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 julian on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:06PM (5 children)

    by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:06PM (#599880)

    This again?

    Look, participating in a flawed system doesn't mean you're not allowed to criticize it. Eventually we'll have cleaner forms of air travel, but at the moment scientists and politicians need to get around the globe to do their jobs, which includes working to address climate change. There's nothing hypocritical about this.

    You're basically this very smart man [pics.me.me] in the well.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:51PM (4 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:51PM (#599928) Journal
    I disagree. The current state indicates that they aren't interested enough in solving the problem to even bother to virtue signal. Telecommuting conferences would be a good demonstration of concern.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @12:05AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @12:05AM (#599976)

      Do you have any studies indicating that your assertions about scientists' tendencies are founded on fact, and not merely broad generalisations based on an imagined worse-case scenario?

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:04AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:04AM (#599993) Journal
        What worst-case scenario? I fail to see the relevance.

        It's also worth noting that this isn't just restricted to scientists claiming doom from fossil fuel sources while blissfully using those resources, but a variety of policy makers, NGOs, and business leaders also playing the same game.
    • (Score: 2) by julian on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:46AM (1 child)

      by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:46AM (#600062)

      Telecommuting conferences would be a good demonstration of concern.

      I believe you would then complain about electricity consumption, because your real problem is that some economically-maximizing processes are harmful to humans, which goes against your fundamental ethical primitives and you resent people who point that out.

      • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:05AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:05AM (#600067) Journal

        I believe you would then complain about electricity consumption, because your real problem is that some economically-maximizing processes are harmful to humans, which goes against your fundamental ethical primitives and you resent people who point that out.

        And I think you'd be eating babies at that point. With radishes.

        Maybe straw men aren't the best way to approach this discussion?

        As to said "economically-maximizing processes", what are they and what is being maximized? The concept is undefined as you wrote it above.