Sir David Attenborough (mod note - now climate change)

[jollystomper]

I'll watch this and feel completely powerless. Children in grade school, high school, and college aged kids are mad at the "greatest generation" who left them a mess. I don't have an answer to my nieces and nephews other than we didn't use our intelligence to save this planet and many species that rely on each other to exist. Where did humans go wrong, let me count the ways and look in the mirror.

I would hardly call what we left them a "mess". That is the problem when history is taught not from an factual perspective but from an emotional perspective. As ERD50 pointed out, we are are not perfect, but there have been many advances that really show that the "good old days" were not really that good.

One thing I point out to younger people when I get into these type of discussion is that is they are really concerned about earth resources, give up all your electronic gadgetry, as the production of that gadgetry is contributing to the situation they fear (to say nothing of the worldwide labor issues it causes).

The words of Thomas Sowell come to mind:

The beauty of doing nothing is that you can do it perfectly. Only when you do something is it almost impossible to do it without mistakes. Therefore people who are contributing nothing to society, except their constant criticisms, can feel both intellectually and morally superior.

 

[Rianne]

Freshkills Park is an example of American ingenuity. We are learning and creating solutions to long ignored problems. But rethinking how humans over-fish the oceans, waste resources on frivolous wants, seek profit over sustainability and irresponsibly create garbage. I'm just as guilty. I want new furniture, new cloths and fall for the scam of recycling. Our plastic goes into the dump. It's too expensive to recycle. Where does all the old food from the grocery store go? What happens to all the old bananas and fruit that are imperfect or too old to sell? Illinois has .01% prairies that it had in the late 1800's. The richest soil in the world is deteriorating because we plant corn and beans, beans and corn. Diversity is the essence of life.

How is it seabird's stomachs, found on the most remote islands in the ocean, are filled with plastics? Fish are mistaking floating plastic bags for jellyfish and eating them. There are so many examples of irrational thinking because we are a selfish species. I'm including myself in this.

I"m just saying humans should re think our needs not our wants. Humans have this desire to manage everything. Be in control. Like the earth was made for humans and we decide how to use the resources without trying to figure out how to sustain them. I get to have an opinion. I think about stuff like this, I'm not judging.

Enjoy this website, it is really cool.

https://ny.curbed.com/2017/5/4/15545280/freshkills-park-staten-island-history-future

 

[kcowan]

We just watched his "Winged Migration". Very good.

 

[mh]

We just watched his "Winged Migration". Very good.

Winged migration was made by some French guys. I don’t remember their names but the details are on Wikipedia. It’s a great movie though. I’ve seen it quite a few times

 

[ERD50]

Get back to me in 30 years.

We can have a forum get together.

I'll mark my calendar! Hopefully, we won't still be wearing masks.

More seriously, we've had doom-and-gloom projections going back a very long time. Sure, this time might be different, but I have a feeling we will figure it out. And we might figure it out despite what some are proposing. Remember all the "no nukes" activists in the 80's? Well, if we had moved to nukes (like France did) we'd have put a lot less carbon in the air than we have in the past 30 years. Be skeptical of 'solutions'.

... The site is an extension of Gapminder which people have linked to many times in the past. If you link to the Grapher site, the example of child mortality is given which looks great but the second graph is CO2 emissions which is likely having, and going to have, major impacts in the next few hundred years.
...
And agree with the final point, we must all be vigilant and and do our best to make positive changes.

The problem I see with a CO2 impact is that, as I mentioned, NASA says it sticks around for 300~1,000 years. There is some vocal short-term focus on reducing CO2 emissions, as if that will "solve" the problem. It may make good sense to reduce CO2, bit it isn't any sort of answer. And I fear that focus will take away from actions we should be taking.

Does that mean we are doomed? I don't think so. Projections, like so many past ones, may be very wrong. There may be too much emphasis on static models. We may find adaptations that resolve many of the issues, heck, we may even find ways to turn some of this into positives (longer growing seasons in some areas?).

Maybe we find a way to actually suck the CO2 out of the air, and contain it. Hard to say what the future holds. I remain optimistic.

-ERD50

 

[6miths]

The problem I see with a CO2 impact is that, as I mentioned, NASA says it sticks around for 300~1,000 years. There is some vocal short-term focus on reducing CO2 emissions, as if that will "solve" the problem. It may make good sense to reduce CO2, bit it isn't any sort of answer. And I fear that focus will take away from actions we should be taking.


Does that mean we are doomed? I don't think so. Projections, like so many past ones, may be very wrong. There may be too much emphasis on static models. We may find adaptations that resolve many of the issues, heck, we may even find ways to turn some of this into positives (longer growing seasons in some areas?).

Maybe we find a way to actually suck the CO2 out of the air, and contain it. Hard to say what the future holds. I remain optimistic.

