Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Tuesday November 21 2017, @04:21PM   Printer-friendly
from the save-our-planet dept.

https://m.phys.org/news/2017-11-scientists-countries-negative-global-environmental.html

Human well-being will be severely jeopardized by negative trends in some types of environmental harm, such as a changing climate, deforestation, loss of access to fresh water, species extinctions and human population growth, scientists warn in today's issue of BioScience, an international journal.

The viewpoint article—"World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice"—was signed by more than 15,000 scientists in 184 countries.

The warning came with steps that can be taken to reverse negative trends, but the authors suggested that it may take a groundswell of public pressure to convince political leaders to take the right corrective actions. Such activities could include establishing more terrestrial and marine reserves, strengthening enforcement of anti-poaching laws and restraints on wildlife trade, expanding family planning and educational programs for women, promoting a dietary shift toward plant-based foods and massively adopting renewable energy and other "green" technologies.

Global trends have worsened since 1992, the authors wrote, when more than 1,700 scientists—including a majority of the living Nobel laureates at the time—signed a "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity" published by the Union of Concerned Scientists. In the last 25 years, trends in nine environmental issues suggest that humanity is continuing to risk its future. However, the article also reports that progress has been made in addressing some trends during this time.

The article was written by an international team led by William Ripple, distinguished professor in the College of Forestry at Oregon State University. The authors used data maintained by government agencies, nonprofit organizations and individual researchers to warn of "substantial and irreversible harm" to the Earth.

"Some people might be tempted to dismiss this evidence and think we are just being alarmist," said Ripple. "Scientists are in the business of analyzing data and looking at the long-term consequences. Those who signed this second warning aren't just raising a false alarm. They are acknowledging the obvious signs that we are heading down an unsustainable path. We are hoping that our paper will ignite a wide-spread public debate about the global environment and climate."

Other links:

Here is the official page where you can read the full article, endorse the article, view signatories, and endorsers

Direct link to full article in PDF

The 1992 version


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Sulla on Tuesday November 21 2017, @05:22PM (23 children)

    by Sulla (5173) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @05:22PM (#599734) Journal

    How can you be anti-nuclear and advocate for stopping greenhouse gasses? Nuclear is the only true viable solution. Wind and Solar are great but it would be hard to scale that for our whole country in a time frame where it can make a difference. It is sad to know that Hydro is a problem now because of the rise and fall in water levels causing plant decay, anyone have the link to that soylent article?

    --
    Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by NewNic on Tuesday November 21 2017, @06:17PM (16 children)

    by NewNic (6420) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @06:17PM (#599765) Journal

    How can you be anti-nuclear and advocate for stopping greenhouse gasses?

    Because of this:
    "Building new renewables is now cheaper than just running old coal and nuclear plants. [thinkprogress.org]

    --
    lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @06:38PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @06:38PM (#599775)

      If the title is true, there is no need to do anything, the market will take care of it before long.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by meustrus on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:02PM

        by meustrus (4961) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:02PM (#599791)

        Not if Big Government gets in the way of renewables by unfairly subsidizing coal, oil, and natural gas. And don't forget all the onerous regulations imposed on homeowners wanting to install home solar arrays. Too bad about that climate researcher energy industry conspiracy to stifle innovation and keep our infrastructure in the stone age.

        --
        If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
      • (Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:56PM

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:56PM (#599902) Journal
        I don't think most people reading that got the sarcasm.
        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:11PM (12 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:11PM (#599794) Journal
      It's including subsidies. Once again, we ignore that fossil fuel subsidies in the developed world are almost exclusively generic industry subsidies (for example, accelerated depreciation of mining assets in the US which is a common subsidy to the entire extractive industries sector, not just fossil fuels) while subsidies for renewable energy are in large part direct (getting paid to put out solar panels or wind turbines).

      And anyone who can claim that fossil fuels are more expensive in the developing world than in the developed world is doing something very wrong.

      But Lazard also makes a key global point: It’s more expensive to operate conventional energy sources in the developing world than it is in the United States. So the advantage renewables have over conventional sources is even larger in the rapidly growing electricity markets like India and China.

      Who really believes that when cost of labor and materials is greatly lower in these countries than in the US?

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by NewNic on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:33PM (7 children)

        by NewNic (6420) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:33PM (#599805) Journal

        It's including subsidies.

        LIAR!

        'Versions 6.0 – 11.0 present the LCOE on an unsubsidized basis, except as noted on the page titled “Levelized Cost of Energy—Sensitivity to U.S. Federal Tax Subsidies”'
        https://www.lazard.com/media/450337/lazard-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-110.pdf [lazard.com]

        Just look at the title of this graph:
        https://www.lazard.com/media/450333/chart-1-finally.jpg [lazard.com]

        But Lazard also makes a key global point: It’s more expensive to operate conventional energy sources in the developing world than it is in the United States. So the advantage renewables have over conventional sources is even larger in the rapidly growing electricity markets like India and China.

