Newfie wrote:Recently there was an article about planting trees to stop climate change. Here is a response....Lewis also dismisses the claim, by Bastin’s co-author Thomas Crowther, that “forest restoration is the best climate change solution available today.”
“That is emphatically not correct. The best solution for climate change is to keep fossil carbons in the ground,” Lewis says. Other experts have also raised concerns that the hype around Bastin’s study is creating misconceptions about the problem and primary solution, which could be problematic in the long-run. They fear a focus on tree planting could distract policy-makers from acting on other efforts to reduce carbon emissions and stop climate change.
Bold is mine.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/ ... V_V-CR4FR4
This is not to dismiss the idea of planting trees or better yet retaining forests.
It is within reach of most of us to buy a few acres of forest, individually or collectively, to protect it from “development.”
I would like to see some tax relief for protecting wooded land. I spend nearly $2,000/year in taxes to protect my 168 acres.
Realistically, we're NOT going to stop burning a hell of a lot of fossil fuels -- and the weak kneed politicians re the very timid to no efforts to have an effective CO2 tax demonstrate that.
Your basic assumption is that human nature won’t allow us to change our habits. I think it’s true we won’t until we are forced to. But there is a roar chance that if the scientific community talked to folks like adults, told the. The truth, they would react better than they are doing now.
rockdoc123 wrote:The problem with the "scientific community" is that what the average joe thinks the "scientific community" is isn't not even close to it. They get their "science" information from press releases heavily interpreted by creative writers and often issued by researchers who have skin in the game. Unfortunately, the vast majority of folks are either too lazy or don't care enough to read scientific articles and definitely are afraid to voice an opinion that would make them seem to be a "bad person". Gone are the days........
What We Need to Do
As a start, here are twelve things that are urgent: In our classrooms and in our lives as scientists,
1) We must acknowledge that overpopulation is the world’s most serious and threatening problem and that this problem requires immediate and urgent attention.
2) We must teach about the arithmetic and consequences of growth as they apply to our present rates of consumption of resources and to our current national and global conditions of overpopulation.
3) We must seek to educate elected officials at all governmental levels about the severe present problems of overpopulation in our own local communities, in the United States and the world. We treasure our democracy but we must remember the words of Isaac Asimov (28): “Democracy cannot survive overpopulation.”
4) We must break down the mental and other blocks that keep most of our environmental organizations, large and small, from addressing overpopulation on the local and national levels.
5) We need to get all of our mainline scientific associations and societies to act on the recognition that overpopulation is a threat to the stable societies. Science can thrive only in a stable society. The long-term survival of science is threatened by overpopulation.
6) We should seek to get the U.S. and other governments to support major programs of family planning in the U.S. and throughout the world. These programs should make high quality family
A.A. Bartlett March 20, 2012
Page 14 of 17
planning assistance available worldwide at no cost to all individuals who request it. The goal of the family planning program should be that “Every child is a wanted child.” Rapid population decrease is essential to achieving sustainability.
7) We must expend great efforts worldwide in the education and emancipation of women, giving women freedom to make their own health, reproductive, economic and political decisions.We should work to guide production of fossil fuels and mineral resources in accord with the concept of “Sustained Availability,” (The Uppsala Protocol) thinking of it as a program of Equal Opportunity for Future Generations.
9) We must continue our efforts to use science and technology to greatly improve the efficiency with which we use energy and mineral resources within the framework of Sustained Availability.
10) We must continue research on the development of alternative fuels, being careful to see that these alternative fuels are not competing with the development of food supplies as is the case in 2012 with production of ethanol in the U.S.
11) We must encourage the transition from our present inefficient mega-agriculture (29) to localized agriculture that operates solely from solar power and from human and animal labor.
12) We must seek to re-orient science, technology and engineering away from their present roles that support population growth and redirect them to work for more modest, less glamorous and less complex roles that can improve the quality of life for human beings. The model might be that which is found in the book Small is Beautiful by E.F. Schumacher. (30)
As one can see, the creation of a sustainable society will be both difficult and challenging.
politicians, journalists, activists, media outlets, corporate lobbyists. All of these just mentioned are the ones who have skin in the game.There is no real rational counterpoint to the influence these entities have. Scientists by their very work are not part of the "public sphere" of information since academic journals are mostly read by fellow scientists and even when they do wander into journalism they have to compete with all those fore mentioned entities with skin in the game
dohboi wrote:I highly recommend just putting rok on ignore and never looking at anything s/he posts. it saves a lot of un-necessary wrangling!
Newfie wrote:So after looking at that list do you disagree that:
We should develop renewables.
Reduce fossils fuel usage.
Reduce fossil water usage.
Reduce plastic wastes?
Conserve natural spaces?
Reduce human population?
We should develop renewables.
Reduce fossils fuel usage.
Reduce fossil water usage.
Reduce plastic wastes?
Conserve natural spaces?
Reduce human population?
Newfie wrote: But I guess for many folks it’s more fun to argue, or to place blame, than accomplish something,
Newfie wrote:Thanks,
And that’s the point. We spend all our energy trying to convince folks of some particular point when in he grand scheme of things there is much room for agreement. Sure you R’s not perfect for anyone but it’s a start which is better than standing still arguing.
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests