State of the Oceans....

[Gem (Grant)]

Originally Posted by PeterM

right now an increasing number of people even reading this are already struggling. Keeping a small businesses afloat, paying the mortgage, straining under extortionate increased costs to the basics of living, electricity, water, food, shelter, fuel.

The problem is global. In the big global picture, any of us here on this forum have access to internet, electricity and water. That puts us in the top few % of the world in terms of wealth. Whether we think we are struggling or not, if we can afford to buy a telescope to fulfill our hobby - we are doing more than merely struggling with "the basics of living". The majority of the world really is struggling, and, hence, the enviroment is a low priority for them. When you don't know where your next meal is coming from, you don't care if you hunt the last meat out of your district. When your home is one room for 7 people, you chop down the last tree to keep warm for one more night without replanting, etc...

The problem is large and complex - the solution will be tricky...

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by Gem

The problem is global. In the big global picture, any of us here on this forum have access to internet, electricity and water. That puts us in the top few % of the world in terms of wealth. Whether we think we are struggling or not, if we can afford to buy a telescope to fulfill our hobby - we are doing more than merely struggling with "the basics of living". The majority of the world really is struggling, and, hence, the enviroment is a low priority for them. When you don't know where your next meal is coming from, you don't care if you hunt the last meat out of your district. When your home is one room for 7 people, you chop down the last tree to keep warm for one more night without replanting, etc...

The problem is large and complex - the solution will be tricky...

And. ....Where is your solution? Too true you don't understand until you have really been on the bones of your horse or other similar animal...So I am now in Sydney to enjoy the grid to find all the street lights are on. ...mmmhw does that make you feel.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Sounds simple enough Carl what should we do first.
Designing Utopia is easy making it work is where one comes to grief.
But you are so right. ..not only here but in other posts where you sheet home the influence of certain economic realities etc.
Politics suffers from where they draw the leaders...we use Lawers too much but that is marginally better than leaders from military background.
alex

It won't be utopia, but it will (could) be a darn side better than anything we have now. If we do the right thing and remember our own, individual responsibilities to ourselves and our society. This change will have to come from the grass roots and from the top because the only way we're going to extract ourselves out of the mess we're in is to attack the problem from all sides, as well as from within. The only way to get rid of a cancer or to kill off a weed pest is to dig it out and dispose of it, whilst administering healing at the same time. However, the weed isn't going to go down without a fight and that's where a lot of pain will come from. Especially to those trying to create the change as well as those going through it.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

And. ....Where is your solution? Too true you don't understand until you have really been on the bones of your horse or other similar animal...So I am now in Sydney to enjoy the grid to find all the street lights are on. ...mmmhw does that make you feel.

The solution, Alex, has to come from everyone, but also from those who have the like mind and the desire, ability and drive to create the change themselves. We would all be in this together, so we all have a say in what goes on. That's why I said it's vitally important to see the sociological changes that will enable "joe and jane public" to be able to function in such a society. Not be the misguided automatons and consumers they are now.

[PeterM]

Carl,
I totally agree with you on most of your good points. Will be scary to some, unnaceptable to others at first but I think inevitable some of the points you list if not all may indeed be the only solutions after a terrible cost and pain. I think the Earth and its oceans will live long, healthy and thrive regardless of anything we think can possibly do to it.
PeterM

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Gem

The problem is global. In the big global picture, any of us here on this forum have access to internet, electricity and water. That puts us in the top few % of the world in terms of wealth. Whether we think we are struggling or not, if we can afford to buy a telescope to fulfill our hobby - we are doing more than merely struggling with "the basics of living". The majority of the world really is struggling, and, hence, the enviroment is a low priority for them. When you don't know where your next meal is coming from, you don't care if you hunt the last meat out of your district. When your home is one room for 7 people, you chop down the last tree to keep warm for one more night without replanting, etc...

The problem is large and complex - the solution will be tricky...

The problem is individual, local and global. But the vital one here is individual. You can't change anything, if either you don't want to or believe that you can't. Once you make the decision to create that change and then follow it up, you can then drag others along with you, or find others of like mind. It will grow from there.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by PeterM

Carl,
I totally agree with you on most of your good points. Will be scary to some, unnaceptable to others at first but I think inevitable some of the points you list if not all may indeed be the only solutions after a terrible cost and pain. I think the Earth and its oceans will live long, healthy and thrive regardless of anything we think can possibly do to it.
PeterM

If we did screw things up, the Earth would eventually recover. We couldn't do any worse than a K-T or Permian extinction event and the Earth recovered from both of these events. Short of utterly destroying the planet, life will continue on here, regardless of us.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

3. Prioritise education, science etc, as the main goals of the society.

Great idea and all for it Hmmm?, on this science thingy though...sadly much of the science being listened too by so many, in the (strange) political battle that has grown such legs in our community in recent years, is really nothing bad bad science. One just has to watch and listen to certain media outlets to see and hear this juvenile infomercial science that is being broadcast to so many unsuspecting people. While I whole heartedly believe in freedom of speech and the press, the unfortunate side effect sometimes is it does a lot of damage.

....so yes, prioritising (maybe we should say RE-prioritising??) science so more people can better pick the real science from the bad science and the high quality science from the low quality, is one of the the corner stones of our future.

Mike

[xelasnave]

Unfortunately to date social econonic and political change has only come by revolution and every revolution has a reign of terror where the old gaurd is literally killed off sad but true..so given this fact we face a massive chalenge. On the positive it is still a great world we are making war more efficient so we need less man power .... It is funny how good intention go a little wrong sometimes but apparently the guy who invented the machine gun...Maxwell I think?...did so as he believed such a weapon would save lives because you would need less manpower...we humans are so funny I don't know why wetake ourselves so seriously sometimes...er that's more aimed at me guys

[morls (Stephen)]

Originally Posted by PeterM

Carl,
I think the Earth and its oceans will live long, healthy and thrive regardless of anything we think can possibly do to it.
PeterM

I hope you're right Peter, but there is a lot of evidence that the oceans are very sick, and not thriving at all, and we are looking at mass extinctions. I'm quoting from the reports I saw today, but they seem credible...

Maybe the problem is consumerism. For a corporation that sells goods to the public to be successful, it must sell more product. To sell, they create the illusion of need through advertising, and they are very clever. The ultimate success of say a computer company might be that everyone eventually owns one of their products. The drain on resources would be enormous, though.

By creating a sense of need and using various other subtle psychological ploys, the consumerism machine is fed as people are influenced by advertising, and so we consume. I know I'm exceedingly well off by world standards, even though I don't own a car, house or land. And I can't blame anyone from the less well off countries for aspiring to have what we take for granted. I'm going to make an effort to consume less, starting with trying to cut my meat consumption by at least 50%. Just little things, but I want to feel I'm doing something.

And if we have to pay $3.00 a litre for petrol, or double the price for electricity, that might make people think, not of the ecosystem but of their hip picket, which seems to be where a lot of people keep their brains and morals. I think it's inevitable that we will learn to consume less, the question is will we do it voluntarily or not, and how much damage will we cause along the way through ignorance and greed?

Stephen

[Mick (Michael)]

A paddock can only support so many beasts, to many and the paddock sowers and dies.
The oceans and the environment are suffering because there are to many people. Control the populations and we may save our species. No control and we are going to be on the endangered list just like the beasts.
I can't see a solution at the moment, maybe it is inevitable.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by Mick

A paddock can only support so many beasts, to many and the paddock sowers and dies.
The oceans and the environment are suffering because there are to many people. Control the populations and we may save our species. No control and we are going to be on the endangered list just like the beasts.
I can't see a solution at the moment, maybe it is inevitable.

Mick reading your post gave the ultikate idea to reduce human consumption...this is as good as putting all reactors at the bottom a stable lakes...we breed cattle to get bigger and bigger..we do it as well to ourselves..we need to grow humans smaller and smaller. ..so it a couple of generations instead of being 6 ft in height humans now only grow to 6 inchs tall. ... we could all drive model cars with engine capacities of 5cc and a barbequed chook would feed you for a month. We could live in a doll house..now that will work..

[Paul Haese]

Total restructure is certainly called for as part of any solution to keeping pollution at bay. Education, political and social restructuring is needed.

So sick of hearing about the CO2 debate. Recent data shows that the connection between temperature increase and CO2 is flawed. Get some real science going and I might listen to all the drivel being presented. Even Suzuki says "we think" that CO2 emissions are increasing temperature. No one says they know for certain. If you disagree with the arguments presented you are seen as being a crank. 20 years ago it was the other way around. The whole issue is over politicised and if it is going to be as bad as they say, well just get on with producing better power alternatives instead of creating taxes and reimbursing people. Such a total crock of you know what.

I am all for clean energy, but even the cars that are supposed to be electric have a huge cost to the environment just to make the things and then the batteries only last 10-15 years and then you need to reinstall new batteries, which incidently have a huge cost once again to the environment. These cars are not carbon neutral. The batteries poison the environment with heavy metals and toxins. Yet a clear odourless gas that is essential to the green house effect on Earth is more important. Use logic guys and you will see the flaws in every single argument out there. Clean energy, and let's have it now.

All I want to see happen is money being put into new tech and not shooting at other people in far away lands on the ruse of bringing democracy to them. Put money into science and lots of things could happen. Reduce world population by 80% now and the environment will be cleaner for it with less toxins. Worry about the toxins more than the CO2.

Actions, real actions speak louder than words.

[morls (Stephen)]

Heard something interesting in BBC last night...there's a push to have a small tax on banks for every financial transaction, which would generate a lot of money. Being resisted by the bankers, of course. Maybe this would be one way of redirecting some money towards the people/areas that need it?

some info..
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7260LI20110308

form the article: "A 0.05 percent tax would bring in nearly 200 billion euros in the EU, rising to 650 billion at the global level"

that's a lot of money....

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

Total restructure is certainly called for as part of any solution to keeping pollution at bay. Education, political and social restructuring is needed.

So sick of hearing about the CO2 debate. Recent data shows that the connection between temperature increase and CO2 is flawed. Get some real science going and I might listen to all the drivel being presented. Even Suzuki says "we think" that CO2 emissions are increasing temperature. No one says they know for certain. If you disagree with the arguments presented you are seen as being a crank. 20 years ago it was the other way around. The whole issue is over politicised and if it is going to be as bad as they say, well just get on with producing better power alternatives instead of creating taxes and reimbursing people. Such a total crock of you know what.

I am all for clean energy, but even the cars that are supposed to be electric have a huge cost to the environment just to make the things and then the batteries only last 10-15 years and then you need to reinstall new batteries, which incidently have a huge cost once again to the environment. These cars are not carbon neutral. The batteries poison the environment with heavy metals and toxins. Yet a clear odourless gas that is essential to the green house effect on Earth is more important. Use logic guys and you will see the flaws in every single argument out there. Clean energy, and let's have it now.

All I want to see happen is money being put into new tech and not shooting at other people in far away lands on the ruse of bringing democracy to them. Put money into science and lots of things could happen. Reduce world population by 80% now and the environment will be cleaner for it with less toxins. Worry about the toxins more than the CO2.

Actions, real actions speak louder than words.

Well that's the first post regarding CO2 that makes total sense to me. Totally agree. Enough with the BS. Let's do something productive instead of ripping people off for a change.

[avandonk]

Pehaps citing a source of original peer reviewed science is better than merely repeating hearsay from self appointed 'experts'.


For the state of the oceans here is a simple start to get valid information.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0621101453.htm


If you want to get the real scientific information about AGW here is a good start.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

You can participate but opinions or name calling are not tolerated. Any assertions must be backed by peer reviewed science not the methods used by some people in this debate.

I am just as guilty as anyone of stating my mere opinion. Having an opinion backed by facts is a far more valid way of discussing this important issue.

We are damaging the planet it is just the extent that is in contention.

Bert

[SkyViking (Rolf)]

Sadly it's all a matter of political will. But proposing radical changes and limitations on consumerism is political suicide, so it'll probably never happen. Instead I believe the Earth will suffer much worse than what we've seen so far, with a lot more pollution and deforestation, and maybe catastrophic climate change as well (depending on who you ask).

But when that is said, I also believe technology will catch up with the problems and deliver solutions, maybe in the 22'nd century and beyond. Nano-machines might be able to clean up the pollution and extract CO2 and other gases from the atmosphere, maybe convert waste into food etc. So once the future global population realises their situation is too dire there will probably be a long period of clean up and perhaps reinstatement of the natural areas that were lost during the 21st century.

