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
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @05:50PM (6 children)
It's not so obvious.
Animals can graze on hilly and rocky land that is unsuited to modern farm equipment. Without animals, we would be wasting land. Good farmland tends to get paved over because it is flat and has nice weather.
(Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:25PM (5 children)
That may or may not be so. I don't know either way. But the question is carbon footprint, not efficient use of land.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:47PM (4 children)
Only if you buy into the religion. Efficient use of land is otherwise quite relevant to carbon footprint.
Sounds like a good opportunity to educate yourself on the matter. What is the US state of Montana, for example, going to grow on infertile scrub land and prairie aside from herd animals like cows?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @10:28AM
Snails
(Score: 2) by CoolHand on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:28PM (2 children)
Most (and more and more) livestock are being produced by CAFO's, not grazing on rocky terrain and infertile scrub land. Those lands can not keep up with meat demand. THAT is why we need to go plant-based (or at least reduce meat consumption, either per-capita, or reducing population). CAFO's are horrible for the environment, for the animals, and for human health. On the last point, not only are they horrible from cholesterol, but they also pump the animals with antibiotics as that is the only way to keep them healthy. That, in turn, is contributing more than anything to the resistance problem with antibiotics.
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
(Score: 3, Informative) by Taibhsear on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:24PM (1 child)
So fight against that instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Also they don't use antibiotics prophylactically to keep them healthy. They do it because it makes them get fatter faster. I do agree that needs to be stopped.
(Score: 2) by CoolHand on Monday November 27 2017, @02:33PM
You sure about that? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3234384/ [nih.gov]
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams