E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
University Of Miami / AFP - Getty Images, file
A diver notes marine species in the Dry Tortugas National Park in Florida. A new study recommends that the United Nations appoints a High Commissioner for Oceans to coordinate research and action and that there should be more preparation for a 1-2 meter (up to 6.5 feet) sea level rise by the end of the century.
The cost of damage to the world's oceans from climate change could reach $2 trillion a year by 2100 if measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions are not stepped up, a study by marine experts said Wednesday.
The study found that without action to limit rising greenhouse gas emissions, the global average temperature could rise by 4 degrees Celsius (about 7 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century causing ocean acidification, sea level rise, marine pollution, species migration and more intense tropical cyclones. It would also threaten coral reefs, disrupt fisheries and deplete fish stocks.
In the study, "Valuing the Ocean,” marine experts led by the Stockholm Environment Institute analyzed the most severe threats facing the world's marine environment and estimated the cost of damage from global warming.
The hunt is on for world's strongest corals
The SEI found nitrogen-rich fertilizers and waste would strip more ocean areas of oxygen, causing what is known as hypoxic dead zones, which are already found in more than 500 locations.
The institute said that under a business-as-usual scenario, without radical cuts to emissions, the annual cost would hit $1.98 trillion, or 0.37 percent of global gross domestic product, by 2100.
However, in a statement, the SEI added that "a rapid emission reduction pathway that limited temperatures increases to 2.2 degrees Celsius would 'save' (i.e. avoid) almost $1.4 trillion of those damages."
"These figures are just part of the story, but they provide an indication of the price of the avoidable portion of future environmental damage on the ocean -- in effect the distance between our hopes and our fears,” Frank Ackerman, director of the Climate Economics Group at SEI-US, said in the statement.
“The cost of inaction increases greatly with time, a factor which must be fully recognized in climate change accounting,” he added.
As sea levels rise, Kiribati eyes Fiji as new home for thousands
The loss of tourism would incur the highest cost at $639 billion per year. The loss of the ocean carbon sink -- the seas' ability to soak up carbon dioxide (CO2) -- would cost almost $458 billion, the study showed. Warmer water holds less carbon dioxide.
Ackerman told Reuters that radical cuts to emissions would require the widespread use of radical carbon removal technologies like sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
"The faster we stop emissions rising, the lower the damage will be. But on current technology, I wouldn't be surprised if we end up on a 4 degree C pathway," he said.
Oceans' acidic shift may be fastest in 300 million years
The study did not put a monetary value on the loss of some species which inhabit the world's oceans, critical processes like nutrient cycling or the loss of coastal communities' traditional ways of life.
A new report out on the Mesoamerica Reef finds that despite some improvements, more needs to be done to protect the region's coral reefs. Msnbc.com's Dara Brown reports.
"The challenge is to figure out what parts of the ocean environment have a value you can put a meaningful price on. There are very important areas which we still can't incorporate into a market," Ackerman said.
Pollution, other threats
The SEI statement said that while climate change was “an enormous threat,” there were others.
"A key point of Valuing the Ocean is that the convergence of multiple stressors -- acidification, ocean warming, hypoxia, sea-level rise, pollution, and overuse of marine resources -- could lead to damages far greater than just from individual threats," it added.
Warming oceans could melt ice faster than expected
The study recommended that the United Nations appoints a High Commissioner for Oceans to coordinate research and action and that there should be more preparation for a 1-2 meter (up to 6.5 feet) sea level rise by the end of the century.
“We must develop an integrated view of how our actions impact the ocean, and threaten the vital services it provides, from food to tourism to storm protection,” Kevin Noone, director of the Swedish Secretariat for Environmental Earth System Sciences at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, said in the statement.
Noone, a co-editor of the report, added that the global ocean was “a major contributor to national economies … yet is chronically neglected in existing economic and climate change strategies at national and global levels.”
Reuters contributed to this report.
Leave a Comment:
If you want to save the oceans, stop the practice of sewage out-falls and deforestation...
If you are not willing to treat your own $hit and stop cutting down the trees...
NOTHING else will amount to anything, except a 'Money grap' by the POLITICIANS...
Come to the Gulf of Thailand and see what the corals look like when you IGNORE the dangers of just these two things...
BTY - When you are swimming at Puket, Krabi, or others, there is a reason the water is brown... Ha! Ha!
Fish "$hit" in the sea too my friend......but then I guess it's all about the amount eh?
All the more reason to simply reduce our populations.
AC
It is far more than sewage out-flows and deforestation. You left out the run off from mine tailing's , they are loader with toxic chemicals and heavy metals. All of which find their way down stream and into the ocean. Also fertiliser run off and don't forget about the unused drugs we dump into the sewer systems to get rid of them . We are the root cause of this problem . The CO2 we put into the air is not that big a deal. The particulate matter we put in the air is far worse . It is not so much global warming, but it is us causing the pollution. Also remember we are also polluting our own drinking water supply. At this rate we will pollute ourselves off the earth very soon.
bob
Some countries do better than others..Why did they build factories and powerplants along the coastlines way back when..Other peoples ignorance will cost everyone..It should specify, We need the reference now on all the polluters..Rather I want a complete list of I'm a spewing sludge bucket .com
population, population , population. US still burns almost 25% of the fossil fuels in the world even though we are only 5% of the population. Since we globalized our economy and there are now 1 billion more people becoming affluent in the US/Euro sense of it, they want to live like Americans do. Cars, Big houses plugged into the grid, vacation 10,000 miles a away. National Geographic had an article a couple years ago saying at the rate the world burns fossil fuels, we need 3.5 "earth's" to supply the fuel at a sustained level. So here in the US we have 4,000 to 8,000 ft houses, w/ 4 car heated and cooled garages, pools in Florida with heaters in 'em, skitrips to the West, 3 day weekends to Vegas, summer vaca's to europe and the south Pacific. Everyone in Florida snow ski's ! Every day dozens of 747's/777's/A380's take off from the US and Canada and fly non stop to India so folks can visit the family. Southeast Asia is the vacay spot for Europeans. Nobody stays home anymore or vacay's in their home state. Check out video of Honolulu airport operations. College kids are all over Mexico and the Carribean right now. Orlando is stuffed with cars from all over the US and Canada- you can hardly park anywhere. Sports fans by the hundred thousands fly every weekend to "away games" to support their team. We are buring fuel like we have it. And we don't. In Africa the poor folks are burning the forests just to cook meals. Brazil is allowing the Amazon forest to disappear for sugar fields to make ethanol so they can thumb their nose at people who use gasoline. It's like everyone is deliberately trying to kill each other through environmental damage. How do you slow it down ? Let the price of fuel skyrocket as it becomes scarce, but ten Americans just declare they have a right to it anyway and the gubmint will subsidize it to the customers so we still burn it wastefully.
Lusitania,
"Some countries do better than others."
Chicago reversed the flow of a river so they could dump their sewage into the Mississippi River. Instead of the Great Lakes, that they were using for their drinking water...
New York City is still using ocean out-falls. Into one of the largest fishing grounds in the world...
The Mediterranean is still the cess pool for the EU...
France has been using the English Channel to dump their nuclear waste for DECADES...
The Earth will adjust to all of it ... mainly by killing off most of the people when the environment can no longer sustain them. The problem will get fixed one way or another. The question is only how you want it fixed.
A big SUV shouldnt be able to run unless there's a living breathing person occupying the seats, I mostly see one idiot in them at a time.
If the goverments are going to start taxing to fix a problem that many dont care about everything should be mandated (gauged) we should know who's who, right Al.
BS! This is just another attempt to rob the people of their money through these bogus global warming stories. I suppose all the volcanic action going on under the oceans isn't helping either. Who do we bill for that? Mother Nature or god.
How are they going to stop volcanoes and such from creating green house gases? They have been doing it for years.
i can only surmise...we need a new planet...this one is polluted...
please...there's some things you can control and some you can't. Why not focus on the ones you can?
The reason they built power plants near water was they were steam powered they needed a water source. Many factories were built near rivers and creeks due to the fact they were water powered. Also many business were by harbors due to that is where the ships came in with the materials. Before refrigeration you unloaded and started processing right away.
The "ignorance" is in those who do not look for why just whine about it.
Serious question?
We know this planet goes through cycles. As a species we can not change the fact that it does. All we can do, is reduce what pollutants we expel that will either rush the natural process, or will make the natural cycle worse.
Volcanoes are a natural part of the process. Dumping pharmaceutical waste into our water isn't. Driving millions of cars that expel toxins isn't.
We are affecting the natural cycle. All that needs to be determined, is to what degree and how much we are speeding it up. To think otherwise would be foolish. We can't dump toxic waste without expecting something bad in return.
This is as far as I got in the article before I had to step away from the keyboard and wet my pants with laughter! If you libs want to save the world, step up those abortions and advocate a mass suicide of the human species. Otherwise, you are blowing hot, carbon filled, air out of your orifices.
The glaring falacy of this 'study' is that it presumes that someone will actually have to 'pay' those costs, when in reality it is merely the cost of trying to preserve the 'status quo', which we will not do because it's far simpler and more cost effective to merely 'adjust' to the changes.
This is just the latest in the campaign to make some people 'rich' from the global warming scam.
Why do we always hear about just the negative aspects of climate change? I know there has to be some positive aspects that seem to get ignored. I guess it would mess up the political templete - agenda to admit they even exist. Puddingproof if you are really seriously concerned about planet over-population the responsible thing to do would be kill yourself. I myself wouldn't mind a little warmer planet say like in the eons past. I could plant my tomato plants in feb. instead of april. I was just wondering who was driving around causing climate change (greenhouse gases ) when we warmed out of the last ice age?.....Hmm? How did the oceans survive? And what happened to all that oil spilled in the gulf by the deep water horizon and the predicted problems ( by the environmental geniuses) that would linger for generations........Hmm?.....really?
Remember the cover of time magazine in 1978 It asked the question,Are we entering the next ice age? I'm just sayin'............Hmm?
Well, Stephen, you might enjoy those tomato plants if your new climate still provides enough moisture or your new neighbors to the South of you begin to get hungry and want to help themselves to your tomatoes. Any positives will be short term for most. It likely doesn't seem like anything could possibly affect you - and this is, obviously all about you... There are places in this world that are more vulnerable to climate change than your tomato garden. A few of these places have nuclear weapons at their disposal. Many are always on the verge of instability. Take away land, water, food, housing and things get unstable real fast. You know how nukes are...somebody shoots one off, a few more want to shoot theirs off. Pretty soon - and it wouldn't take that many - all that nasty stuff makes it's way back to you and your little tomato patch. Maybe your tomatoes are no longer edible. Maybe the growing season gets real short again for you. Who know? I know you don't know an eon from an ion. You seem to have yourself covered, so we just won't worry about you. Enjoy those tomatoes.
Stephen...
Your logic seems to be it is already trashed so just keep piling it on. There is no future for you just eventual extinction. We should make every attempt to correct the problems we have caused and give the planet a chance to recover instead of sticking our heads in a hole and denying that the problem exists. If we don't get rid of this ostrich mentality then I don't hold much hope for the future of our planet or mankind as a whole.
And that CO2 is absorbed by various carbon sinks, largely in the ocean. Once those sinks get filled, there is no mechanism to strip CO2 from the atmosphere.
Same concept exists for O2 too; it couldn't accumulate in the atmoshpere early in earths history, because any free O2 was instantly trapped in various sinks. Only once those sinks were filled did O2 accumulate in large quantities in the atmosphere, and it radically altered the planet as a result [killing 95% of all living things, but allowing for respiration, leading to multi-celled organisms].
It's important to note that in gamerk2's post, climate change was achieved by some of the smallest living organisms on the planet.
Estimates are that we have already experienced about the same increase in ocean levels and temperature increases over the last 150 years that we will by the end of this century.
How did we ever survive?
Isn't it nice that we are an 'adaptable' species? So do we spend our $Trillions on saving billions of lives with better nutrition and medicines, or do we waste it in a fruitless attempt to keep the climate from changing - something it has done constantly over the last 10,000 years?
Who said that? That's a very bold statement.
Why don't we just detonate all our nuclear weapons for fun? Life will survive and adapt, right?
We adapt to climate change over thousands of years. I don't think you can adapt from breathing oxygen to breathing CO2 or from drinking clean water to drinking acid or water saturated with poisons and cancer causing agents in just a couple of hundred years. What is happening today is not a natural occurrence over an extended period of time but a forced occurrence with in a one to two hundred year period of time. This isn't evolution it is poisoning the planet.
Just another reason for my hubby and me not to have children. What's the point of having progeny, when they will just suffer from our own stupidity?
This "study" is BS. Temps in the Pacific have been cooler than ever in the last few years. We are having issues with slow grow-out on Oysters due to the water being so cold. The ice pack in the Bearing Sea is thicker and farther South than it has been in over 20 years. Gloabl warming...er, climate change... just the latest way to get grant money and a lame attempt to create cash for new industry. We have already poured billions into Solyndra and other failed green tech companies, when will it stop?
Warning! This post may be inappropriate for people that don't think. The following content may require an intellect to understand its' message. Presently there are about 1.4 billion hectares (10,000 sq. meters) of arable land in use worldwide. Prior to 1950 soil carbon accounted for 5% or more of the weight of dry arable soil. Today it is less than 2%. The weight of this soil to a depth of 23cm is about 3 million kg per hectare. Multiplying this number by 10% (soil carbon prior to 1950) gives 300 thousand kg of soil carbon/hectare; multiplied by today's level, 2% gives 60,000 kg of soil carbon/hectare. Multiplying this by total hectares in the world of 1.4 billion and you get 420 trillion and 84 trillion kg of soil carbon. The difference of 336 trillion kg is the number of kilograms of carbon, (mostly in the form of CO2) that has passed into deep bodies of water due to flooding, or into the atmosphere. In 2010, the US Dept of Energy reported 8 trillion kg of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere. Conclusion: Lost soil carbon from the world's arable soil creates huge amounts of carbon dioxide (a Greenhouse Gas) entering the atmosphere. Solution: Increase soil carbon (humic substances) back into the soil. How? Use of vermicomposting organic wastes, especially biosolids, at the 26,000 wastewater treatment plants in the US and via organic farming replacing chemical fertilizers, (Rodale Institute). Want to know more? www.vermistabilization.com
Oh, by the way, vermicomposting involves using earthworms (redworms) to eat the microbes caused by the decaying organic waste.
Well said Saturnsrim!
Surprisingly, most people seem to understand what's coming. There are a couple of points I'd like to make. First, the carryover effect from our emissions thus far will continue to add to the duration of the current warming trend, even if we stopped using fossil fuels right now. So the sea level rise will continue, and most likely will accelerate due to permafrost melting and releasing methane into the atmosphere. Second, the largest impact on our species will be habitat loss. This loss will result in millions of climate refugees with basically nowhere to go. As it plays out, overcrowding will bring conflict, famine, and plagues and death to many. (basically all the things written in Revelation) To put it in black and white, billions must and will die to balance population with resources. If you wonder why our leaders have taken no real action to change our habits, it is very simple, you can't save everyone, and to save 15 to 20% without losing the technological advancements that we've made is very expensive. Not to mention, if the public were made aware of the true 1% agenda, anarchy would likely erupt, making it nearly impossible to implement their COG plans. So, what's the plan? Keep the public distracted until it's too late to do anything about it. D.U.M.B.'s (deep underground military bases) have two stated purposes; survive a nuclear strike and protect its occupants from the ensuing fallout for as long as 3 years. So, compare what they tell you to prepare for in the case of an emergency, and what they are preparing for, 2 weeks vs. 3 years. So, why the huge discrepancy? They intend for you to be reassured, not saved. They also rely on disbelief of the masses. Those who saw Noah building and ark probably said "he's friggin crazy". People now say the same things about people like me, and that's fine. Remember 1 thing, those who fail to prepare, prepare to fail. So what are you doing?
Jerry Scholder - Excellent post.
People who listen to the old timers know that our soil has been getting thinner every year.
We have used improved genetics and fertilizer to keep yeilds up - but you make an excellent point about carbon in the soil.
By increasing the amount of carbon in the soil, through the addition or incorporation of organic matter into it has important benefits. It increases yeilds, decreases irrigation needs, reduces erosion and flooding, and increases percolation of rain down into the water table.
Now add what you are saying: which by far would be more carbon than man has ever produced - and you have the kind of solution we need to be looking for.
It's alot better than my idea of using fiber cement for all construction (again to lock up carbon).
Wish there were more people who actually stop to think about these things instead of just reciting political talking points.
Linux Advocate
You have to work and engineer power plants in order to say a snidely remark, I have..
it wasnt the bases of my argument" wise up.
The facts are that ocean heat content globally is essentially at a record high (see NOAA or NASA data), and a recent NASA study confirmed that heat was still being added to the Earth's oceans and climate system even during the 2005-2010 period when there was a solar minimum. Pacific cooling is usually a temporary consequence of La Nina.
If the climate changes then the oceans will change. There will be less of certain things and more of others. Isn't this called "evolution"?
i wouldn't recommend vouching for allow extinction events to occur due to our own negligence just because "nature adapts", because when "nature adapts" it tends to not ask us what our preferences are.
No. Evolution is a natural process.
"Less of certain things and more of others"=evolution. This is so stupid it's painful. No wonder the US ranks so low in math and science.
No it's not evolution. It's called damage. When a tornado rips your house open it's not called a renovation. Environmental damage is a bit slower than a tornado but speed is not the key term in the definition of damage
Bill big business. Don't bill the people. the people do not pollute the planet, they have very little money to even survive on, but it's the people that will pay dearly for big business that continues to pollute our planet.
Says who? Let's assume for a minute that everything about global warming and man's role in it is true. Isn't man part of nature? Aren't the things that humans do just as "natural" as the things that other animals do? Has not man just "evolved" to a point where he can exert more influence than other beings? Maybe part of natural selection is that man completely alters the planet to the point where evolution takes a radical turn. Lots of other events in the history of the earth have caused radical changes... Ice ages, asteroids, etc. In the macro view of the earth and its history, things are always happening that render some species extinct and give rise to others.
If the world came about by chance and everything we see is the result of randomness, then how can one thing be deemed "better" than another? Why are non-acidic oceans better than acidic ones? Because they have more fish in them? Why is more fish better than less fish? More fish is simply different than less fish... Deep thoughts to ponder.
You know what we are getting less of and more of, Bruce? We are already (like right now) getting less fish and MORE inedible Echinoderms (starfish) and Cnidarians (jellyfish). I hope you develop a taste for the Crown of Thorns Starfish because that's all they will be serving at Red Lobster if we continue on this path.
And less edible fish is a by product of these changes. Perhaps man will eventually render himself extinct. But in a purely evolutionary sense, does this even matter? Many on the left seem to believe the world is better off without man. Maybe they are correct, and man's stint on this planet will be brief and doomed to failure. Once man is gone, things will continue to grow, change, and evolve....
That might be an acceptable outcome if you are a total misanthrope. I think most folks would agree that mass human starvation is not an acceptable outcome.
Evolution is evolving to adapt to your surroundings where as polluting your surroundings and destroying its resources leads to nothing but extinction.
Bruce... I like the way you think. Thank you.
Most of us will only get about 100 years to enjoy the plant... don't waist them trying to fix everything. As we type gaint rocks are traveling towards us through space... magma is bubbling below our feet... and the Sun is trying to give everything in the solar system a 3rd degree sunburn... ... ... Oh forget it... I'm going boating!!!
Evolution does not exist intelligent design is making all of these changes occur. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
NO climate change here... move along and continue to ignore the obvious and remember that 2+2=5, climate scientists are leading a GLOBAL conspiracy to take over the WORLD with pinky and the brain so that they can eat your cake, steal your bike and kill your dog. MUHAHAHAHA
Now if you look at it from a biblical perspective (play along for a minute, those of you who are already tuning out), man was put on earth for a purpose (see Genesis chapter 1), and one of his "tasks" was to care for the earth and be good stewards of it. If you view creation in this respect (it was created to be good) and man's role in this perspective (caring for it), then taking care of the planet becomes a moral imperative because it was one of the tasks he was created for.
It seems that man innately KNOWS that caring for the planet makes sense. I think our founders used the term, "We find these truths to be self-evident".
But if I view the planet and man's presence on it as purely an evolutionary outcome of random mutations and adaptations, then NOTHING matters, because the way things are is merely how they happened to evolve. There is no such thing as "best", only "best adapted". And if conditions change, then something else may adapt better and squeeze out that which is poorly adapted. With evolution, there is no purpose for things being the way they are.... They just ARE....
I do find it a bit paradoxical that those who believe we are the product of random chance and nothing else find it so imperative to keep things "good", as if there is a difference between good and bad in a world that is the result of complete chance.
You're wrong, Bruce. You're equating science and evolution to nihilism. A person does not have to believe in a god, gods, Santa Claus or monster-under-the-bed to believe in human goodness and the need to create a better world for future generations to live in.
Either way, you're devil's advocating from an American fundamentalist Christian perspective on evolution, or you are an American Christian fundamentalist. It's extremely arrogant, not to mention prejudiced, of you to think people who pay more attention to scientific knowledge and a view of the world that includes evolution as being (implied) uncaring, cold, mechanical.
You don't need to believe in any of the 30+ million different gods/spiritual beliefs people on this earth worship to have a moralistic viewpoint. I don't believe in gods or anything supernatural, and I believe in being a good person, in not harming people, and respecting others. I have an optimistic view of humanity, and a belief in Stone Age mythology isn't necessary for me to live by my own ethics and morality.
Besides, I'd be curious to know how many of these polluters and owners of big businesses responsible for pumping poisons and toxins into our drinking water, soil, and atmosphere are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Buddhist.
I love it when folks like you tell me what I mean... As if I am not smart enough to know what I mean...
Evolution IS cold, uncaring, and mechanical. Natural selection doesn't give points for "nice" or "good". In fact, stopping to help people along the highway can get you killed (nice and good could be traits detrimental to survival).....
I believe we are to be kind, caring, and yes, care for the earth. But I believe we innately feel that way because it's a "self evident" truth that our creator programmed into us.
If this really is a problem then you need to direct your angst to countries like China, with little or no pollution control standards....however, I would point out that CO2 levels were 20 times higher 500 million years ago and the earth was thriving......plants love CO2 to produce the very oxygen we need to survive!
Agreed, but 500 million years ago human-kind did not exist. So by your theory if we redirect our "angst", as you put it, and ignore or shrug our shoulders at the pressing situations we face now; deforestation, water pollution, ground pollution, etc, we as the present species we know and "love" so well won't have the facilities (nature) to correct or balance what WE need to survive and we too will become extinct in the form we are now.
the plants and animals we use for food nowadays depend on vary specific climate requirements by region. plants may "love" CO2 but they won't magically become more resistant to cold or heat simply because there's more of it around. CO2 itself isn't the issue it's what the CO2 does to the heat transfer mechanisms of our planet that's the problem.
False premise because we hadn't evolved at that stage....but a nice attempt. Any "theory" is your own...I'm just stating the facts.
Okay pudding- maybe plants were thriving 500 million years ago, but we werent here either. we probably couldnt exist in an environment that existed 500 million years ago. in illnois we are a month ahead weatherwise right now. new record high temps every day for a week by as much as 8 or more degrees. evolution works well with gradual change- not like we are experiencing currently.
The "Do as I say not as I do" argument, it's as bad an environmental policy as it is a war strategy.
China is actively working on green energy and working to reduce the pollution from the sources they currently use. They're pouring billions into R&D. They not only admit there's a problem, they're working to solve it. That used to be what we did in the US. Now we just whine about other countries and tell everyone how great we are.
Puddin', I'm not disputing the facts you've posted. All I'm saying is your "theory" is flawed, by my interpretation anyway. Granted, we as the race/species we are now did not exist in this form 500 million years ago. Perhaps we were microbes in the gut of some primordial mega-fish. Who knows.
All I'm trying to point out is that if the CO2 levels rise it would be many, many years before the plants could rebound well enough to sustain mammalian life. Where would we be in the meantime? Cloistered in living quarters requiring re-breathers, O2 scrubbers, etc to live?
Not a life I would want my progeny to endure. That's all I'm saying.
Ooooh yes...."green energy"...more manufactured electric cars with batteries....that will save the planet! The problem many of you have is thinking that oil and other naturally occuring materials from the earth are somehow "toxic" to the earth......it's really more about quantity....if you're concerned about the amount then reduce the human population.
Oil and coal and such being burned and pushed into the atmosphere is not naturally occurring. Oil naturally occurs in the ground. This is very basic science. I wish people would stop forming opinions when they are not informed on these subjects.
And don't volcanoes "push" materials "into the atmosphere"? This is not natural? Would you attempt to control volcanoes as well? Yes this is "very basic science", rigg, so what's up with that? Would you deny Hawaii its place in the sun?
WOW!!! You are one fraction or a smart person. It is not that Carb. % is more high now, as it was way back then. It is all the other crap that is added into the air along with it. Like the Acids , Merc and other types of Human PRODUCED waste pumped into the air. These combine to make some really nasty stuff at times. Stop taking one slice of the info and making it what you want. We have water run off from over ferted farm lands. Strip mineing with acids to prep the ores. the list goes on and on.
The Human Race acts like they do not care about the place they live. we only have one planet. STOP CRAPPING IN YOUR BED!!!!!
I know that in the last year. I have cut my mileage in half. And my home elect by 30%. But we need to do more. We need to do everything and anything we possible can.
Our Government says... But it will cost to much.... Ok.. How much will it cost to not be able to live here? Is there another planet we can go to?
Yet another chicken little story. Twenty-five years ago, we were headed for an ice age. This is absolutely nothing more than another attempt by left wingnut environmentalist wackos to fleece millions from us for a non-existent threat. Just ONE major volcanic eruption does more damage than all of human kind has ever done.. EVER. And in case none of you huggers realize, that glowing ball in the sky that powers everything, as well as the orbit of the Earth itself, have natural fluctuations that affect CLIMATE...
Earth is a living changing organism, and we give ourselves too much credit for our ability to affect it.
Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.
Go get a glass out, run down to your local lake, stream or river and take a drink. I could when I was young. Keep telling yourself that is a natural occurrence. Never in the history of this planet has the water been this polluted. Mother nature had no hand in that. God will save us? Read your bible, God has proven to be the ultimate parent when it comes to tough love. It's not like he has not wiped most of us off the planet before. I know some of you are just bidding your time until God takes you home. The sooner the better. What you have to ask yourself is if God will be willing to take you home after you let the home he gave you be poisoned. Maybe God will just let mother nature clean herself up after we are gone and go with humans 2.0 the upgrade. After all, he is God! If you believe he did it once, you must believe he can do it again. Then again, God just might decide the human species was a waste of time.
There was definitely more CO2 500 million ago. Most of the planet was an inhospitable desert and swamp as well.
There is no possible way that a Cambrian like environment that existed 500 million years ago that had 16 times more CO2 and 30% less oxygen could support a fraction of the human population that exists today. Freshwater was scarce and there was significantly less land mass due to the oceans being so high.
notaliberal; Why don't you explain to us just exactly how we get fleeced by the environmentalists?
Ooooh yes...."green energy"...more manufactured electric cars with toxic batteries....that will save the planet!
Pudding
You make a very good point-- toxic batteries.
It seems anything and every thing we try has a downside to it. But try we must !!
Thanks for that, Bob, you're a good man......I just think much of this anti-oil sentiment is propaganda to promote alternative business. Me, I'm as low-tech, low-energy-consumption as I can be. Cheers!
Scientists, environmentalists, politicians and educators ALL need to start understanding a very basic simple principle, one that seems to have been lost when it comes to modernization. It doesn't matter if its electric, carbon based or "green based".. EVERY product created or process imposed by man creates a negative impact on the planet, its time to accept that and to start using common sense. We can't STOP or ELIMINATE the impact so no point in wasting our money in trying. FACT: NOTHING on this planet as yet can replace oil, gas & coal, ironically enough these are very natural forms of energy and are improving every day. It's fanaticism we can do without.
Naturally occuring oil, gas and coal left in their natural state don't have anywhere near the effects of its non-natural drilled for, mined, pumped, processed and burned effects. To say this is the best we can do with our creativity seems more than a little limiting. There's a lot to do, explore, find, risk and acheive. There were those who thought it insanity to stop riding horses... and those who thought riding horses was dangerous... We have to use these resources wisely to help get to next step and the next. But nowadays wisdom is in very short supply.
Sometimes, I hope that global warming destroys the planet. As a scientist, I'm tired of all the BS that comes from the climate deniers and those who comletey uneducated spewing propaganda (usually the same people). At this point I don't think that even if we employed drastic measures to reduce CO2 we would be able to stop the changes that are coming. Too many positive feedback's will occur. But at least by the time I'm an old man, I can say "I told you so" to each and every denier I know.
Have a glass of wine, Forest, it's good for the heart and the soul. We love that you care!
As a news consumer I am tired of scientist expressing their knowledge of things they no nothing about. Same as same as.
ND logic: I know more about it than the average person. I do not profess to be a researcher nor a climate scientist. I read about it from peer reviewed sources. I have seen from historical data how climate change has affected the systems I study. The evidence is very strong. Furthermore, neither you or I are smart enough to argue with math.
Fill the oceans with soil and grow crops!!!! Problem solved!!!
CO2 output causing massive damage to the planet is a bunch of bunk and all the fake science to promote the wrong reasons for global warming masks the true cause of our ills, BUT the damage we are doing to our oceans with all the fertilizer we dump into it is a serious problem.
I've got to quit laughing This article has so much spin on it , I'm dizzy .
It's only 2012 , and they're telling us how it will bee in 2100 . That is 88 years from now .
Just about every body reading this will be dead , If your 8 or 10 years old , just maybe you'll be alive .
88 years from now . Half of the people on earth will have moved to the moon or else where .
50 years ago . A teacher told us hydrogen would be the fuel of the future .
50 plus years ago . Bell labs started working on solar cells . Can we not believe , in the next 88 years , the sun will provide us with a big portion of our energy ?
88 years from now two trillion will buy little .
This article should have been saved for April fools day .
The people that are claiming that the CFC controls worked...
The half-life of the majority of the CFCs is over 90+YEARS...
The MAJORITY of the world is still producing R-12...
Maybe by 2100 you will see some results...
But the larger Ozone Hole is helping save the 7+Million cubic miles of ice in the Antarctica and the Sea Ice Coverage is now at historical HIGHS. Which has kept the sea levels constent for the last decade...
see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/18/sea-ice-news-volume-3-2/#more-59466
BTY - The Arctic sea ice coverage has returned to the NORMAL deviation range... see http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
We were also living without electricity and auto mobiles in the 1890's. My father plowed fields with horses and used an outhouse in 1940. "They said we would go to space in the 1950's. PC,s were just toys for lab people to play with computers were going nowhere.
The Corrals are dying. We are experiencing species collapse as we discuss this. The tundra in the north is melting and letting the carbon stored there escape. Native peoples are in danger of falling thru the normally frozen tundra and dying on ancient tradition summer hunting routes Glaciers are really melting. The tourist in Switzerland have to go up higher and use manufactured snow each year. Many people in this world get there water from glaciers and the potential supply is getting smaller. Hardwood tree are dying all over the United States from pest that could not previously survive in these area. Asthma rates among children are going up because of the carbon particles in our air. No Problem nothing happening Ill just stick my head in the sand and make fun of the intelligence of dedicated sciences while I get educated from media commentators who make lots of money if they can get an emotional response from me.
Serf; Right on.
Am I the only one who sees this as a April Fools joke .
This article is about 88 years from now . But 250 plus of you have your panties in a wad . Thinking they're talking about tomorrow .
Think back 88 years ago . That is when most of these problem first started . Do you not think in the next 88 years . We can resolve most of these problems ?
Even in my small brain . I have some of the solutions . Quit crying about the problems and find some solutions .
Two trillion 88 years from now , will be a small amount of money . Calm down and reread the article . Think about the time period of 88 years . Just like the last 88 years . There will be much change in the next 88 years .
Melting sea ice doesn't cause sea level rise; melting land ice does, and it's still melting rapidly in both Greenland and Antarctica (total of nearly 300 billions tons per year), ozone hole or not.
Let's panic everyone, we are all going to die tomorrow night, due to high tides and the water rising. You'll dump the human garbage into the sea and blame the climate. Has anyone even looked at the sediment levels going into our oceans. How about all the toxic crap, still being dumped in the dark. Lets come up with a new way for the united nuts to steal more of OUR hard earned money, while the governments, big corporations and eager fanatics, continue to lie, steal, cheat and continue dumping.
I am like the 'educated scientist' forest-prectre who can't spell completely, except, I don't believe we will destroy the planet through what is called global warning; however we will destroy ourselves...and be lied to all the way to the end... I am just an uneducated man with a want to see us as a race of people start loving each other and quit trying to contaminate our world with false propaganda and start telling the truth...I believe not all the cows and bulls in the world put out the Bull$hit politicians do...
My apologies for misspelling. But you are completely correct. I work with water, pollution, and eutrophication of lakes and rivers. It always amazes me how little people really know about the contamination levels in our freshwater supplies. When they do find out it's typically manifested in a large algal bloom, people getting sick, or sport-fish numbers crashing. Which is then followed by public outcry and blame for agencies in charge of management. However, If the same agencies then propose stricter pollution control standards those are swiftly met by industry and the right wing as draconian and job killers. So in all reality, we almost need to see water bodies start on fire, massive loss of biodiversity, sea level rise, people getting sick etc...to see any meaningful public outcry and demand for change in environmental policy.
forest-spectre; That's exactly what it took for us to enact our environmental laws in the first place. With all the false science and outright lies put out by the fossil fuel industry, and the idiots who believe them, I'm afraid that we will need a repeat of history to make needed corrections.
Worst of all, 99% of people don't give a damn about pollution as long as they get what they need to live today. Most don't think about or care about "Tomorrow". The time will come soon that we will ALL pay the Piper. The Earths EcoSystem will collapse and we will soon follow. Then everyone will be crying and begging for help but it will be too late.
Just like the moron Ron-1137649 ! He can't stop laughing about this article. 88 years from now we who are reading this will be dead or 10 years old or living on the Moon !!!!!!!!!! Great mentallity there RON. It's Morons like you that don't care about someone else's future or this planets future. You care about your own ass and nothing else. I'll bet your a Obama Welfare Receipient too !
you mean 1% don't give a damn?
Does that mean 100% don't give a damn about this? Just pointing out the obvious.
Just like most bs articles this one is based on opinion not fact. Other then some institutions mention no research stated or a single scientist name was mention to verify this article. Plus in the 70's I thought that the papers said we would be in an Ice age by now. So heres just one chart of many with references about the fact that the earth temperatures are decreasing. Also the same agency's stated about a year ago (maybe less) that the temperatures were decreasing, so please make up your mind..
This is one place where I feel science has failed. There's a VAST body of research that supports this "news article" done by hundreds if not thousands of scientists world wide and many institutions. The problem, and the failing, of science is that these articles are written in academic journals. Some journals I follow include Science, Nature, Limnology and Oceanography, Ecotoxicology, Ecology (just to name a few). My guess is you do not have access to these nor are you willing to pay the steep costs associated with receiving such articles on a monthly or quarterly basis. But mark my words the information is out there. Perhaps a trip to a library or university would allow you access if you wish to see for yourself.
On the 1970's global cooling statement. This is false and I believe stemmed from the aerosol worries. You can not find these in the scientific, peer reviewed literature...however you can find these articles in popular science magazines and news papers. Interestingly enough the global warming hypothesis has been around since the discovery that CO2 traps long wave radiation which I believe was determined in the 1800's. But please don't quote me on that, you would have to look it up.
As to the statement regarding global temperatures cooling. That is also false. I would like to direct you to the NOAA website that deals with climate. Google search "NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries". NOAA also has monthly rankings, yearly rankings, and decade rankings on this website.
You see the information is out there in many cases. These are unbiased sources whose soul job it is to make sure they record and disseminate accurate measurements. If the next 20 years go by and we see a sharp cooling trend, then I would say that the global warming hypothesis is in trouble.
Right ON, Dad-2025374. I completely agree. The FIRST thing you do, before you read anything, is look at WHO wrote it. It's called common sense.
Fine then. Use your "common sense" and look up the thousands of pages of peer reviewed research that supports man made global warming. Read the previous comment from "forrest_spectre" and see where this information can be found. It is out there, the evidence is overwhelming and it will eventually destroy our ecosystem if we do not do somethng about it.
By all means do your own research, but don't just look where you are told to look. I believe you will find a lot of evidence that most of the alarm discounts, such as the sun.
Another thing that has me scratching my head is why would oil (energy) companies fight this alarm/crisis? It would seem that if they could double or triple the price of their product, thus extending the life of the resource, they'd be all for it!
Just like anything to do with the future, this is a news story and is printed because it generates "clicks" and interest. However, whoever wants to believe in a forecast for the next century has got to be crazy. I cant get an accurate 5 forecast for my local weather, never mind one that is 75 years away. Bottom line is the world will change, as it has been since mankind first arrived. Nothing is going to stop it, just deal with it.
Yes the "world is going to change" but that does not mean we as humans cannot stop the changes WE ARE responsible for. And on this subject, something could easily "stop it" and that "something" is an effort by all of mankind to do so. And examples are very easy to find. All you have to do is look at the cleanup efforts here in America and the remarkable affect they have had on some of our most polluted waterways and cities.
