The editors of the Washington Post are very concerned about preserving the environment:
NATURE IS not only pretty, it is also valuable. And humans are squandering its value with behavior that will grievously harm future generations. That is the bottom line of a landmark report on biodiversity that the United Nations released in Paris on Monday.
Too often, advocates for ecological preservation talk about conserving irreplaceable natural beauty, which is, indeed, a key justification for setting aside lands and waters. But that argument only goes so far when one is referring to a peat bog, a tangled mangrove forest or a tiny bird’s scrubby habitat — especially when humans struggling with poverty see opportunities to develop zones that are unsightly and seemingly unused.
In fact, these areas, particularly the threatened tropics, hold vast value to human beings. “An estimated 4 billion people rely primarily on natural medicines for their health care and some 70 percent of drugs used for cancer are natural or are synthetic products inspired by nature,†the report notes. “More than 75 percent of global food crop types, including fruits and vegetables and some of the most important cash crops such as coffee, cocoa and almonds, rely on animal pollination.†Plants, the oceans and other natural features clean the air and water, and they suck up much — though not enough — of the planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions that threaten human society. Preserving biological diversity preserves options and opportunities — to develop the next lifesaving drug, improve crops or adapt to environmental changes.
and I agree with their proposal to reduce subsidies for the consumption of fossil fuels. Unfortunately, they don’t seem to realize where the problem actually is. China, Mexico, and India all subsidize domestic consumption to the tune of $15-20 billion annually (China’s is probably higher but that’s what they admit to)—twice ours. Saudi Arabia alone accounts for most fossil fuel subsidies—$60 billion per year. We don’t have a lot of influence on policy in those countries but we should exert what we can and much of that would be by imposing tariffs.
BTW do you recall the infrastructure plans the WaPo is so much in favor of? A lot of that is backdoor subsidies to fossil fuel consumption.
In addition to pissing into the wind created by China and India I recall the following.
1970 – the coming ice age. We are doomed to extinction by 2000.
1978 – The ozone layer and those evil hair sprayers will force us to become creatures of the night.
1982 – acid rain will wipe out crops. Mass starvation will ensue.
1990 – global warming…………….well, blah blah blah. We, including those fuzzy and loveable polar bears, didn’t all die 25 years later.
I’m thinking of a story from my childhood. It involved a boy and, supposedly, some stray wolf………
I understand AOC has some video out marveling at……….a kitchen sink disposal. She worries that it may not be environmentally safe. I’d be tempted to just laugh it off as AOC, but when I read the blathering of pundits, media and grant seeking “scientists” I ask – what’s the difference?
I don’t think that it’s too much of a stretch to suspect that dumping 8 million tons of plastic into the oceans per year might have an adverse effect on ocean flora and fauna. But we’re doing relatively little of it and I’m curious as to the strategy for stopping the gravest offenders (China, India, Nigeria) from doing it.
On the other side, it appears to me that PCP’s do thin bird eggs, and worse for apex predators at the top of the food chain. Since their ban, bald, (adult) eagles have become common where once there were almost none.
Back in Jefferson’s time whether it was possible for a species to become extinct was hotly debated. Jefferson thought it was not:
We now believe that it is quite possible and have some recent examples of complete or near extinction (passenger pigeons–complete, American chestnut–near).
I think our earth systems are more resilient than you, Dave. But we would just be two guys in a late night bar debating.
As to convincing China to behave? Fuggetaboutit. Their objective is global hegemony. They would be delighted for us to commit industrial suicide.
I don’t think so. The Chinese authorities have multiple objectives, the most important (to them) being to hold on to the reins of power. Other objectives include what they see as the proper level of respect to which China is due and irredentist goals.
I think they are indifferent to if not disdainful of people other than Han Chinese and even to their own people. None of that is the same as pursuing “global hegemony”.
“1970 – the coming ice age. We are doomed to extinction by 2000.”
Except that is not what scientists were predicting. Some pop science journals published this because they discovered that men like pictures of half naked women in fur coats. Who would have known way back in 1970 that sex sells? I hope you didnt run out of straw setting up the others.
Steve
Yeah, that’s why they published it steve.
Some day the warmers might have a theory that actually predicts. Until then……
Maybe I should have been more precise, Dave. The worlds dominant economic force. If you disagree, that’s fine, but now we are back at the bar. What’re you drinking?
“But we’re doing relatively little of it and I’m curious as to the strategy for stopping the gravest offenders (China, India, Nigeria) from doing it.”
The irony is that a lot of that is actually ours and plastics, in particular, are reportedly piling up here in the US because China decided to stop importing recycled plastic.
Yeah, in the past I’ve pointed that out as well but, apparently, that’s no longer as much the case as it used to be. The more prosperous they become, the more likely to just throw their waste in the river. Most of their waste is now home-grown.