SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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) by edIII on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:39PM (3 children)
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)
(Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:40PM
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
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.