         

        Who really believes that when cost of labor and materials is greatly lower in these countries than in the US?

         

        "Hurr, Durr... I know better than someone who spends most of their life studying this topic ...."

        You ignore the cost of capital which the report notes is likely to be higher in non-OECD countries.

        --
        lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
        • (Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:55PM (6 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:55PM (#599826) Journal
          Sorry, I don't buy that. On the chart which talks about unsubsidized cost comparisons:

          Certain Alternative Energy generation technologies are cost-competitive with conventional generation technologies under some scenarios

          In other words, the analysis can contrive scenarios where unsubsidized cost of renewable sources (other than hydro, of course) can be cost competitive with the unsubsidized cost of non-renewable sources, but in general it's not.

          Who really believes that when cost of labor and materials is greatly lower in these countries than in the US?

          "Hurr, Durr... I know better than someone whosesalary depends upon his not understanding it ...."

          FTFY.

          You ignore the cost of capital which the report notes is likely to be higher in non-OECD countries.

          One doesn't buy capital with labor and materials. One builds it.

          • (Score: 2) by NewNic on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:32PM (5 children)

            by NewNic (6420) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:32PM (#599856) Journal

            "Hurr, Durr... I know better than someone whosesalary depends upon his not understanding it ...."

            So you assert that Lazard is in the business of promoting renewable energy sources? Do know what Lazard is? It's an investment bank, it's unlikely to be promoting renewable energy unless it really thinks that it is a good investment.

            One doesn't buy capital with labor and materials. One builds it.

            As a capitalist, you should understand that this is back to front. Or perhaps you are just a know-nothing blowhard?

            One uses capital to buy labor and materials in order to build and operate assets. That capital comes with an assumed interest rate: the cost of capital.

            --
            lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
            • (Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:40PM (4 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:40PM (#599864) Journal

              So you assert that Lazard is in the business of promoting renewable energy sources? Do know what Lazard is? It's an investment bank, it's unlikely to be promoting renewable energy unless it really thinks that it is a good investment.

              And hence, where it would profit them to promote their "good investments".

              As a capitalist, you should understand that this is back to front. Or perhaps you are just a know-nothing blowhard?

              There is no understanding in your quote. It is claimed that the cost of capital is high in developing world countries. But once again, what is the cost of such? It is primarily the cost of labor and materials, particularly when you get to fundamental infrastructure like power plants.

              One uses capital to buy labor and materials in order to build and operate assets. That capital comes with an assumed interest rate: the cost of capital.

              No, one uses a medium of trade to buy the above, usually money.

              • (Score: 2) by NewNic on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:01PM (3 children)

                by NewNic (6420) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:01PM (#599905) Journal

                Posting this for the benefit of the financially illiterate.

                Cost of capital refers to the opportunity cost of making a specific investment. It is the rate of return that could have been earned by putting the same money into a different investment with equal risk. Thus, the cost of capital is the rate of return required to persuade the investor to make a given investment. [investinganswers.com]

                What is 'Cost Of Capital' [investopedia.com]
                The cost of funds used for financing a business. Cost of capital depends on the mode of financing used – it refers to the cost of equity if the business is financed solely through equity, or to the cost of debt if it is financed solely through debt. Many companies use a combination of debt and equity to finance their businesses, and for such companies, their overall cost of capital is derived from a weighted average of all capital sources, widely known as the weighted average cost of capital (WACC).

                As can be seen, it has nothing to do with the cost of labor and materials.

                --
                lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
                • (Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:39PM (2 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:39PM (#599924) Journal
                  And yet, you continue to miss my point. One doesn't buy labor and materials with capital. Nor is that the cost of capital as your linked article above shows. And since the cost of labor and materials are much lower in developing world countries than developed world countries so is the base amount against which we would assess this cost of capital. Cost of capital is not a large factor higher in developing world countries for the same levels of risk.

                  Further, we're missing a big point here. Why would an investment of equal risk have a higher cost of capital associated with it in a developing world country than in a developed world country? What's the market inefficiencies making this happen at all? A key inefficiency is that the big money is coming in from the developed world. That will always distort a market in a contrary direction to the source of the big money. So investors throwing money in from their developed world location are paying more, including cost of capital, than someone local in a developing world locale. Not all investment comes from the developed world and it won't have the same problems with cost of capital. Cost of capital differs with where your money is located.

                  I father this is one of the many wealth transfer mechanisms from the developed world elsewhere as they pay a premium for such developing world capital.
                  • (Score: 2) by NewNic on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:45PM (1 child)

                    by NewNic (6420) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:45PM (#600271) Journal

                    There is no arguing with someone who is militantly ignorant.

                    You adopted your usual style: 3 wise monkeys. Just ignore or deny anything that doesn't fit your world view.

                    It's not about me missing your point: it's about you denying well-sourced information.

