SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Current Biology has an article (open access, DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2016.08.049) about the extent of wilderness areas around the world (except Antarctica). The authors found a decrease of 9.6% in the extent of those areas in the 2010s, as compared to the early 1990s.
For 3 of the 14 biomes (kinds of ecosystems)—"Tropical and Subtropical Coniferous Forests, Mangroves, and Tropical and Subtropical Dry Broadleaf Forests"—there remain no contiguous areas of at least 10,000 km2, say the authors. However, such large contiguous areas do comprise 82.3% of all wild lands.
They note that
the total stock of terrestrial ecosystem carbon (~1,950 petagrams of [c]arbon (Pg C)) is greater than that of oil (∼173 Pg C), gas (∼383 Pg C), coal (∼446 Pg C), or the atmosphere (∼598 Pg C), and a significant proportion of this carbon is found in the globally significant wilderness areas of the tropics and boreal region.
and recommend legal protection for wild lands as part of efforts against emission of carbon dioxide.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 21 2016, @02:15PM
The affected area has expanded tremendously since the 1960s, especially including offshore activity.
Again, "affected" is not a bit you set. Exposure has massively dropped since the 60s.
And now, in response to the higher cancer and other healthcare problems in the area, they have the "world class" MD Anderson cancer treatment center, in the middle of the gigantic med-center campus.
The number one cause of cancer is not dying of something else first. Death from cancer is not as preventable as death from heart disease, accident, or diabetes.
As world population continues to increase, more and more of the world will look like today's India, and less like yesterday's Florida.
Tomorrow's India won't look like that just like today's India doesn't look like 60s India.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday September 21 2016, @06:45PM
Exposure has massively dropped since the 60s.
Human exposure. If the biggest rigs operating in the 1960s had a major mishap per year, they still wouldn't have come close to the exposure that Deepwater Horizon caused to the ecosystems we can, and especially cannot, see. Oil foam from DWH appeared on ALL Florida beaches, even up into Georgia.
In the 1960s, the solution to pollution was dilution. With the growth of the human population and economy in the last 50 years, and lack of growth in the size of the Earth, dilution isn't cutting it anymore.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 21 2016, @11:00PM
Human exposure. If the biggest rigs operating in the 1960s had a major mishap per year, they still wouldn't have come close to the exposure that Deepwater Horizon caused to the ecosystems we can, and especially cannot, see.
Actually, yes they would. For example, the Ixtoc oil spill of 1979 spills 60% as much oil into the Gulf of Mexico as Deepwater Horizon did. Yet somehow we never hear anything about the environmental impact of that spill. I think a large part of the reason we don't see the "exposure" of Deepwater Horizon is because it didn't happen. Further, there's a lot less spills, those spills tend to be smaller when they occur, and they tend to be far better contained which is my point about exposure. And there's almost none of that deliberate dumping of pollutants which occurred way back when.
In the 1960s, the solution to pollution was dilution. With the growth of the human population and economy in the last 50 years, and lack of growth in the size of the Earth, dilution isn't cutting it anymore.
It wasn't working in the 60s either. That's why we fixed it.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday September 22 2016, @03:31AM
Stay in a Galveston beach hotel, they've "fixed" their pollution problems: they provide chem-wipes so you can get the tar off your feet after walking on the beach. 1960s solutions, still in use today.
If you believe that industry complies with regulations, you've never spent any time in LaPorte.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 23 2016, @01:35PM
Stay in a Galveston beach hotel, they've "fixed" their pollution problems: they provide chem-wipes so you can get the tar off your feet after walking on the beach. 1960s solutions, still in use today.
If you believe that industry complies with regulations, you've never spent any time in LaPorte.
Because walking on a beach right beside one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world would have been cleaner in the 60s.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday September 23 2016, @01:58PM
1960s solutions, still in use today.
Because walking on a beach right beside one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world would have been cleaner in the 60s.
No, because the situation hasn't improved since the 1960s, it has only gotten worse.
Go have another cup of coffee.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 23 2016, @02:28PM
No, because the situation hasn't improved since the 1960s, it has only gotten worse.
You keep saying that like it were true.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday September 23 2016, @04:09PM
No, because the situation hasn't improved since the 1960s, it has only gotten worse.
You keep saying that like it were true.
Lived in Seabrook, TX 2003-2006, it actually got significantly worse during those years.
According to friends who had lived their all their lives (since the 1960s), the big picture (for Southeast Houston) is getting worse. Cancer rates (not people dying of cancer, people contracting cancer in the first 50 years of life), accessibility of clean air and water, compliance of chemical plants with the regulations (more compliant on occasion, then less compliant for long stretches of time).
If you look at a single endeavor: refining 1000 tons of crude oil into gasoline, yes, that process is dramatically improved since the 1960s, much cleaner and safer than it used to be. If you look at the system as a whole, more crude oil is being refined, so much more that the net pollution output (including "accidental spills", "unforeseen problems", "acts of God", etc.) is still climbing, despite the technical gains in per-unit deliberate emissions.
Plain and simple: the beach hotels use more tar-wipes than ever. But the truly insidious part of living near all that isn't having to watch where you step, it's having to breathe the air.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 23 2016, @04:45PM
According to friends who had lived their all their lives (since the 1960s), the big picture (for Southeast Houston) is getting worse. Cancer rates (not people dying of cancer, people contracting cancer in the first 50 years of life), accessibility of clean air and water, compliance of chemical plants with the regulations (more compliant on occasion, then less compliant for long stretches of time).
So why should I believe "friends" over the EPA? And cancer rates are typical enviro-bullshit. Detection of cancer is a particularly weak sauce because we weren't looking for it in the 60s. Once again, people fail to realize that when you look for something, you find it.
I'll note once again everything you say was worse now was worse in the 60s. And notice you're only speaking of the Houston area which will remain uniquely environmentally challenged for some time to come due to its legacy oil and chemicals industry (including some of that 60s era pollution such as groundwater contamination and mercury, sticking around today).
Plain and simple: the beach hotels use more tar-wipes than ever. But the truly insidious part of living near all that isn't having to watch where you step, it's having to breathe the air.
Given that tar-wipes didn't exist in the 60s, that's a very easy thing to achieve.
Now, you're claiming air quality is down which contrary to assertion is the most noticeable improvement. Are we even both on the same planet?
For example, Houston's ozone levels [epa.gov], NOx and volatile organic compounds [google.com] have improved since the 1980s despite considerable growth and continues to show improvement to the present day.
And I think you're being quite dishonest here. Earlier you were speaking of "'bright spots' all around the world" which were "rare exceptions". Now, you're speaking solely of Houston which would be a single dark spot as if it were typical. Well, that's a rare exception too in the developed world.