You are correct that the world is always changing, and it is highly unlikely that mankind, at least with our current knowledge of science can stop NATURALLY occurring changes to the planet. But changes that we are DIRECTLY responsible for? No doubt, if we caused it, we can fix it.
Clinmate change science is entirely different from weather forcasting. DUH
The earth has not even raised a single degree in temp in the last 150 years. In fact we stand at .6 of a degree. All of you who blame the warm weather you are having on global warming are alarmists. We aren't even breaking records set 50+ years ago.
Keep listening to Exxon's and Monsanto's scientists Howard. We can easily see where you're getting your "facts", LOL!!!
Besides, this article is on ocean ACIDIFICATION as well as warming. Now that IS measurable, both currently and to the past. Time mag reported that scientists have found NO time in history that ocean levels reached the levels we're seeing now. This means EXTINCTION of a food source that at least half the world survives on.
Here in the Midwest, I've met so many people who deny it's the nitrates they're putting on their crops. They say they are told that the annual dead zone in the Gulf has NOTHING to do with that. I don't know who's lying to these people, but the way they see it, their entire livelihood is at stake. No wonder they don't want to hear the truth.
But then again, around here, say one bad word about Monsanto and the vice squad gets called out. (By God, I'm guilty of Sedition. Yikes!) And that's true even of the Liberals I've met.
Yeah Howard, keep denying; whatever gets you through the night . . .
It's actually closer to 0.6 deg C (1.0 deg F) since about 1977, with a much smaller overall trend prior to that, when global carbon emissions were much less than they are now. And we most certainly are breaking records ... literally thousands of daily temperature records in the U.S. in the last year alone.
You are right, Howard!!!
The emails discovered by FOIA found conversations stating that those hired/appointed to perpetuate/spin the theory were not able to find any data supporting global warming, let alone "man made". So, they suggested to those devising that scheme to just call it "Climate Change'.
I actually got the data from the MET Office. Directly from their Climate change FAQ. Don't confuse your beliefs with facts, I can cite my facts, how about you. Sage?
Global average temperature 1850-2009, 2000s are warmest decade so far Earth is warming. Over the last 100 years Earth has warmed by about 0.75 °C.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/faq
Your saying 0.75 C in 100 years . The article is talking about the next 88 years . Much can be done in the next 88 years . I don't think we're going to see 10 or 20 C degree increase in the next 88 years
Last week they were stating that Greenland and the Antarctic were losing 100+cubic miles of ice every year for the last DECADE...
They forgot to mention that their instruments would have to have a accuracy of better than 1/86,000 of a percent to measure this minuscule quantity out of the total ice quantity of 8.6+Million cubic miles...
Or that the Antarctic ice volume levels had obtained the highest quantities ever measured during 2007, sense the measurements started in 1970...
Or that several multi-year studies in Greenland that started during 1950 to 1999, were showing ice volume INCREASES of up to 10%...
Sounds like more misinformation to me. Scientists are confident in the ice loss measurements using satellite technology and other techniques, including direct observation of water runoff. You're referring to a small increase in Antarctic sea ice; there is a net melting of Antarctic land ice. A true 10% increase in Greenland ice in a short period of time is not credible or physically possible without some extreme event; by your own numbers that would be nearly 1 million cubic miles! Much more likely is that the estimates from the 1950 time period had a large margin of error, explaining the 10% difference.
EricH-3359508,
1. Copied from the GRACE web site...
POST GLACIAL REBOUND DISCUSSION - CORRECTED PGR GRIDS
The coding error previously reported in our model of Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA ~=PGR) has been fixed, the corrected GIA grids for both land and ocean are online, and the GRACE monthly grids using the corrected GIA are also online. A coding error in the software that computes GIA was reported in late 2009. The nature of the bug caused polar wander feedback to be accidentally turned off, and so was the rotational feedback. The effect had the spatial pattern of spherical harmonic term (2,1), was less than 2 mm/yr in equivalent water thickness everywhere over the globe, caused less than 0.05 mm/yr in a global sea level rise estimate. We replaced the incorrect GIA fields with corrected ones, and replaced all the GRACE monthly fields (both oceans and land) with corrected ones. The model is still that of Paulson et al (2007), as corrected by Geruo A and J. Wahr. See also Chambers et al, 2010.
The "best" model we recommend is now based on Paulson et al (2007), with an uncertainty of +/- 20%. reference - http://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/data/pgr/
If you base data has a +/-20% ERROR, then your following data will reflect this, no matter how accurate they are...
2. Greenland had a multi-year survey conducted that concluded that its ice volume was 703,424 cubic miles or 2,931,000 cubic kilometers during 1999. This was verified by previous surveys that indicated Greenland's ice volume may have INCREASED by 10% over a 50+year period... see http://nsidc.org/data/docs/daac/nsidc0092_greenland_ice_thickness/parca_paper1.pdf
3. Three years ago a decade long study in Greenland indicated a TOTAL 0.05% DECREASE in ice volume. Here is the direct quote from the 13Nov2009 Science Daily article on Greenland ice loss. "Since 2000, the ice sheet has lost about 1500 Gt in total, representing on average a global sea level rise of about half a millimetre per year, or 5 mm since 2000."... Or about 0.020" a year or 0.2" since 2000...
Remember the GRACE data error of, " less than 2 mm/yr in equivalent water thickness world wide" with a +/-20% ERROR. about covers this claim...
4. The latest data from satallite studies of the Himalaya Mountains ice coverage...
Satellite measurement of glaciers in the Himalayas revealed that these mountains lost only one-tenth the ice between 2003 and 2010 compared to the loss reported in previous estimates. (Source). The Guardian (U.K.) reports that Bristol University glaciologist Prof Jonathan Bamber said: “The very unexpected result was the negligible mass loss from high mountain Asia, which is not significantly different from zero.”
5. The latest data on Greenland...
Rutgers University keeps track of snow cover around the world. Their data show as slight, but steadily increasing snow cover in Greenland since 1966. See graphs for the northern hemisphere as a whole here.
6. The latest data on Antarcta...
A new surface mass balance (SMB) map of Antarctic shows no significant trend for the period 1979-2010. Note that this is a modeling study, but the authors claim it is in good agreement with 750 surface measuring stations. See full paper and graphics here.
But like you stated, "Sounds like more misinformation to me."
