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: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:21PM (19 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:21PM (#599850) Journal

    And more important, I realize you fuckers are impervious to evidence so why bother adding more?

    (lemme see how I'll be doing on the invectives-for-stylistic-purposes dept)
    Bullshitting then covering your ass. Typical jmorris, no surprises there.
    Rest assured, us fuckers aren't interested in the old monkey asshole that you are (don't make me remind you what the dick niggers do and don't)

    Some of us were alive and politically aware back in the Reagan Administration

    Ah, there it comes... behold... the... god

    The genius that prepared himself for a historic Cold War meeting by reading Tom Clancy thriller [independent.co.uk], the bluffer that brought the world closer to a nuclear war [wikipedia.org] second only to the Cuban incident.
    The brilliant mind behind enriching the 1%-ers by increasing the spending rate of 2.5% per year to be repaid from taxes paid by the lesser - the pissing-down economy or whatever it was called.

    Here are some of his other achievements:

    1. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Impressive for doing it in eight years.
    2. in 1988, there were 230,000 more government workers than in 1980 [google.com.au]. Even Obama has managed to cut more public sector jobs than Reagan [businessinsider.com].
    3. economic growth you say? Maybe, but let's look a bit from where, shall we?

      For the 70% of American households that still lacked any stake at all in the stock market, the Reagan economy wasn't quite so lustrous as it seemed to those enjoying the fruits of rising equity values. Real wages, which had increased steadily from 1945 to 1972 but then stalled through the stagflation era, remained flat through the 1980s as well...
      ...
      The uneven distribution of benefits from the Reagan boom reflected a growing trend toward what has been called the "financialization" of the American economy. As the financial sector displaced industrial manufacturing as the dominant economic force in American society, ...
      During Ronald Reagan's presidency, the wealthiest one-fifth of American households—those who naturally owned the most stock—saw their incomes increase by 14%. Meanwhile, the poorest one-fifth—who presumably owned no stock—endured an income decline of 24%, while the incomes of the middle three-fifths of American families stayed more or less flat.
      This uneven pattern represented a marked departure from the earlier economic expansions of the 1940s, '50s, and '60s, which had generated smaller returns for investors but raised income levels across all classes of society.

      Pissing-down economy in action

    Sure, jmorris, worship Reagan, admit that shit-of-an-actor-playing-president is a 3 orders of magnitude better than you'll ever be; you will be absolutely right on this one, your mother should have let you go and keep the stork.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:13PM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:13PM (#599883) Journal

    My 3rd point in the "achievements list" is missing this source of the blockquote [shmoop.com]

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:21PM (9 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:21PM (#599885)

    Reagan was "good" compared to Carter, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama, FDR...

    That doesn't mean Reagan was flawless. He was pretty bad!

    Not even Trump is flawless. There is the net neutrality issue, the failure to lock her up (so far), the lack of a Muslim ban... but overall we're looking at the best president in at least a century. Still, he definitely isn't flawless.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:53PM (7 children)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:53PM (#599899) Journal

      0.5/10, could tell you weren't serious within 5 seconds. Go back to Ivan and tell him he's paying you too much.

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:24PM (6 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:24PM (#599918)

        I look like a troll to you because you are out of touch with America.

        I may be a bit more to the right than most Americans... but not that much. The polls denying that America loves Trump mean about as much as the ones that gave him a 2% chance of winning.

        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:12PM (5 children)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:12PM (#599947) Journal

          I get it, I get it, most of my fellow citizens are idiots. Seems to include you too. You're still not worth what Ivan's paying you even if that's nothing.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @02:29AM (4 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @02:29AM (#600016)

            Apparently the US slightly-less-right-than-the-other-party have never heard of the term pyrrhic victory, and completely fail to understand the even-more-right Heinleinian mentality of "your status in Hell depends on the size of your honor guard".
            You keep fucking over the deplorables and then pissing on what they have left. And are then surprised that they don't want your Witch-in-Chief, and that they won't support you.

            So which party has even more morons than the other one?

            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:57AM (3 children)

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:57AM (#600064) Journal

              What in Cthulhu's borderline-unpronounceable name makes you think I actually liked Clinton? I want to see her entire dynasty searing in hellfire right next to the Bushes and for most of the same reasons. Here's a hint, shithead: the ones fucking over the "deplorables" have been the GOP, and this has been the case since the Civil Rights Era.

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:01PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:01PM (#600675)

                More Americans were horrified of the Clinton Creature, than were terrified of the Trump Tampon - and you call those Americans idiots? Apparently you are an idiot equal to your fellow Americans if you actually thought one was preferable to the other. The Democrats robbed the voters of a choice. Stop whining about the GOP - that party gave in to it's consituents, unlike the fascist fucking demoncrats.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @09:12PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @09:12PM (#601151)

                  Why do the deplorable Trumpsters get so upset about people pointing out how completely idiotic and totally hornswaggled they are? You should just "own" the stupid. Not doing so only makes you look more stupider. You stupid Trump voter. Idiot. Parsnip.

              • (Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:03PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:03PM (#600677)

                superstitious, much?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:58AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:58AM (#600065)

      Not even Trump is flawless.

      Not even. Ha. Ha, ha. This is too funny. Worst president Ever, and he had to bump George "Dubya" Bush out of that slot, which I guess is no mean feat. So not even Trump is flawed, but by not having any redeeming qualities, other than noticing how much it made himself feel good about himself to pardon turkeys, all be himself. I have a growing suspicion that this AC is one of those turkeys. And, death to all Trump supporters, and may they roast in oven, or be deep-fried, and be served with cranberry sauce. Deplorable, just deplorable.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:44PM (7 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:44PM (#599893) Journal

    Even Obama has managed to cut more public sector jobs than Reagan

    That includes state level jobs over which no US president has control. Federal jobs increased under Obama by about 10% [washingtontimes.com]. Meanwhile, it appears that the number of federal employees increased under Reagan by roughly 300k from 5.0 million in 1980 to 5.3 million in 1988. So smaller in both number and percentage.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:03PM (5 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:03PM (#599908) Journal

      That includes state level jobs over which no US president has control.

      Maybe, but it allows Obama to rightfully claim more jobs created in the private economy than his predecessor - certainly better than Reagan by this metric [cnn.com].

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:36PM (4 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:36PM (#599923) Journal
        And yet from your link, we read:

        The United States has only added about 9.3 million jobs during his term -- from the time Obama took office in January 2009 through December 2015.

        That's the most conventional way to assess a president's economic track record. Viewing it that way means Obama is pretty far behind the job creation of Reagan and Clinton.

        I think there's good reason to blame Obama for the 5 million job loss between January 2009 and February 2010 as well as the glacially slow recover from that point to the November 2016 election.

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:11PM (3 children)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:11PM (#599946) Journal

          Scroll lower until you get to "The Obama administration derives that figure by looking at how many private sector jobs (so excluding government jobs) have been added since the lowest point during the Great Recession."
          Other metric.

          I think there's good reason to blame Obama for the 5 million job loss between January 2009 and February 2010

          Translation: "I'm the opinion there are reasons..."... how does this work when I haven't seen the reasons you claim stay at the base of your thinking?

          as well as the glacially slow recover from that point to the November 2016 election.

          Et tu, Brute?
          I was hoping that complaining about the "heavy burden inherited from the previous regime" is a whinging that only the politicians in the former communist countries would use - I heard it so many times I decided to immigrate.
          Come on now, it's unbecoming... whoever is using this is painting himself as unworthy to be elected and a liar: they promised strength and described how they'll fix everything... and what do we hear? Whinging about how much "eviler were the previous regime" than "the promissor's feebler good fiber and potency to deal with the reality"? Gaahhh.
          (continue to do this and every time I'll deduct a bit of from your amount of respect I granted you just because you're a human. No, I'm not grinning this time)

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:57AM (2 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:57AM (#600006) Journal
            Let me repeat:

            I think there's good reason to blame Obama for the 5 million job loss between January 2009 and February 2010 as well as the glacially slow recover[y] from that point to the November 2016 election.

            Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Back in early 2009, the Obama administration via two administration economists, Christine Romer and Jared Bernstein, came up with a chart [thinkprogress.org] rationalizing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), a bit of economic stimulus comprised of short term spending and tax cuts to the tune of $800 billion.

            There are three curves on that chart all related to the standard measure of unemployment in the US. One curve is their projection of US unemployment for the few years after the recession started when no stimulus was attempted. A lower curve was the projection of unemployment over the same time period, if the ARRA were enacted (with slight changes, since the projection predated the final ARRA bill passed). The final curve is of actual unemployment over that time period which is significantly higher throughout the entire period (the linked story only goes through roughly mid 2011, but unemployment rates [bls.gov] remained higher than the 5% target through to 2016) than either of the projections and didn't settled down to pre-recession levels by the end of the time period.

            So the obvious question here is why did that happen? The party line is that the recession was worse than expected and the higher unemployment rates were due to an unforeseen crash in labor markets that could have been addressed by an even bigger stimulus. The linked story above blames the Federal Reserve despite their considerable efforts to push the economy via monetary policy.

            My view is that Obama was the problem that was bigger than foreseen. For both his terms, he had implemented a variety of hostile business law and regulation. Why would businesses gratuitously hire people in those circumstances? For example, even by mid 2011 when the above story was written, the divergence from plan was still 3% higher unemployment above the projected ARRA rates.

            Here's a couple of charts [businessinsider.com] that illustrate the problem nicely. We've had a bunch of recessions since the end of the Second World War in the US. Aside from the 2001 and 2007 recessions every one of them took off in employment rate once the economy started to recover. And GDP has been remarkably slow to recover compared to every other such recession, including the 2001 one. I think the big difference was that no other recession had a president who was more concerned about ideological policy implementation than the economic recovery of the US and it shows in a recovery that has taken both terms to come about.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @03:44AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @03:44AM (#600031)

              Here's a couple of charts [businessinsider.com] that illustrate the problem nicely.

              Clearly, we should work to recreate the conditions that existed prior to 1980: higher taxes on the wealthy and stricter banking regulation.

              While BI is giving us partisan spin, the graphs don't appear to lie.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 22 2017, @04:02AM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 22 2017, @04:02AM (#600037) Journal

                Clearly, we should work to recreate the conditions that existed prior to 1980: higher taxes on the wealthy and stricter banking regulation.

                Then when we take those away, we'll get the desired economic boost. /sarc

    • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:01AM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:01AM (#600066) Journal

      khallow, the Washington Times is Moonie central! If you cite them you loose what little credibility you have here amoungst the soylentils. Sometimes, when people say "citation needed", it is best to not cite somewhere that weakens your argument, as opposed to your usual oblivious rebuttal strategy of just going with the bare unsubstantiated irrational right-wing talking point.