Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

OKIsItJustMe

(20,621 posts)
Mon Sep 23, 2024, 10:23 PM Sep 23

The Guardian: Earth may have breached seven of nine planetary boundaries, health check shows

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/sep/23/earth-breach-planetary-boundaries-health-check-oceans
Earth may have breached seven of nine planetary boundaries, health check shows
Ocean acidification close to critical threshold, say scientists, posing threat to marine ecosystems and global liveability

Damien Gayle Environment correspondent
Mon 23 Sep 2024 14.00 EDT

Industrial civilisation is close to breaching a seventh planetary boundary, and may already have crossed it, according to scientists who have compiled the latest report on the state of the world’s life-support systems.

“Ocean acidification is approaching a critical threshold”, particularly in higher-latitude regions, says the latest report on planetary boundaries. “The growing acidification poses an increasing threat to marine ecosystems.”

The report, from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), builds on years of research showing there are nine systems and processes – the planetary boundaries – that contribute to the stability of the planet’s life-support functions.

Thresholds beyond which they can no longer properly function have already been breached in six. Climate change, the introduction of novel entities, change in biosphere integrity and modification of biogeochemical flows are judged to be in high-risk zones, while planetary boundaries are also transgressed in land system change and freshwater change but to a lesser extent. All have worsened, according to the data.

16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Guardian: Earth may have breached seven of nine planetary boundaries, health check shows (Original Post) OKIsItJustMe Sep 23 OP
Human overpopulation and human overconsumption jfz9580m Sep 23 #1
Indeed... OKIsItJustMe Sep 24 #2
I know jfz9580m Sep 24 #3
Two observations OKIsItJustMe Sep 24 #4
Thanks for your thoughtful post jfz9580m Sep 24 #5
You're welcome. A little light reading... OKIsItJustMe Sep 24 #6
I have mixed feelings about those strategies jfz9580m Sep 25 #9
I certainly have "mixed feelings" OKIsItJustMe Sep 25 #11
You have a point jfz9580m Sep 26 #12
If you want some serious reading material... OKIsItJustMe Sep 26 #13
Thanks jfz9580m Sep 27 #14
Better to go forward - or even stay in place - than go backwards at light speed. RandomNumbers Sep 28 #15
I'm not as optimistic at this point OKIsItJustMe Sep 28 #16
Earth didn't breach anything. We did. hatrack Sep 24 #7
Well put! OKIsItJustMe Sep 24 #8
Bang on jfz9580m Sep 25 #10

jfz9580m

(15,382 posts)
1. Human overpopulation and human overconsumption
Mon Sep 23, 2024, 10:39 PM
Sep 23

Last edited Mon Sep 23, 2024, 11:44 PM - Edit history (2)

:-/
The planet has been stuck with the bill for our excesses and scientific illiteracy as a species.

I often wonder why we talk/think or even care so much about so many things so little worth talking/thinking/caring about as we continually ignore the ecological issues that will affect every other issue.

OKIsItJustMe

(20,621 posts)
2. Indeed...
Tue Sep 24, 2024, 04:29 AM
Sep 24

I find myself thinking that political struggles are little more than “bread & circuses.”

I certainly don’t want a repeat of the Trump years, and yet, I fear it is too late for the best intentioned president to stop the wheels from turning.

https://openatmosphericsciencejournal.com/VOLUME/2/PAGE/217/

… Indeed, if the world continues on a business-as-usual path for even another decade without initiating phase-out of unconstrained coal use, prospects for avoiding a dangerously large, extended overshoot of the 350 ppm level will be dim.
James Hansen et al, 2008 Target Atmospheric CO₂: Where Should Humanity Aim?

jfz9580m

(15,382 posts)
3. I know
Tue Sep 24, 2024, 07:43 AM
Sep 24

And I do think degrowth - both in terms of smaller population sizes (sorry J D Vance!) and slower and smaller economies -is the long term solution.

Our societies are so poorly and chaotically managed and run as is that runaway, deregulated growth is a liability in the long run. And as you rightly pointed out, so many of our political struggles are about bread and circuses i.e. performative stuff, but nothing very real..

I feel a holistic (not hippie holistic, but scientifically holistic) understanding of the planet would help scientists identify those planetary stresses which work most to undermine and threaten planetary stability.

I also suspect that eschewing a strictly Anthropocentric standpoint from time to time would probably be better for the vast majority of humans, but it is hard for our scientifically incurious* society to get that. Not even most shopaholics would like to live in a polluted, noisy parking lot denuded of all green cover if the connection was clear to them. But because :a) their ecological footprint represents damage to the ecosystem that is out of sight; b) no one bothers to point out the connection and c) people get defensive when that is pointed out, here we are…

It is one part dominion theology and many parts an incurious and crass way of thinking. Who cares how many species go extinct? Who cares if my meat comes from factory farms? Who cares if my shopping sprees or multiple cars are a strain on the planet and so on..

(*: I said incurious because I don’t think some of the wealthy people in tech for instance are scientifically illiterate - they are just entirely incurious about the planet except as a backdrop for shopping malls/parking lots/pubs and so on. They have no understanding of ecological sciences and not much curiosity either as far as I can tell. My own curiousity about the natural world is always blunted by the misery of getting fond of more and more new species and life forms only to know in more detail how threatened or exploited they are by humans.)

OKIsItJustMe

(20,621 posts)
4. Two observations
Tue Sep 24, 2024, 10:41 AM
Sep 24
  1. I largely agree with your analysis, but believe it should be written in the past tense. At this point, I’m afraid there is no long-term solution. It’s too late for “degrowth.” We’ve set processes in motion which will not be stopped in that way. In retrospect, a smaller, more harmonious existence might have worked. As for the incurious masters of technology, I was astonished by the Musk/Trump show. My assumption had been that Musk had “run the numbers on the climate,” concluded it was hopeless, and foolishly decided he’d move to Mars to escape the apocalypse. I never imagined he was so completely ignorant of the most fundamental science of “the greenhouse effect!” Now I think he simply wants to become “King of Mars” so he can live by his own laws and impose them on his serfs.

  2. I think one of the most serious problems we suffer from, is a lack of comprehension of the very large, but finite. e.g. pump all of your shit into the rivers, the seas, the air, and it just goes away. I remember thinking as a boy that if sitting in a running car, in a closed garage would kill you, wouldn’t constantly running millions of them eventually be a problem? There’s no apparent harm in cutting down a tree, but what if we denude continents? Need more water? Drill deeper wells! Pump the oil out of the ground, dig up the metals, and the coal, “there’s plenty more where that came from!”


In the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, https://archive.org/details/HitchhikersGuideRadioShowLive Arthur Dent’s friend, Ford Prefect, shows up to save him from the end of the world. He takes him to a pub, for some quick alcohol and peanuts, to help him cope with the effects of a transport beam. As Ford follows Arthur from the pub, the barman asks:
Are you serious sir? I mean, do you really think the world is going to end this afternoon?
Yes, in just over one minute and thirty-five seconds.
Well, isn't there anything we can do?
No. Nothing.
Suppose we were to lie down, or put a paper bag over our heads or something?
If you like, yes.
Well, would it help?
No. …

jfz9580m

(15,382 posts)
5. Thanks for your thoughtful post
Tue Sep 24, 2024, 11:01 AM
Sep 24

I largely agree with you. But one still hopes. I don’t know your age, but I am relatively young for a DUer (mid forties). And my family by and large tends to live well into their 80s and 90s (and usually in good health). So…gulp..I still have a long enough stretch on the old rock that I have a facile hope that at some point the rest of our species gets the message.
I dread to think about what the future will look like 40 years from now if we continue like this..

OKIsItJustMe

(20,621 posts)
6. You're welcome. A little light reading...
Tue Sep 24, 2024, 12:37 PM
Sep 24
James Hansen, by his nature, seems to be an indomitable optimist. He believes that if he just explains the science clearly enough, nations will act accordingly. I believe this paper contributed to the admission that we must limit warming to 1.5°C. Leaders of the world’s nations agreed we needed to take dramatic action to meet that goal.

Hansen, J., M. Sato, P. Hearty, R. Ruedy, M. Kelley, V. Masson-Delmotte, G. Russell, G. Tselioudis, J. Cao, E. Rignot, I. Velicogna, B. Tormey, B. Donovan, E. Kandiano, K. von Schuckmann, P. Kharecha, A.N. Legrande, M. Bauer, and K.-W. Lo, 2016: Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms:/ evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 C global warming could be dangerous Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 3761-3812. doi:10.5194/acp-16-3761-2016.


Since, to date, they have not, Hansen seems to be pinning his hopes on political revolution. (What if the world were under new leadership?)

Hansen, J.E., M. Sato, L. Simons, L.S. Nazarenko, I. Sangha, P. Kharecha, et al. 2023: Global warming in the pipeline, Oxford Open Climate Change, 3, Issue 1, kgad008.

… under the present geopolitical approach to GHG emissions, global warming will exceed 1.5°C in the 2020s and 2°C before 2050. Impacts on people and nature will accelerate as global warming increases hydrologic (weather) extremes.The enormity of consequences demands a return to Holocene-level global temperature. Required actions include: (1) a global increasing price on GHG emissions accompanied by development of abundant, affordable, dispatchable clean energy, (2) East-West cooperation in a way that accommodates developing world needs, and (3) intervention with Earth’s radiation imbalance to phase down today’s massive human-made ‘geo-transformation’ of Earth’s climate. Current political crises present an opportunity for reset, especially if young people can grasp their situation.

“Intervention with Earth’s radiation imbalance” (if we could agree to do it) might turn down the heat a bit, but it won’t help with other planetary boundaries (e.g. ocean acidification.)

jfz9580m

(15,382 posts)
9. I have mixed feelings about those strategies
Wed Sep 25, 2024, 02:22 AM
Sep 25

Last edited Wed Sep 25, 2024, 06:02 AM - Edit history (1)

Recently the Biden admin is cautiously opening the door to it and it is fine if it is done with real scientific knowledge and appreciation of the potential issues (ie not as a Musk would go about it):
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/01/white-house-cautiously-opens-door-to-study-blocking-suns-rays-to-slow-global-warming-ee-00104513

I just hope that if/when they try such measures it is people like Hansen or the Fauci/Francis Collins type of scientist rather than the Richard Lindzen type of contrarian or worse someone outright in the pocket of industrial interests.
I generally think scientists like doctors are a decent lot. But it would have to be scientists without serious conflicts of interest commercially who do factor in the ecological sciences rather than demoting those in favor of the views economists.

Economists are not scientists in that sense. And the failure of economics as a field to even factor in the planet in any serious way does not get talked about anywhere near enough.

For all the whinging about liberal scientists, it is hardly addressed enough that economics is a very right shifted field not to mention not a hard science but an inexact human science (by which I mean far more susceptible to human vagaries than anything more objective).

A type of worldview (common I suspect in the tech world/cs) essentially sneers at ecological sciences or evolutionary biology (social Darwinism and eugenics are not evol bio in my book) in any sane sense, but gives exaggerated importance to economics and that is not good.

OKIsItJustMe

(20,621 posts)
11. I certainly have "mixed feelings"
Wed Sep 25, 2024, 10:40 AM
Sep 25

I have “mixed feelings” about “elective surgery” but, if I decided to have it done, I would want a competent surgeon, and I would not want to be her first patient.

Here’s the tack I’ve taken since about 2000, regarding “geo-engineering,” we’d better start experimenting now (then), because “mixed feelings” or not, we’re going to be forced to take actions like this in the near future. It would be best if we knew what we were doing once we did.

In 2008, Hansen et al advised:

A practical global strategy almost surely requires a rising global price on CO₂ emissions and phase-out of coal use except for cases where the CO₂ is captured and sequestered. The carbon price should eliminate use of unconventional fossil fuels, unless, as is unlikely, the CO₂ can be captured. A reward system for improved agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon could remove the current CO₂ overshoot. With simultaneous policies to reduce non-CO₂ greenhouse gases, it appears still feasible to avert catastrophic climate change.

(“Unconventional fossil fuels” = “fracking,” “tar sands” etc.)

At that time, they advised:
… If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO₂ will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm, but likely less than that. …


(This is where 350 in 350.org came from.) How many people who are aware of the 350 ppm goal appreciate that 350 ppm is only a starting point. The logic was that if we could figure out how to lower CO₂ levels that far, then we could employ the same (or similar) techniques to lower it further. (Say to 280 ppm or lower.)

Of course, since 2008, we have gleefully done just the opposite of what Hansen et al advised, using fracking, digging up “tar sands” and not employing “natural” methods to sequester carbon. Instead of phasing out coal by 2030 (as Hansen et al advised) we’re using more of it to generate electricity!
IEA (2024), Global electricity generation from coal and COP28 pathway, 2030, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-electricity-generation-from-coal-and-cop28-pathway-2030 , Licence: CC BY 4.0


Ironically, in 15 years, instead of lowering CO₂ levels 35 ppm (to 350 ppm) we increased them 35 ppm to 420 ppm. At this rate, in another 15 years, we’ll almost certainly be in excess of 450 ppm, and, while we know how to cut emissions, cutting emissions does not lower the level of CO₂ already in the atmosphere.

Our estimated history of CO₂ through the Cenozoic Era provides a sobering perspective for assessing an appropriate target for future CO₂ levels. A CO₂ amount of order 450 ppm or larger, if long maintained, would push Earth toward the ice-free state. Although ocean and ice sheet inertia limit the rate of climate change, such a CO₂ level likely would cause the passing of climate tipping points and initiate dynamic responses that could be out of humanity’s control.

jfz9580m

(15,382 posts)
12. You have a point
Thu Sep 26, 2024, 12:24 AM
Sep 26

Thanks for all the info .

This Sc Am article captures how I feel about it. It is not the scientists I am worried about so much as the “entrepreneurs” (ie often people with the same myopic, greedy, crass mindset that got us here in the first place):
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/geoengineering-wins-reluctant-interest-from-scientists-as-earths-climate/

If natural systems were modified with proper scientific oversight (ie not with an expert in the pocket of scientifically incurious and myopic creeps looking to make money off of “green energy”) it could be viable I suppose.

However, the role of the disinterested scientist should not get diluted down to a joke. These are complex topics that very few people have any real expertise in and so the need for trusted disinterested experts is vital.

What alarmed me about that article was the indication that industry would go ahead with some of it without much public debate.

As for reasonable standards re public engagement on such complex matters..that is another nightmare these days.

Looking at how Covid went, public skepticism about science can often be driven by nonsense . Therefore, I am not saying that we need experts who can convince Marjorie Green that space lasers and vaccines are not killing babies..

The truth is I don’t understand these issues any better than Marjorie Green does (well okay probably better than Marjorie Green but that is a low bar), but our concerns are over very different matters. Mine is more of a generic concern about deregulation from the private sector not distrust of democratic governance or mainstream scientific consensus.

I posted this elsewhere -a really cool oped by Dr Francis Collins of the NIH that is tangentially relevant to all of this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/20/opinion/covid-vaccines-truth-life-death.html

Thanks for all the reading material again .

OKIsItJustMe

(20,621 posts)
13. If you want some serious reading material...
Thu Sep 26, 2024, 01:01 PM
Sep 26

Try the Working Group III report of IPCC AR6. You’re particularly interested in Chapter 12.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Chapter12.pdf

Especially 12.3.3 CDR Governance and Policies

For countries with emissions targets aiming for net zero or lower, the core governance question is not whether CDR should be mobilised or not, but which CDR methods governments want to see deployed by whom, by when, at which volumes and in which ways …

jfz9580m

(15,382 posts)
14. Thanks
Fri Sep 27, 2024, 08:33 AM
Sep 27

Light read indeed
Section 12.4 is of particular interest to me because our food system is so messed up. We are not following even rudimentary tenets of animal welfare (thanks to horrors like factory farming) as well as ignoring both environmental concerns and concerns related to human health.

RandomNumbers

(18,127 posts)
15. Better to go forward - or even stay in place - than go backwards at light speed.
Sat Sep 28, 2024, 12:51 PM
Sep 28

A truism that sadly failed to resonate with too many "progressives" or others in 2016.

** obviously the bigger part of the 2016 problem was the uninformed and/or deplorable who have a weird idea of "progress" or "good" in the first place - but if the number of "progressives" I knew who sat on their hands (or worse) on Election Day; or trash-talked Hillary right up to Election Day then said they "held their nose and voted for her" - if that is at all indicative, they very well may have cost the election, and 4years of horrific backtracking on many fronts including climate change.

It is probably too late to avert a certain (terrible) amount of damage. But we can at least slow it down, and reduce the suffering that will result.

OKIsItJustMe

(20,621 posts)
16. I'm not as optimistic at this point
Sat Sep 28, 2024, 01:35 PM
Sep 28

I was (guardedly) optimistic in 2008, when Hansen et al summarized things like this:
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_ha00410c.pdf

Present policies, with continued construction of coalfired power plants without CO₂ capture, suggest that decision-makers do not appreciate the gravity of the situation. We must begin to move now toward the era beyond fossil fuels. Continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions, for just another decade, practically eliminates the possibility of near-term return of atmospheric composition beneath the tipping level for catastrophic effects.

The most difficult task, phase-out over the next 20-25 years of coal use that does not capture CO₂, is Herculean, yet feasible when compared with the efforts that went into World War II. The stakes, for all life on the planet, surpass those of any previous crisis. The greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable.


Sadly, since then, carbon dioxide levels have increased relentlessly.

jfz9580m

(15,382 posts)
10. Bang on
Wed Sep 25, 2024, 02:30 AM
Sep 25

I have always respected your tireless devotion to the environmental cause hatrack .
You have been sounding the alarm here for over 20 years now. I appreciate that commitment to this most important, but bizarrely overlooked issues.
When the environment goes to hell, wars increase (resource scarcity), societal health degrades, civil rights take a hit and yet that simple connection is never made.

I think it is the effort it takes to be a serious environmentalist that seems to turn people off. It is so easy to post feel good hashtags and then carry on with shopping and celebrity gossip etc.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»The Guardian: Earth may h...