-ERD50

I wasn't actually taking a doom and gloom position and am almost absolutely sure that we are not 'doomed' as a species but feel that it would be prudent to pay attention to the possibility that we are taking a path that is going to cause a great deal of inconvenience for a large number of people. There are many ways to reign in CO2 emissions that are relatively painless but I think that it should be acknowledge that there are also some pretty impressive forces arrayed on the 'full steam (or CO2) ahead' side of the argument. As a resident of a country with the third largest proven oil reserves I may not be very popular in some quarters when I say that a good portion of those reserves should likely be left in the ground. Just my opinion though.

I too am optimistic. We are an ingenious and adaptive lot but I think it would be a reasonable idea to hedge our bet.

 

[Rianne]

Maybe we find a way to actually suck the CO2 out of the air, and contain it. Hard to say what the future holds. I remain optimistic.
-ERD50

Farmers, forests and cows.

 

[BoodaGazelle]

I remember things were even worse. Didn’t a lot of water and air get cleaned up, pollution reduced, EPA stuff when we were young adults? Rivers on fire? Huge toxic waste sites cleaned up? It would have been even worse today.

Thanks for the perspective!

 

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Maybe we find a way to actually suck the CO2 out of the air, and contain it. Hard to say what the future holds. I remain optimistic.
-ERD50

Farmers, forests and cows.

AFAIK, farms and forests aren't really sucking the CO2 out of the air in any meaningful way, as the trees/crops die and then emit their CO2 back. It needs to be chemically bound up (sequestered) someway.

The really bad stuff, as I understand it, is the "biomass" harvesting of forests, which gets labeled "renewable". It's not 'green' in terms of particulates, and it emits the CO2 quickly, and the forests take a very long time to recover and start absorbing CO2 at the same rate as they were previously.

Cows emit methane which is way, way more powerful for global warming than CO2, but it doesn't stick around as long. wiki says:

Methane has a large effect but for a relatively brief period, having an estimated mean half-life of 9.1 years in the atmosphere, whereas carbon dioxide is currently given an estimated mean lifetime of over 100 years.

-ERD50

 

[MrBig1]

At 90 years old he's sharp as a tack. Excellent segment on 60 Minutes last Sunday. If anyone encourages me to get on board about the environment, it's him. His lifelong career brought him to every continent and examines more species than I can even think of. His documentaries and series are stunningly beautiful. How better to learn of the earth we are losing so quickly?

Yeah, great guy. I've always enjoyed watching him. This is a plug about climate change.

My Dad always said the world was headed towards its own destruction. Three things bringing it down Big Government, Big Population and Big Corporations. As I see it, he was right. Nothing will be done about any of those things so why worry about the inevitable.

 

[Rianne]

Yeah, great guy. I've always enjoyed watching him. This is a plug about climate change.

My Dad always said the world was headed towards its own destruction. Three things bringing it down Big Government, Big Population and Big Corporations. As I see it, he was right. Nothing will be done about any of those things so why worry about the inevitable.

If the big corporations changed from fossil fuels to sustainable fuels it will help a lot. Imagine an economy focusing on solar, wind, sustainable energy. Imagine they stopped making plastics. And people focused on a vegetarian based diet. No big farms. Imagine fertilizer and insecticide companies moving to natural rather than chemical products. What's wrong with that world? The Norwegian countries do sustainable farming and are very successful. Corporations could actually help this problem.

 

[ERD50]

If the big corporations changed from fossil fuels to sustainable fuels it will help a lot. Imagine an economy focusing on solar, wind, sustainable energy. Imagine they stopped making plastics. And people focused on a vegetarian based diet. No big farms. Imagine fertilizer and insecticide companies moving to natural rather than chemical products. What's wrong with that world? The Norwegian countries do sustainable farming and are very successful. Corporations could actually help this problem.

This was discussed in detail in this thread a while back:

https://www.early-retirement.org/fo...-who-think-we-can-be-100-renewable-95073.html

Imagine trying to run a business with an unreliable power source like solar/wind? So you need storage, and as you will see in that thread, that is not easy nor cheap, and has its own environmental costs, not the least of which is that you have to produce even more electricity to compensate for the losses in storage.

Big farms are efficient. We would likely end up using more resources with a bunch of small farms. And why limit ourselves to 'natural' products? Use the one that does the best with the least impact. Modern chemistry and (gasp!) genetic engineering can produce products that aren't available in "nature". Let's use the best tool for the job. Should we reject the wheel, because "nature" didn't provide it to us?

Read the book "The Omnivore's Dilemma". It's an interesting read, and as it unfolds it appears he is all for vegetarianism, but then he goes on to point out the large issues with this approach. Polin demonstrates that to "give up human consumption of animals would lead to a "food chain…even more dependent than it already is on fossil fuels and chemical fertilizers since food would need to travel even farther and fertility—in the form of manures—would be in short supply". << from wiki.

He points out that sustainable farming requires animals, so that we have that circle of animals grazing and providing manure for those plants.

He goes on to point out that humans can't eat grass. But we can graze animals on grass, and eat those tasty animals. Many areas are dependent on the calories from those grazing animals, and the soil can't support grain/legume crops, only grasses.

So be careful what you wish for, those actions you promote could result in mass starvation and added pollution. You don't want to be like the "No Nukes" crowd in the 80's, whose actions just led to more reliance on coal, and much greater carbon emissions, because there was no consideration to the alternatives. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Corporations are helping this problem. That is what the "Green Revolution" was all about. It isn't perfect, but we are learning and improving. Today's synthetic (the term "chemical" is silly, everything is "chemical") fertilizers and pesticides are more effective and less damaging than past ones. Because competition and the profit motive drives corporations to improve them. It's hard to improve things when you are limited by some arbitrary and twisted definition of what is "natural" and what is "chemical".

-ERD50

 

[meierlde]

Historically there have always been prophets of doom. It is a conceit that IMHO makes one think that ones time is more important than the past. Yes there are problems, but with today the cheapest electricity coming from solar and wind, there is hope there. Recall that before the industrial revolution humans lived from the arctic to tropical deserts and rain forests. So the human race will survive. Interestingly the long term downtrend in population growth partly due to the much lower death rate of children will be a help. Also technology is making batteries better all the time. So although I will not live to see what happens in 50 years the Human race will survive.

The imminent end of the world has been expected since at least 50 ad when Christians thought the end was nigh.

Here is a link to doomsday debunked https://www.science20.com/robert_in...r_war_asteroid_impacts_runaway_warming-192696

 

[LRDave]

Remember all the "no nukes" activists in the 80's? Well, if we had moved to nukes (like France did) we'd have put a lot less carbon in the air than we have in the past 30 years.
-ERD50

If you are "remembering" that the "no nukes" movement is what sunk a France-like adoption of nuclear power generation in the US, then you are "misremembering".....badly.

 

[MichaelB]

mod note - the thread title was edited to reflect another discussion that has been overtaken by climate change.

 

[JoeWras]

mod note - the thread title was edited to reflect another discussion that has been overtaken by climate change.

And MichaelB changes his avatar to a projected look of himself after centuries of nukes and climate change.

 

[MichaelB]

And MichaelB changes his avatar to a projected look of himself after centuries of nukes and climate change.

It's a Halloween symbol from Ireland (Oíche Shamhna) - a carved turnip.

 

[jollystomper]

mod note - the thread title was edited to reflect another discussion that has been overtaken by climate change.

I smell bacon...

 

[Rianne]

MichaelB, this discussion is about much more than climate change. I consider this discussion about over consumption, demanding wants instead of needs, and sustainability. Over fishing oceans, polluting, excessive garbage, light pollution etc.

Sir Attenborough, in his documentary, encouraged food farming and fishing in a sustainable way. Why do food companies need millions of acres of palm trees for palm oil and destroy the rain forests? Do we need to over fish the oceans to offer 20 different kinds of fish?

His idea is to fish sections of the ocean while allowing fish to re populate in other parts of the ocean. Farmers can grow prairies along with their farmland to keep soil healthy and allow diversity. if you break the chain of life you end up hurting other species in the process. In other words, allow things to grow back.


His opening scene of Chernobyl was interesting. After 35 years, trees, animals are coming back, growing and populating the area. Why do we have to develop everything we get our hands on? The U.S. did preserve state and national parks, but it was a political fight that lasted years.

I don't need 15 pairs of shoes and a closet full of clothes. I don't need to change with fashion whims every season. Goodness, look at websites like Overstock.com and Ebay and others. There's so much crap out there. Where does it end up? Consumption is killing our earth as much as climate change. Take carbon emissions out of the equation for a moment. Then tour your local landfill. Think about what it does to our water supply. Hey, I'm old, no kids. Why should I care?

 

[MichaelB]

MichaelB, this discussion is about much more than climate change. I consider this discussion about over consumption, demanding wants instead of needs, and sustainability. Over fishing oceans, polluting, excessive garbage, light pollution etc.

The thread title was changed to reflect what the discussion is no longer about, which is Lord Attenborough, since the 12th post. I tried to fit all you wrote in the thread title space but it didn’t fit, and “climate change” did.

 

[Rianne]

The thread title was changed to reflect what the discussion is no longer about, which is Lord Attenborough, since the 12th post. I tried to fit all you wrote in the thread title space but it didn’t fit, and “climate change” did.

Can you change that title to Sir Attenborough? I'm a little embarrassed about that.

 

[Nemo2]

Can you change that title to Sir Attenborough? I'm a little embarrassed about that.

Then how about Sir David, or Sir David Attenborough......anything other than Sir Attenborough - a faux pas extraordinaire, I believe.

 

[ERD50]

... this discussion is about much more than climate change. I consider this discussion about over consumption, demanding wants instead of needs, and sustainability. Over fishing oceans, polluting, excessive garbage, light pollution etc.

Sir Attenborough, in his documentary, encouraged food farming and fishing in a sustainable way. ...

Rianne, I'm confused about the title change as well. The following comments were all after the 12th post, and are not focused on "climate change":

Life expectancy, Child mortality, Maternal mortality, Burden of disease, Infectious diseases, etc. How is any of that a "mess"?

Then I note that in 1965 (high school years for me) the world population at 3.324 billion was less than half our current population of 7.8 billion.

Artificial joints, cancer treatments and endless streaming options will make things ever so much nicer for us as we live out our lives in our well padded bubbles.

I somehow think the various species that have gone extinct or are well on their way won't be quite as impressed with these vast improvements.

More locally we have done very well with air and water quality but as pointed out, a fair portion of this has to do with off-shoring heavy industry. We have also made some major mis-steps such as our use of plastics.

give up all your electronic gadgetry, as the production of that gadgetry is contributing to the situation they fear (to say nothing of the worldwide labor issues it causes).

humans over-fish the oceans, waste resources on frivolous wants, seek profit over sustainability and irresponsibly create garbage ..... Our plastic goes into the dump. .... Where does all the old food from the grocery store go? ...The richest soil in the world is deteriorating because we plant corn and beans, beans and corn. Diversity is the essence of life. ...

That sure sounds a lot more diverse conversation than "climate change".

If you are "remembering" that the "no nukes" movement is what sunk a France-like adoption of nuclear power generation in the US, then you are "misremembering".....badly.

Regardless of whether the "no nukes" movement was the actual cause for the US having less nuclear (%-wise at least), than France, it was the thought process I was referring to.

I doubt that Rianne or ERD50 will have any actual effect either, but we should be careful what we wish for.

-ERD50

 

[Walt34]

I don't need 15 pairs of shoes and a closet full of clothes. I don't need to change with fashion whims every season.

Of course not. But you only get one vote. Nor does anyone else NEED any of that, they certainly won't die if they can't have "15 pairs of shoes". But many of them WANT more than 15 pair and can afford them, and they get a vote too. Although I'll concede Imelda Marcos was perhaps a bit extreme.

I also think it's a bit unfair to single out "big corporations" as doers of evil. What big corporations do is be more efficient than small corporations - that's how they got big. For example Lowes was once a single, solitary, Mom 'n Pop hardware store. But the folks running it did a bunch of stuff right and now I can buy what I need there cheaper than at the old-time Mom 'n Pop hardware store, thus increasing the value for my dollars and by the way, increasing the employment opportunities for other businesses since I now have "extra" dollars to spend that I didn't spend at the inefficient Mom 'n Pop hardware store of old. So maybe I can stop on the way home from Lowes and buy a pizza that I couldn't have afforded 30 years ago.

 

[stepford]

His opening scene of Chernobyl was interesting. After 35 years, trees, animals are coming back, growing and populating the area. Why do we have to develop everything we get our hands on? The U.S. did preserve state and national parks, but it was a political fight that lasted years.

My work life relates to this surprisingly directly. For several years I worked at the site of the only reactor meltdown in the USA. It happened back before I was born and had been "sorta" cleaned up years before I got there, but still. Even worse, the site had also been used for rocket development for decades - during the period when you just threw old chemicals down the drain when you were through with them. In short, the place was a toxic nightmare and its cleanup is still tied up in litigation decades later.

But you know what? It was a wildlife paradise by the time I worked there. Little used since the 1990's the site was 4 square miles with maybe 200 employees scattered onsite (down to about 50 by the time I left in 2010). Animals just loved that. Deer were everywhere, the occasional bobcat and mountain lion, tons of smaller critters. We used to call it our private petting zoo.

In comparison the city below with 100s of thousands of inhabitants regularly complained about the superfund site just up the hill, but I never saw nearly the biodiversity in those suburban tracts that we had up in the "toxic hellhole".

Now I'm not trying to say radioactive contamination is harmless. There may very well be long lasting health impacts associated with contamination of groundwater and soil at the site and I do believe cleanup is required. But the critters don't seem to care. In contract they seem to care very much about the endless houses, roads and people in the city below, and avoided that human-infested zone like the plague.

My take away is that the thing causing the disappearance of our fellow species isn't our waste products, per se. It's *us* pure and simple.