across much of that region, primarily, scientists believe, because of the rapid human release of greenhouse gases. Permafrost is warming, too. Some has already thawed, and other signs are emerging that the frozen carbon may be becoming unstable.

“It’s like broccoli in your freezer,” said Kevin Schaefer, a scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. “As long as the broccoli stays in the freezer, it’s going to be O.K. But once you take it out of the freezer and put it in the fridge, it will thaw out and eventually decay.

If a substantial amount of the carbon should enter the atmosphere, it would intensify the planetary warming. An especially worrisome possibility is that a significant proportion will emerge not as carbon dioxide, the gas that usually forms when organic material breaks down, but as methane, produced when the breakdown occurs in lakes or wetlands. Methane is especially potent at trapping the sun’s heat, and the potential for large new methane emissions in the Arctic is one of the biggest wild cards in climate science.

41 permafrost scientists estimate that if human fossil-fuel burning remains high and the planet warms sharply, the gases from permafrost could eventually equal 35% of today’s annual human emissions.

the chief worry is not that the carbon in the permafrost will break down quickly — typical estimates say that will take more than a century, perhaps several — but that once the decomposition starts, it will be impossible to stop.

“Even if it’s 5 or 10 percent of today’s emissions, it’s exceptionally worrying, and 30 percent is humongous,” said Josep G. Canadell, a scientist in Australia who runs a global program to monitor greenhouse gases. “It will be a chronic source of emissions that will last hundreds of years.

A troubling trend has emerged recently: Wildfires are increasing across much of the north, and early research suggests that extensive burning could lead to a more rapid thaw of permafrost.

Steve Connor. 14 Dec 2011. Rapid rise in Arctic methane shocks scientists.  New Zealand Herald.

Justin Gillis. 16 Dec 2011. As Permafrost Thaws, Scientists Study the Risks. New York Times.

Michelle C. Mack,et al. Carbon loss from an unprecedented Arctic tundra wildfire. Nature, 2011; 475 (7357): 489

Charles Moffat. 13 Dec 13 201.  Deadly Greenhouse Gas bubbling up in Russian Arctic Lillith News

Posted in Extinction, Runaway Greenhouse | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Huge releases of arctic methane