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: -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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -2  
       Troll=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1  
  • (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.