                    --
                    lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:57AM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:57AM (#600510) Journal
                      We have these stories every few months. Someone claims yet again that the sacred threshold has been reached and renewable power is cheaper than everything else. And it turns out false.

                      Now presumably some day it will become true just because these sources of power appear to be getting cheaper while most of the rest aren't. But once again, it hasn't happened yet.
      • (Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:39PM (3 children)

        by edIII (791) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:39PM (#599808)

        You assume they have skills to do so. Labor and materials may be cheap, but that doesn't translate instantly into being able to deploy nuclear facilities. You need expensive and long term training for your citizens before you have enough people in your talent pool. That's one of the advantages countries with big populations have, more trained scientists. Of course, that's only with a good educational system, which is why the U.S will crater sooner than later. Our real talent are in their 60's, 70's and 80's right now.

        If your own country can't provide the skill, how do you attain it? I would imagine paying for it, which is what would raise the costs up. I don't think it's a coincidence that developing countries often seek reputable foreign companies that possess those skills.

        Then we can get into just how damn dangerous conventional nuclear facilities are. They would need newer designs, such as thorium reactors. It makes so much more sense for them to wait for the first world countries to develop the tech, and then they implement the tech themselves at a later point, or purchase it. An older conventional design would require so much more security and maintenance.

        You forgot something else, which surprised me for you :)

        Regulations. Those are what makes a screw cost $10k. When you are that paranoid about your reactor having issues, which seems very healthy to me, you need to spend a lot more money in doing even the simplest things. Like sourcing a fucking screw.

        --
        Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:56PM (2 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:56PM (#599828) Journal
          Coal burning plants don't have that technology problem.
          • (Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:40PM

            by edIII (791) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:40PM (#599866)

            Ahhh, that's what you meant by conventional. I was stuck in nuclear.

            Yeah, you have a point. Burning coal is cheaper there if the labor and materials are cheap.

            --
            Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:18PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:18PM (#599884)

            Burning coal has high maintenance costs - many power stations are old enough.
            Unless you build new coal fired stations, which translated into investment. Investment which most of the banks will think twice before financing.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @06:24PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @06:24PM (#599769)

    How can you be anti-nuclear and advocate for stopping greenhouse gasses?

    Easily, for sufficient pay.

  • (Score: 1) by insanumingenium on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:19PM

    by insanumingenium (4824) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:19PM (#599798) Journal

    Sorry, in retrospect I wasn't clear. They are anti nuclear weapons. I have no idea what their policy stance is on nuclear power. But it looks like from 63-92 their primary message was nuclear disarmament.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:49PM

    by edIII (791) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:49PM (#599818)

    How can you be anti-nuclear and advocate for stopping greenhouse gasses?

    Easy. I am, and I'm not. Nuclear is extraordinarily bad for the environment, which is completely unarguable. What has become very clear is that the endemic corruption in the U.S produced dangerous and costly nuclear facilities. To be fair, this science was heavily under development.

    I'm completely against all nuclear facilities that use the older conventional designs, and are subject to the corruption and regulations that make screws cost 10k. That's why it costs taxpayers so damn much, and then ultimately it just makes a few people richer that own the damn things. Like Mr. Burns :)

    I'm completely FOR all newer reactor designs that were made to be safe above all else. AFAIK, thorium reactor designs are the only ones that fail gracefully. Those reactors should be cheaper and safer to operate, not to mention build.

    Additionally, I'm ALL FOR the government making multiple thorium reactors in each state....... and then giving the power to the people literally. Power is free from the government, paid for by your taxes :) Charge for anything over normal usage, but otherwise, citizens won't be freezing because some hellbound executive cocksucker decided to lay people off before Christmas and now they can't afford heat in the winter.

    Ubiquitous safe and cheap power in the U.S could help get our economy back into shape, and not having to deal with frozen or cooked citizens is a good thing. Heat waves kill the old and the poor, and quite often, the old are poor.

    --
    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:24PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:24PM (#599852)

    Nuclear is the only true viable solution. /quote.
    And Sulla is its profit. May pieces be upon him.

  • (Score: 2) by arslan on Wednesday November 22 2017, @03:18AM (1 child)

    by arslan (3462) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @03:18AM (#600026)

    I'm pro-nuclear, but you seem to fall into the same trap to the person you're replying to. Nuclear is not mutually exclusive to wind and solar - Note, I inferred this by your statement "Nuclear is the only true viable solution".

    No it is not, but it shouldn't be avoided either. Solar can be viable too if we pour enough research into it. If we can develop better solar PVs with higher efficiency they can become even more viable. Both nuclear and solar has the added benefit of being tech we can use for space faring as well. I don't follow wind, so can't comment on that.

    • (Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:29AM

      by Sulla (5173) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:29AM (#600056) Journal

      My statement was in error. I prefer a baseline of Solar and Wind with some sort of stored energy (hydrogen, gravity cells, future battery, diesel) to handle spikes.

      --
      Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam