Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[Barrister]

No. I don't trust the judgement of somebody who thinks Dorsey should have won the Heisman.

It always cracks me up / depresses me to realize that when we started this forum Ken Dorsey was a college player and finalist for the Heisman.  And that today Ken Dorsey is 41, has been retired for 12 years, and is the offensive co-ordinator for the Bills (who supposedly are favourites to win the Superbowl).

[Josquius]

You know, I never knew what that username meant. I always thought it was just a odd name.

[Barrister]

You know, I never knew what that username meant. I always thought it was just a odd name.

Ken Dorsey was a Miami University Quarterback (American football).  His team won a national championship in 2001 and lost in overtime in 2002. The Heisman trophy is the trophy given to the most outstanding player in college football.  Ken Dorsey was a finalist both years, but did not win.

"Dorsey4Heisman" just means our Dorsey thought Ken Dorsey should win the Heisman trophy.  I don't know the timing - if he made the name while Ken Dorsey was a finalist, or afterwards because he thought Ken Dorsey was robbed.

Anyways after college he had a generally poor professional career, playing 17 games over 5 seasons, before finishing up as a backup qauarterback in the CFL.  He then moved on to coaching.

[Valmy]

Dorsey made his username on Paradox in 2001 when Ken Dorsey was leading the Miami Hurricanes to glory. By the time he migrated to Languish in 2003 his username was already outdated.

[garbon]

I guess it gets them talked about - but I don't know if to the right ends

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/14/just-stop-oil-activists-throw-soup-at-van-goghs-sunflowers

Just Stop Oil activists throw soup at Van Gogh's Sunflowers

Activists from Just Stop Oil have thrown tomato soup over Vincent van Gogh's Sunflowers at the National Gallery in London.

There were gasps, roars and a shout of "Oh my gosh!" in room 43 of the gallery as two young supporters of the climate protest group threw the liquid over the painting, which is protected by glass, just after 11am.

They removed jackets to reveal Just Stop Oil T-shirts before gluing themselves to the wall beneath the artwork, which is one of the gallery's most important treasures.

"What is worth more, art or life?" said one of the activists. "Is it worth more than food? More than justice? Are you more concerned about the protection of a painting or the protection of our planet and people?

"The cost of living crisis is part of the cost of oil crisis, fuel is unaffordable to millions of cold, hungry families. They can't even afford to heat a tin of soup."

National Gallery staff quickly cleared the room.

For the past two weeks, the group has been staging sit-down protests on roads around central London, infuriating drivers and commuters, but Friday's action appeared to be an escalation of its tactics.

Bystanders in the National Gallery had mixed feelings about the action. One man, who declined to give his name, said he could understand their cause, but worried about targeting "a beautiful piece of art, which is the best of humanity".

He added: "They may be trying to get people to think about the issues but all they end up doing is getting people really annoyed and angry.

"The typical unthinking individual who doesn't think about the big issues of the planet is not the kind of person who walks around the National Gallery."

Alienating people from their cause was a concern, said Alex De Koning, a Just Stop Oil spokesperson, who spoke to the Guardian outside the gallery after the room was cleared.

"But this is not The X Factor," he added. "We are not trying to make friends here, we are trying to make change and unfortunately this is the way that change happens."

[The Brain]

Just Stop Oil thinks that oil should be cheaper?

[Duque de Bragança]

Seems rather extreme, even if they do not like oil paintings.

[Sheilbh]

I tend to have very limited sympathy for those protesters and looking at their materials them and Animal Rebellion and the other splinter groups from Extinction Rebellion (where I have more sympathy) remind me a little bit of the way cults splinter into more extreme, doomsday variations - that their approach is correct, former allies are compromising with society etc. I was in the area at the weekend and saw that, I think Animal Rebellion, we're blocking one of the bridges which makes more sense to me as a protest.

Separately just saw an incredible estimate that about a quarter of the UK's carbon footprint is advertising/adland. I knew the carbon impact of online advertising was horrendous (globally, I believe it's about the same as aviation) but had no idea more broadly.

[garbon]

I did just recall when XR thought they'd fuck with east Londoners on the DLR.

[Syt]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/13/almost-70-of-animal-populations-wiped-out-since-1970-report-reveals-aoe

Animal populations experience average decline of almost 70% since 1970, report reveals

Huge scale of human-driven loss of species demands urgent action, say world's leading scientists

Earth's wildlife populations have plunged by an average of 69% in just under 50 years, according to a leading scientific assessment, as humans continue to clear forests, consume beyond the limits of the planet and pollute on an industrial scale.

From the open ocean to tropical rainforests, the abundance of birds, fish, amphibians and reptiles is in freefall, declining on average by more than two-thirds between 1970 and 2018, according to the WWF and Zoological Society of London's (ZSL) biennial Living Planet Report. Two years ago, the figure stood at 68%, four years ago, it was at 60%.

Many scientists believe we are living through the sixth mass extinction – the largest loss of life on Earth since the time of the dinosaurs – and that it is being driven by humans. The report's 89 authors are urging world leaders to reach an ambitious agreement at the Cop15 biodiversity summit in Canada this December and to slash carbon emissions to limit global heating to below 1.5C this decade to halt the rampant destruction of nature.

The Living Planet Index combines global analysis of 32,000 populations of 5,230 animal species to measure changes in the abundance of wildlife across continents and taxa, producing a graph akin to a stock index of life on Earth.

Latin America and the Caribbean region – including the Amazon – has seen the steepest decline in average wildlife population size, with a 94% drop in 48 years. Tanya Steele, chief executive at WWF-UK, said: "This report tells us that the worst declines are in the Latin America region, home to the world's largest rainforest, the Amazon. Deforestation rates there are accelerating, stripping this unique ecosystem not just of trees but of the wildlife that depends on them and of the Amazon's ability to act as one of our greatest allies in the fight against climate change."

Africa had the second largest fall at 66%, followed by Asia and the Pacific with 55% and North America at 20%. Europe and Central Asia experienced an 18% fall. The total loss is akin to the human population of Europe, the Americas, Africa, Oceania and China disappearing, according to the report.

"Despite the science, the catastrophic projections, the impassioned speeches and promises, the burning forests, submerged countries, record temperatures and displaced millions, world leaders continue to sit back and watch our world burn in front of our eyes," said Steele. "The climate and nature crises, their fates entwined, are not some faraway threat our grandchildren will solve with still-to-be-discovered technology."

She added: "We need our new prime minister to show the UK is serious about helping people, nature and the economy to thrive, by ensuring every promise for our world is kept. Falling short will be neither forgotten nor forgiven."

Leading nature charities have accused Liz Truss of putting the economy before nature protection and the environment, and are concerned rare animals and plants could lose their protections when her promise of a "bonfire" of EU red tape happens later this year.

The report points out that not all countries have the same starting points with nature decline and that the UK has only 50% of its biodiversity richness compared with historical levels, according to the biodiversity intactness index, making it one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world.

Land use change is still the most important driver of biodiversity loss across the planet, according to the report. Mike Barrett, executive director of science and conservation at WWF-UK, said: "At a global level, primarily the declines we are seeing are driven by the loss and fragmentation of habitat driven by the global agricultural system and its expansion into intact habitat converting it to produce food."

The researchers underscore the increased difficulty animals are having moving through terrestrial landscapes as they are blocked by infrastructure and farmland. Only 37% of rivers longer than 1,000km (600 miles) remain free-flowing along their entire length, while just 10% of the world's protected areas on land are connected.

Future declines are not inevitable, say the authors, who pinpoint the Himalayas, south-east Asia, the east coast of Australia, the Albertine Rift and Eastern Arc mountains in eastern Africa, and the Amazon basin among priority areas.

The IUCN is also developing a standard to measure the conservation potential of an animal, known as its green status, which will allow researchers to plot a path to recovery for some of the one million species threatened with extinction on Earth. The pink pigeon, burrowing bettong and Sumatran rhino were highlighted as species with good conservation potential in a study last year.

Robin Freeman, head of the indicators and assessments unit at ZSL, said it was clear that humanity is eroding the very foundations of life, and urgent action is needed. "In order to see any bending of the curve of biodiversity loss ... it's not just about conservation it's about changing production and consumption – and the only way that we are going to be able to legislate or call for that is to have these clear measurable targets that ask for recovery of abundance, reduction of extinction risk and the ceasing of extinctions at Cop15 in December."

[crazy canuck]

Prior to COVID I was optimistic that we would reach a critical mass of people who care enough about climate change for politicians to take the steps needed to address the issues in the short time we have left before reaching 2C of warming.

COVID, Trumpism, UK going insane, and war in the Ukraine make it highly unlikely this becomes a major political issue until it is too late to avoid 2C.

And then frankly we are just into full mitigation mode.

[Sheilbh]

Not sure the UK going insane is making a difference on net zero. I think that's just politics as vibes. Climate's a consensus issue here:


It's low key probably one of the biggest successees of the government in the last twelve years which they don't really get any credit for because the vibe is that Tory = anti-environment/climate sceptic, even though that's not really true.

[mongers]

Not sure the UK going insane is making a difference on net zero. I think that's just politics as vibes. Climate's a consensus issue here:


It's low key probably one of the biggest successees of the government in the last twelve years which they don't really get any credit for because the vibe is that Tory = anti-environment/climate sceptic, even though that's not really true.

Lets see:

Dozens of new oil and gas drilling licences announced in the last few days.

The replacement for the EU farming regulations so watered down as to be non-effective, certainly not prioritising the farming environment over cheap produce.

Water companies allowed to pollute in an unfettered way; rivers becoming open sewers.

Tory ministers, and liz truss boasted about this, slashing environment agency farm inspection to a small, very small percentage of the previous amount. And despite 50% of inspections uncovering pollution, not one single prosecution since ministers told DEFRA to back off.

 

[Sheilbh]

Lets see:

Fine - but that doesn't change the fact the the fall in carbon emissions in the last 12 years is a fact. It's been substantial, supported by government policy and a good thing. If cutting carbon emissions is a priority then they deserve some credit.

Dozens of new oil and gas drilling licences announced in the last few days.

A licensing round was opened. No new licences have been awarded - if you want to bet on the longevity of this government maybe some will.

In the current context I'm not sure that new gas drilling especially isn't a good idea. We (and Europe) can't transition immediately. Gas is being used as a weapon. The UK doesn't have vast reserves but could produce a little bit more that might help. As I say I think on Ukraine the calculation is different for the US or Canada - but from a European perspective I think economically and morally it makes energy transition even more urgent. It's a catalyst for that and I think that applies to China and Asia too economically because they're also exposed to the global gas market.

Obviously the unfortunate counter-point to that is that Europe doesn't really matter that much. The EU and UK collectively are about a third of China's emissions - we obviously still need to do more (and historically emitted a lot so should consider climate justice/reparations). But in terms of the actual environment it's really all about China's energy transition.

The replacement for the EU farming regulations so watered down as to be non-effective, certainly not prioritising the farming environment over cheap produce.

Again a little bit in flux over this with the current government.

Johnson's government had announced and designed new land management and subsidies that were widely praised including by environmental campaigners. Payments were tied to sustainable farming or things like re-wilding or re-forestation etc.

Truss wanted to cancel that and revert to more focus on agriculture.

And I think there's a debate over priorities here. My general view is that we should go for the Johnson model. But in a world of inflation, climate events, shock to food supplies and massive transport of imported food I'm not sure domestic production is necessarily a bad idea. I think those are lower priority or can be mitigated - but that's the trade-off.

Water companies allowed to pollute in an unfettered way; rivers becoming open sewers.

Totally agree - they should be renationalised.

Tory ministers, and liz truss boasted about this, slashing environment agency farm inspection to a small, very small percentage of the previous amount. And despite 50% of inspections uncovering pollution, not one single prosecution since ministers told DEFRA to back off.

Yeah again totally agree on austerity and cutting state agencies.

But I think there is also a clash of what we mean by environment. I think the policies and solutions to the carbon emissions and climate probably clash with conservation and protecting the "rural environment". It's AOC/New Green Deal/Green Industrial Revolution view v the Greta/Just Stop Oil/conservation/de-growth view - because they're not the same but they're both environmental/green. Not all good things go together.

[frunk]

This is one of the most confusing graphs I've seen in a while.  It's a percentage of "relative change".  It isn't clear what it is a percentage of, presumably not annual but I'm not sure what.  Above and below 0 is a negative percentage which means it's the same either way?