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: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @05:50PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @05:50PM (#599748)

    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.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:25PM (5 children)

    by Kilo110 (2853) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:25PM (#599919)

    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)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:47PM (#599927) Journal

      But the question is carbon footprint, not efficient use of land.

      Only if you buy into the religion. Efficient use of land is otherwise quite relevant to carbon footprint.

      That may or may not be so.

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @10:28AM (#600128)

        Snails

      • (Score: 2) by CoolHand on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:28PM (2 children)

        by CoolHand (438) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:28PM (#600159) Journal

        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?

        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)

          by Taibhsear (1464) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:24PM (#600261)

          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.

          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

            by CoolHand (438) on Monday November 27 2017, @02:33PM (#602057) Journal

            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.

            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.

            You sure about that? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3234384/ [nih.gov]

            Antibiotics are used in food animals to treat clinical disease, to prevent and control common disease events, and to enhance animal growth.18 The different applications of antibiotics in food animals have been described as therapeutic use, prophylactic use, and subtherapeutic use

            --
            Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams