AuthorTopic: The Environment Board  (Read 30210 times)

Offline azozeo

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 8845
    • View Profile
Here’s how the hottest month in recorded history unfolded around the world
« Reply #195 on: August 11, 2019, 05:58:28 PM »


During the hottest month that humans have recorded, a local television station in the Netherlands aired nonstop images of wintry landscapes to help viewers momentarily forget the heat wave outside.

Officials in Switzerland and elsewhere painted stretches of rail tracks white, hoping to keep them from buckling in the extreme heat.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/08/05/heres-how-hottest-month-recorded-history-unfolded-around-globe/?noredirect=on&utm_source=pocket-newtab
I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you’re here. You’re here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world.
You don’t know what it is but its there, like a splinter in your mind

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15991
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
NASA Study Concludes When Civilization Will End, And It's Not Looking Good
« Reply #196 on: August 16, 2019, 06:21:54 AM »

NASA Study Concludes When Civilization Will End, And It's Not Looking Good for Us

Update: NASA is now clarifying its role in this study. NASA officials released this statement on the study on March 20, which seeks to distance the agency from the paper: "A soon-to-be published research paper, 'Human and Nature Dynamics (HANDY): Modeling Inequality and Use of Resources in the Collapse or Sustainability of Societies' by University of Maryland researchers Safa Motesharrei and Eugenia Kalnay, and University of Minnesota's Jorge Rivas, was not solicited, directed or reviewed by NASA. It is an independent study by the university researchers utilizing research tools developed for a separate NASA activity. As is the case with all independent research, the views and conclusions in the paper are those of the authors alone. NASA does not endorse the paper or its conclusions." Read the original story below.

Civilization was pretty great while it lasted, wasn't it? Too bad it's not going to for much longer. According to a new study sponsored by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, we only have a few decades left before everything we know and hold dear collapses.

The report, written by applied mathematician Safa Motesharrei of the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center along with a team of natural and social scientists, explains that modern civilization is doomed. And there's not just one particular group to blame, but the entire fundamental structure and nature of our society.

Analyzing five risk factors for societal collapse (population, climate, water, agriculture and energy), the report says that the sudden downfall of complicated societal structures can follow when these factors converge to form two important criteria. Motesharrei's report says that all societal collapses over the past 5,000 years have involved both "the stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity" and "the economic stratification of society into Elites [rich] and Masses (or "Commoners") [poor]." This "Elite" population restricts the flow of resources accessible to the "Masses", accumulating a surplus for themselves that is high enough to strain natural resources. Eventually this situation will inevitably result in the destruction of society.

Elite power, the report suggests, will buffer "detrimental effects of the environmental collapse until much later than the Commoners," allowing the privileged to "continue 'business as usual' despite the impending catastrophe."

Science will surely save us, the nay-sayers may yell. But technology, argues Motesharrei, has only damned us further:

In other words, the benefits of technology are outweighed by how much the gains reinforce the existing, over-burdened system — making collapse even more likely.

The worst-case scenarios predicted by Motesharrei are pretty dire, involving sudden collapse due to famine or a drawn-out breakdown of society due to the over-consumption of natural resources. The best-case scenario involves recognition of the looming catastrophe by Elites and a more equitable restructuring of society, but who really believes that is going to happen? Here's what the study recommends in a nutshell:

These are great suggestions that will, unfortunately, almost certainly never be put into action, considering just how far down the wrong path our civilization has gone. As of last year, humans are using more resources than the Earth can replenish and the planet's distribution of resources among its terrestrial inhabitants is massively unequal. This is what happened to Rome and the Mayans, according to the report.

... historical collapses were allowed to occur by elites who appear to be oblivious to the catastrophic trajectory (most clearly apparent in the Roman and Mayan cases).

And that's not even counting the spectre of global climate change, which could be a looming "instant planetary emergency." According to Canadian Wildlife Service biologist Neil Dawe:

Economic growth is the biggest destroyer of the ecology. Those people who think you can have a growing economy and a healthy environment are wrong. If we don't reduce our numbers, nature will do it for us ... Everything is worse and we’re still doing the same things. Because ecosystems are so resilient, they don’t exact immediate punishment on the stupid.

In maybe the nicest way to say the end is nigh possible, Motesharrei's report concludes that "closely reflecting the reality of the world today ... we find that collapse is difficult to avoid."

Writes Nafeez Ahmed at The Guardian:

"Although the study is largely theoretical, a number of other more empirically-focused studies — by KPMG and the UK Government Office of Science for instance — have warned that the convergence of food, water and energy crises could create a 'perfect storm' within about fifteen years. But these 'business as usual' forecasts could be very conservative."

Well, at least zombies aren't real.

Update: NASA has issued a clarification about its role in the study, saying that while the study relies on NASA research tools developed for another project, it did not directly solicit, direct, or review Motesharrei's paper. "As is the case with all independent research, the views and conclusions in the paper are those of the authors alone. NASA does not endorse the paper or its conclusions."


https://www.mic.com/articles/85541/nasa-study-concludes-when-civilization-will-end-and-it-s-not-looking-good-for-us
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline azozeo

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 8845
    • View Profile
Re: NASA Study Concludes When Civilization Will End, And It's Not Looking Good
« Reply #197 on: August 16, 2019, 06:53:16 AM »
<div><img alt="" sizes="(min-width:768px) 1020px, 414px" src="https://imgix.bustle.com/mic/758650cdac2974653775e1a3ba00e59f6d7f688448dfd420dc40cac35b4a0858.jpg?w=1020&h=576&fit=crop&crop=faces&auto=format&q=70" srcset="https://imgix.bustle.com/mic/758650cdac2974653775e1a3ba00e59f6d7f688448dfd420dc40cac35b4a0858.jpg?w=414&h=233&fit=crop&crop=faces&auto=format&q=70 414w, https://imgix.bustle.com/mic/758650cdac2974653775e1a3ba00e59f6d7f688448dfd420dc40cac35b4a0858.jpg?w=414&h=233&fit=crop&crop=faces&auto=format&q=70&dpr=2 828w, https://imgix.bustle.com/mic/758650cdac2974653775e1a3ba00e59f6d7f688448dfd420dc40cac35b4a0858.jpg?w=1020&h=576&fit=crop&crop=faces&auto=format&q=70 1020w, https://imgix.bustle.com/mic/758650cdac2974653775e1a3ba00e59f6d7f688448dfd420dc40cac35b4a0858.jpg?w=1020&h=576&fit=crop&crop=faces&auto=format&q=70&dpr=2 2040w" /></div>
<div>
<h1>NASA Study Concludes When Civilization Will End, And It's Not Looking Good for Us</h1>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div data-google-query-id="CKbZmse0h-QCFUUA-QAdVgwD2Q"></div>
</div>
<div><span>By </span>Tom McKay</div>
<time>Mar 18 2014</time></div>
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mic.com%2Farticles%2F85541%2Fnasa-study-concludes-when-civilization-will-end-and-it-s-not-looking-good-for-us%3Futm_term%3Dshare" title="Share" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><button></button>[/url]</div>
<div>Update: NASA is now clarifying its role in this study. NASA officials released this statement on the study on March 20, which seeks to distance the agency from the paper: "A soon-to-be published research paper, 'Human and Nature Dynamics (HANDY): Modeling Inequality and Use of Resources in the Collapse or Sustainability of Societies' by University of Maryland researchers Safa Motesharrei and Eugenia Kalnay, and University of Minnesota's Jorge Rivas, was not solicited, directed or reviewed by NASA. It is an independent study by the university researchers utilizing research tools developed for a separate NASA activity. As is the case with all independent research, the views and conclusions in the paper are those of the authors alone. NASA does not endorse the paper or its conclusions." Read the original story below.</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<p>Civilization was pretty great while it lasted, wasn't it? Too bad it's not going to for much longer. According to a new study sponsored by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, we only have a few decades left before everything we know and hold dear collapses.</p>
<p>The report, written by applied mathematician Safa Motesharrei of the <a href="http://www.sesync.org/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center[/url] along with a team of natural and social scientists, explains that <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">modern civilization is doomed[/url]. And there's not just one particular group to blame, but the entire fundamental structure and nature of our society.</p>
<p>Analyzing five risk factors for societal collapse (population, climate, water, agriculture and energy), the report says that the sudden downfall of complicated societal structures can follow when these factors converge to form two important criteria. Motesharrei's report says that all societal collapses over the past 5,000 years have involved both "the stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity" and "the economic stratification of society into Elites [rich] and Masses (or "Commoners") [poor]." This "Elite" population restricts the flow of resources accessible to the "Masses", accumulating a surplus for themselves that is high enough to strain natural resources. Eventually this situation will inevitably result in the destruction of society.</p>
<p>Elite power, the report suggests, will buffer "detrimental effects of the environmental collapse until much later than the Commoners," allowing the privileged to "continue 'business as usual' despite the impending catastrophe."</p>
<p>Science will surely save us, the nay-sayers may yell. But technology, argues Motesharrei, has only damned us further:</p>
<p>In other words, the benefits of technology are outweighed by how much the gains reinforce the existing, over-burdened system — making collapse even more likely.</p>
<p>The worst-case scenarios predicted by Motesharrei are pretty dire, involving sudden collapse due to famine or a drawn-out breakdown of society due to the over-consumption of natural resources. The best-case scenario involves recognition of the looming catastrophe by Elites and a more equitable restructuring of society, but who really believes that is going to happen? Here's what the study <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">recommends[/url] in a nutshell:</p>
<p>These are great suggestions that will, unfortunately, almost certainly never be put into action, considering just how far down the wrong path our civilization has gone. As of last year, humans are using <a href="http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/congratulations-today-we-are-officially-consuming-more-earth-can-replenish" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">more resources[/url] than the Earth can replenish and the planet's distribution of resources among its terrestrial inhabitants is <a href="http://www.globalpost.com/special-reports/global-income-inequality-great-divide-globalpost" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">massively unequal[/url]. This is what happened to Rome and the Mayans, according to the report.</p>
... historical collapses were allowed to occur by elites who appear to be oblivious to the catastrophic trajectory (most clearly apparent in the Roman and Mayan cases).

<p>And that's not even counting the spectre of global climate change, which could be a looming <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/177614/coming-instant-planetary-emergency" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">"instant planetary emergency."[/url] According to Canadian Wildlife Service biologist Neil Dawe:</p>
<div>
<div>
<div data-google-query-id="CMyhiY-9h-QCFUUM5wodNzIMXg"></div>
</div>
</div>
Economic growth is the biggest destroyer of the ecology. Those people who think you can have a growing economy and a healthy environment are wrong. If we don't reduce our numbers, nature will do it for us ... Everything is worse and we’re still doing the same things. Because ecosystems are so resilient, they don’t exact immediate punishment on the stupid.

<p>In maybe the nicest way to say the end is nigh possible, Motesharrei's report concludes that "closely reflecting the reality of the world today ... we find that collapse is difficult to avoid."</p>
<p><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Writes[/url] Nafeez Ahmed at The Guardian:</p>
<p>"Although the study is largely theoretical, a number of other more empirically-focused studies — by <a href="http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/issuesandinsights/articlespublications/future-state-government/pages/resource-stress.aspx" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">KPMG[/url] and the <a href="http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/goscience/docs/p/perfect-storm-paper.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">UK Government Office of Science[/url] for instance — have warned that the convergence of food, water and energy crises could create a 'perfect storm' within about fifteen years. But these 'business as usual' forecasts could be <a href="http://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it-the-rise-of-the-post-carbon-era/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">very conservative[/url]."</p>
<p>Well, at least zombies aren't real.</p>
<p>Update: NASA has issued a <a href="http://www.space.com/25160-nasa-statement-civilization-collapse-study.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">clarification[/url] about its role in the study, saying that while the study relies on NASA research tools developed for another project, it did not directly solicit, direct, or review Motesharrei's paper. "As is the case with all independent research, the views and conclusions in the paper are those of the authors alone. NASA does not endorse the paper or its conclusions."</p>
</div>

https://www.mic.com/articles/85541/nasa-study-concludes-when-civilization-will-end-and-it-s-not-looking-good-for-us


Great post. It will be sooner than later. Will the next decade be called the roaring twenty's ?
I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you’re here. You’re here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world.
You don’t know what it is but its there, like a splinter in your mind

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38353
    • View Profile
🏞️ Lies, Damned Lies, and Sustainable Development
« Reply #198 on: August 17, 2019, 12:23:04 AM »
https://dissidentvoice.org/2019/08/lies-damned-lies-and-sustainable-development/

Lies, Damned Lies, and Sustainable Development

by Bill Willers / August 16th, 2019

    [W]hy do so many assume that a ‘Green New Deal’ won’t just empower those same forces that have run havoc upon the world for the past half century and just cause more death and starvation than has already been suffered under Globalization?
    — Matthew Ehret, 2019

Sustainable development, the concept, was advanced in 1987 by the United Nations in “Our Common Future,” aka The Bruntland Report, in which it was defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” In truth, the Report, intended for “those who shape policy and make decisions that affect the course of development and the condition of the environment”, has served as justification for sustained growth: “A five to tenfold increase in manufacturing output will be needed”; “Painful choices have to be made.” In an alarming display of ecological ignorance, there was admission of guaranteed biological destruction: “Efforts to save particular species will be possible for only relatively few of the more spectacular and important ones.”

Not long thereafter, the concept of sustainable development was boosted by organizations with clout. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) produced in 1991 “Caring For The Earth: A Strategy For Sustainable Living,” a declaration of principles by a coalition of conservation organizations, supported by “sponsors” and “collaborators” that included national develop agencies, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. The IUCN therein defined sustainable development as “improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems.” In the same year, the Trilateral Commission published a book, Beyond Interdependence, in which, in a chapter titled “The Growth Imperative and Sustainable Development”, the authors declared that “The maxim of sustainable development is not ‘limits to growth’; it is ’the growth of limits’,” a direct attack on the Club of Rome’s 1972 “The Limits To Growth.”

Sustainable development was quickly introduced into the educational system. In 1992, educators all over the U.S. were receiving a slick promotional brochure for a book, “World Resources 1992-93: A Guide to the Global Environment.” A few weeks later, the book was sent gratis to key educators. A publication of the World Resources Institute (WRI), it was promoted as “the overpowering challenger in the contest for primacy among environmental almanacs”. WRI described its goal as an organization “to help….. grapple with one of our time’s most pressing questions: How can societies meet human needs and nurture economic growth without destroying the natural resources and environmental integrity that make prosperity possible (emphasis added). WRI was supported financially by Corporate Property Investors, Mitchell Energy and Development Corporation, and foundations for Weyerhaeuser, Amoco and Shell Oil. A category “Corporate Associates” included Waste Management, Inc., Monsanto, Chevron and E. I. duPont de Nemours, with “cooperating organizations” including the World Bank, the Overseas Development Association, and other organizations devoted to growth and resource exploitation (current WRI support here).

The Federal Government championed sustainable development from the beginning. In 1992 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent a report (230-R-93-005) to Congress with “EPA is … assisting regional, state, and local efforts to promote sustainable development … The Nation can only achieve and maintain sustainable development when its citizens understand the concept and embrace it as a national priority.” President Clinton’s 25-person Council on Sustainable Development was co-chaired by Dow Chemical vice president David Buzzelli. Eight representatives had corporate ties (e.g., Chemical Manufacturer’s Association, the Committee for Economic Development, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Business Council for Economic Development), whereas the five environmentalists were administrators for “Big 10″ environmental organizations, themselves recipients of corporate largesse. And why be surprised? The Council just mirrored Clinton and his Vice President, as they expressed the view that “We will renew America’s commitment to leave our children a better nation … whose leadership for sustainable global growth is unsurpassed” (emphasis added).

In 1972, the Club of Rome published “The Limits To Growth” grounded on a study of five factors: resource depletion, industrial output, pollution, agriculture, and population growth, and the dynamics of their interactions. Conclusions of the study were a harsh warning regarding limitations that our beautiful home planet places on human activities, because system collapse was predicted for the middle of the current Century if a “business-as-usual” model were to be maintained, which, despite much political posturing, has been the case. There have been periodic updates of the study. Such “doomsday” talk has not been what industrial and financial interests have wanted to hear, and since publication there has been much criticism of “The Limits To Growth” from economists and the business community. However, a recent “40 year update”, a 2014 study released by the University of Melbourne, reveals that the business-as-usual scenario of The Limits To Growth “… aligns well with historical data that has been updated for this paper.” Data came from the UN and federal sources. That the gravity of this global situation is not front-and-center news is itself a reflection of media ownership.

Sustainable development, in sum, was captured early on by global financial forces the life blood of which is unending growth. As history confirms, it has proven to be a highly manipulable concept for a corporate/political/media network to normalize in the public mind. The suggestion of sustainability indicates things are going to be just fine, so it has been employed as a kind of mass tranquilizer. As the sustainability idea has advanced over the decades, discussions surrounding it have shifted easily, as required, between ‘development’ and ‘growth.’ Among the UN’s many laudable Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), such as peace and the eradication of poverty, one also finds the advancement of “inclusive and sustained economic growth” in which “business and the private sector” are to play a key role, this expressed in its Agenda 2030. The admittedly “supremely ambitious” Agenda 2030 looks like 15,000 words of wishful thinking considering the profit-driven interests that have been — and that are intent on remaining — at the helm. The banking world certainly has lost no time in the creation of “green financial instruments” for the Green New Deal.

The prospect of the Green New Deal becoming morphed into Sustainable Development by another name is real, given the powerful forces so adept at co-opting and repackaging things to serve their own ends. The development/growth debate has long been dominated by business interests, economists, advertisers and corporate journalists, with biologists neglectfully absent. And yet, it all boils down to biology, for when species “overshoot” the capacities of their environments to support them, collapse is the result. Our species is certainly unique in the ability to modify ecosystems (typically at the expense of other life forms) as a means of staving off the impacts of our having exceeded — as we know we have — earth’s ability to support our resource-hungry billions. But we are not immune to natural laws, and this party cannot last forever. It’s not clear, exactly, how it will play out in the long run, but one thing is certain: Ultimately, we shall find out.

Bill Willers is an emeritus professor of biology, University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh. He is founder of the Superior Wilderness Action Network and editor of Learning to Listen to the Land, and Unmanaged Landscapes, both from Island Press. He can be contacted at willers@uwosh.edu. Read other articles by Bill.

This article was posted on Friday, August 16th, 2019 at 7:42am and is filed under Environment, Sustainability, United Nations.

All content © 2007-2019 Dissident Voice and respective authors | Subscribe to the DV RSS feed | Top
Save As Many As You Can

Offline John of Wallan

  • Waitstaff
  • ***
  • Posts: 269
    • View Profile
Re: The Environment Board
« Reply #199 on: August 17, 2019, 02:42:20 AM »
https://dissidentvoice.org/2019/08/lies-damned-lies-and-sustainable-development/

Lies, Damned Lies, and Sustainable Development

by Bill Willers / August 16th, 2019

Blah blah blah........

 It’s not clear, exactly, how it will play out in the long run, but one thing is certain: Ultimately, we shall find out.

It wont play out in the long run.
It will play out in the very short term.... Perhaps in my lifetime. Depends on how long I live when shit gets really silly....
Too many rats in too small a cage.

Attached is the following pictures:
The 5 bottle brush trees and the 5 blackwoods I have planted over the last few months. Blackwoods are native to area and were propagated from seed off the tree in background in photo.
My 3 avocados in their winter guards. Centre one is grown from seed we sprouted inside on the window sill in a glass of water, and is double in size compared to the same age grafted trees from a nursery. all need front protection here in winter. Still a little too cold here for avocados in winter when young. 
Also a picture of the golden wattles next door just getting to the end their full bloom. Great for bees in winter! Plan to jump the fence and grab a few seed pods when I know they are not home....
Have had a planting lull for last 2 weeks getting cuttings ready for a spring offensive!
As you can see from photos nice and green right now. Plenty of water around. Gets pretty hot and dry in summer.

Plant a tree a week until I die is my plan.
Save What you can.


Offline John of Wallan

  • Waitstaff
  • ***
  • Posts: 269
    • View Profile
Re: The Environment Board
« Reply #200 on: Today at 10:55:37 PM »
Tree of the week: More shrubbery than trees this week...
Leucadendrin laureolum x salignum 'Inca Gold" South African origin I believe but does well here.
https://www.australianplants.com/plants.aspx?id=1331
Good bird attracting and drought tolerant once established.
Also planted a Rhododendron "Cowbell" to please the most important bird indoors.
https://garden.org/plants/view/765345/Rhododendron-Cowbell/
Everything else in the paddock looking well. Deciduous fruit trees buds starting to swell and a few blossoms already out on the almond.
Still frost danger for another 3 or 4 weeks. Plenty of moisture around at he moment, and plenty of underground mutton around. (rabbits)

Plant a tree a week until you die. Save what you can.

JOW

Offline John of Wallan

  • Waitstaff
  • ***
  • Posts: 269
    • View Profile
Re: The Environment Board
« Reply #201 on: Today at 11:43:58 PM »
Fools & Dreamers: Regenerating a Native Forest (Full Documentary)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VZSJKbzyMc

This guy has the right idea.

JOW

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
561 Views
Last post April 21, 2016, 02:16:25 AM
by Guest
0 Replies
802 Views
Last post May 07, 2016, 05:43:56 AM
by RE
0 Replies
309 Views
Last post June 26, 2019, 08:42:03 PM
by Eddie