The funny thing is that we actually do have the resources to make a difference if we wanted to.
Consider that as of mid 2010 the war on terror had cost the US taxpayers a total of US $1.15 trillion. All for 3000 deaths in the 9/11 attacks plus the various bombings that followed. That is of course all very sad for those involved and I wish them all the best. Crimes like that should of course not go unpunished, but I think it has escalated way beyond control. The reality is that over 30,000 die in road accidents every year in the US alone. What if the $1.15 trillion had been spent on better road safety? Or on developing clean energy? Fusion power? Or... on space exploration? (Yes that's 191 JWST telescopes @ $6 billion each...)

Anyway, this thread is probably heading for a close soon, just though I'd add my 2c to the debate

[Paul Haese]

Originally Posted by avandonk

Pehaps citing a source of original peer reviewed science is better than merely repeating hearsay from self appointed 'experts'.


For the state of the oceans here is a simple start to get valid information.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0621101453.htm


If you want to get the real scientific information about AGW here is a good start.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

You can participate but opinions or name calling are not tolerated. Any assertions must be backed by peer reviewed science not the methods used by some people in this debate.

I am just as guilty as anyone of stating my mere opinion. Having an opinion backed by facts is a far more valid way of discussing this important issue.

We are damaging the planet it is just the extent that is in contention.

Bert

Thanks Bert, some interesting stuff. Will continue to read through the documents.

[morls (Stephen)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

Pehaps citing a source of original peer reviewed science is better than merely repeating hearsay from self appointed 'experts'.

Hi Bert,

I agree completely. I'll attach a .pdf from this site:
http://www.iucn.org/?uNewsID=7695

which is the report that prompted the story in the "Age" newspaper I referred to in my first post.

The video from "Frontline" that I posted a link to, was a discussion with 4 panelists. Two of the panelists were involved in the IPSO workshop in April 2011:

- Dr Alex David Rogers, Scientific Director of the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) which convened the workshop at Oxford which produced the "ipso workshop report june 2011" attached.

His references from this report are listed as:

Rogers, A.D. & Laffoley, D.d’A. 2011. International Earth system expert workshop on ocean stresses and impacts. Summary report. IPSO Oxford, 18 pp. (this is the .pdf attached)

Veron, J.E.N., Hoegh‐Guldberg, O., Lenton, T.M., Lough, J.M., Obura, D.O., Pearce‐Kelly, P., Sheppard, C.R.C., Spalding, M., Stafford‐Smith, M.G., Rogers, A.D. 2009 The coral reef crisis: the critical importance of <350ppm CO2. Marine Pollution Bulletin 58: 1428‐1437

Carpenter, K.E., Abrar, M., Aeby, G., Aronson, R.B., Banks, S., Bruckner, A., Chiriboga, A., Cortés, J., Delbeek, J.C., DeVantier, L., Edgar, G.J., Edwards, A.J., Fenner, D., Guzmán, H.M., Hoeksema, B.W., Hodgson, G., Johan, O., Licuanan, W.Y., Livingstone, S.R., Lovell, E.R., Moore, J.A., Obura, D.O., Ochavillo, D., Polidoro, B.A., Precht, W.F., Quibilan, M.C., Reboton, C., Richards, Z.T., Rogers, A.D., Sanciangco, J., Sheppard, A., Sheppard, C., Smith, J., Stuart, S., Turak, E., Veron, J.E.N., Wallace, C.,Weil, E., Wood, E. 2008 One third of reef‐building corals face elevated extinction risk from climate change and local impacts. Science 321: 560‐563.

- Professor Charles R C Sheppard, who was also a participant at the Oxford workshop. He is also listed in one of the references above.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by SkyViking

Sadly it's all a matter of political will. But proposing radical changes and limitations on consumerism is political suicide, so it'll probably never happen.

It's not a matter of political will. We will never get anywhere on political will because the politicians and such don't want to change. They have no will to make it. The change must come from the people and they have to be willing to shoulder the greater burden of it, for the time being. To change the politics of the situation, the people have to drive the change.