I've read the Parca paper before; it's about a new improved method of estimating ice volume and makes no statement about increase or decrease in ice volume over time. I think it's safe to assume the latest NASA data (which shows an ice melt rate of nearly 300 gigatons per year and an average sea level rise of 3 mm/year) has been corrected for any of the effects you mention. And I see you corrected your own number ... revising 8.6 million cubic miles of ice down to the correct value of about 700,000 cubic miles. The Himalayan glaciers are very high altitude and so are not expected to melt quickly. (Recall the typo in the IPCC report; the correct estimate for the Himalayan glaciers melting was 2350, not 2035.) I'll have to review the paper on Antarctica, but keep in mind temperatures have only risen 1.5 deg F on average so far; what do you think will happen if the increase becomes 5 or 10 deg F by the year 2100 as predicted?
Here's what NASA itself just released on Feb. 8:
The two of you , might be exchanging data . That give a picture for the next decade .
But the article is about 88 years from now . It's like an April fools joke
Doesn't anyone think , we can change things in the next 88 years ?
The sky isn't falling , and the oceans aren't rising .
If the ocean's are rising . We need to eat more fish and take them out of the ocean 's L O L
Don't worry, the GOP-Teaturds will spend trillions to remedy this by convincing idiots it is not happening!
What should anyone reading care about? We will all be dead long before the end of this century......
well there ya go...
It's George Bush's fault.
How can anyone put a price on the environment !
Please understand that they are not telling you the complete picture yet, believe it or not. Please keep in mind that once temperatures go up an average of 2.5 degrees C., all of the carbon sinks throughout our world (both in the oceans and on the land) will turn into carbon sources. At that time the process of global warming will greatly accelerate because there will be very little left to convert CO2 back into O2, and we will have reached the tipping point of no return, beyond which our planet will eventually self destruct in a global mass extinction event or die off. This tipping point could actually be reached in as little as 30 years or so. Much of our global ecological system will eventually crash back to single cell life, and the evolutionary process will potentially have to start all over again here on Earth. - Rick Carter
PS - Phytoplankton which convert CO2 to O2 in our oceans have already declined 40% RIGHT NOW within just our own lifetimes, and we are only beginning to see the ravages of global warming on our planet. - RC
It's already happening Rick. Which is why I fear we are already too late. Positive feed backs are all ready occurring. I've read some troubling articles in limnology showing how arctic lakes are just pouring out tons of methane into the atmosphere every year.
Rick-- people are Evil so maybe it's time for a die off. Next time things might be better. The World is such a lovely place, it's a shame to see it destroyed from greed and ignorance. IMHO
The Ocean is the largest carbon sink on the planet and once it acidifies (a process occuring right now) to the point that it cannot absorb any more CO2, then the tipping point will be reached.
dollars mean little when they can just PRINT MORE when needed....
How about letting people know the cost in human lives and children suffering?
Mega tons of 'highly' radioactive water is being dumped repeatedly by Japan into the
Pacific since March 11, 2011!!!!
and they ain't charging nobody a dime to do it...that's big of them...
The sun and its activity and volcanic activity are the controllers of our environment. Humans have no effect globally. The earth is 3/4 water and most of the humans are concentrated in small areas of the continents, making their area on earth extremely small. Its impossible for humans to cause global warming or change. Get over yourselves.
Jimbo. Your initial statements are true. The sun and volcanoes DO affect the environment. As does the earths orbit and tilt. However I'm sure you would be so enlightened to tell me that volcanoes increase temperature. In fact volcanic eruptions suspend aerosol particles into the upper atmosphere which increase the earths albedo (reflectivity); deflecting the solar radiation that heats our earth.
Being the expert that you are and your massive knowledge you have acquired researching the topic I'm sure you would also tell me that the sun is getting warmer. In fact, the last decade was the warmest on record while we were at a solar minimum. Meaning less radiation was being put out.
But I will stop being so condescending since I know you have no idea what you are talking about. However I would direct you to the scientific literature, textbooks, and your local library to learn more about it. However chances are you really have no interest in the subject nor the training to understand the contents. Therefore you will continue to spew crud on the internet which has no factual basis. My advice to you would be to never again listen to the advice of electricians, plumbers, financial counselors, doctors, or anyone who is an expert in their field of study and dedicate their lives to it..we all know they are full of it.
So I guess it's just pure coincidence that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen exponentially since the industrial evolution?. Don't take the environmentalist's word on that, even global warming deniers admit to the increased CO2 levels. They just think it won't increase temperatures or won't increase it that quickly or will actually benefit the planet (they haven't really agreed on that one).
Did you know that the greatest atmospheric change on the planet took place due to the SMALLEST organisms? That's right. O2 was not a gas prevalent in any great quantity on this planet until aerobic bacteria coverted the CO2 over to O2 over a long period of time. If single celled organisms can change the planet, so can we.
Heavy Rain And Snow, Droughts, Tornados, Earthquakes...It's a fact that something is happening and Mother Nature is pissed. The few of us who care and see this can't seem to convince those who don't that something is wrong...But is it global warming? is it caused by us? or just the nature of things? I mean what the hell do you want from me, I own two cars, one gets driven 12 miles once a month to the doctor's office because I can't catch a bus, The other one sit in the garage and gets driven once a year because I can't bring myself to let it go, I don't have air conditioning, I keep my heat turned down to 65 in the winter, scrapped all my appliances for high efficiency units and what good does it do when redneck Bob and high pocket Betty don't do anything to help? Turn those Air Conditioners "OFF" I never had them growing up, and don't use one now, Turn off that third forth and fifth television and half the lights you leave on all night, Turn off those nuke plants and atleast make an effort so my great grand kid's can see tomorrow. Do you really need that big SUV when a smaller station wagon will do? Because all this boils down to is a lot of spoiled brats who refuse to give up luxuries they don't really need........
To think that humans are too small to affect the planet is like saying mold is too small to affect the orange.
Humans have reached a level of intelligence which no species on earth has ever attained, that we know of. Never in history have any inhabitants of earth had the capacity to analyze and interpret the world around us on the grand scale of modern times. We are the first creatures to see our impact on our planet, and we are the only ones to have the consonance to try to reduce our impact. It is impossible to compare any other time in history to current day. Not a single other era has had the knowledge as well as the technology to be in the position we are in today. We are actually at a point where, not only can we grasp the idea of evolution, we could possibly be in a position to stop it in humans. We are the only species in known history which is self-aware enough to see the changes which are happening to us and develop techniques and products to prevent those changes from taking hold. We do many things to insure that we keep our current form and function. No other life form has ever had that ability, that we know of.