When you hear talk of "exiting the quarantine and returning to routine" it is clear that the advocates of the exit are ignoring the bigger problem - global warming caused by the emission of pollutants. Added to this is the risk that in order to "reduce losses" there will be a "return" push for increased pollutant emission activity
Because of the corona epidemic, transportation and industrial activity was reduced and the immediate result was less polluted air and less greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, which is good.
But when you hear talk of "exiting the quarantine and returning to routine" it is clear that the advocates of the exit are ignoring the bigger problem - global warming caused by the emission of pollutants. Added to this is the risk that in order to "reduce losses" there will be a "return" push for increased pollutant emission activity. There is no doubt that the cooperation to fight the plague is a sign of the possibility of cooperation in the mitigation of warming and preparations for the damages caused by climate change, will it be so? I doubt!
There is no doubt that warming and climate change have a huge negative impact on the natural environment in general and the diversity of species in particular. How fatal will the damage be, when will it reach the point of no return and can the disaster still be stopped?
The effect of warming on species and environmental systems is already evident: species moving toward the poles, Around the world forest fires broke out on a biblical scale, Bleaching coral reefs And more.
All of these bear the fingerprints of climate change. The damages are clear and the question arises, what will the natural environment look like in the future?
The forecasts show that if not, the emissions from the projects will decrease rapidly Climatic disasters will increase. in the worst emissions forecast About 50% of the species will lose the climatic conditions suitable for their life. But the forecasts do not specify when climate conditions will exist that will endanger existence. Will exposure to changing conditions be gradual and affect individual species intermittently or will there be a mass collapse?
A team of researchers who published their conclusions in the journal "Nature" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2189-9 tried to answer questions through a review of the changes in temperature and amounts of rainfall from 1850. On top of these data were added predictions until 2100 and the expected impact on 30,000 marine and terrestrial species in assessing exposure times to extreme climate conditions.
Referring to the findings, the researchers discarded the expected conditions and tried to determine the limit above which species would not survive, the temperature that would rise to a level that biological species had not experienced. The researchers concluded that climate change will cause a sudden loss that will occur much earlier than expected, already in the current century. A high percentage of the species in environmental systems will be exposed to dangerous climate conditions at the same time, not a gradual slide but a sudden fall.
Sudden loss of corals due to heat waves is already happening. Following the corals, there is a danger of the collapse of the marine environment as early as 2040-2030. A collapse that will radiate to the terrestrial environment starting in 2050.
It is possible that species whose generations are short like insects will adapt, but this will not be the case with birds, mammals and other species that have long generations. For them, the warming will increase within a few generations, which will not allow adaptation.
It is clear that a sudden loss of species diversity is a significant threat to human well-being as well, a high percentage of the inhabitants of many countries rely on the natural environment for food supply and existence. This is how the marine systems in the Caribbean, on the west coast of Africa and in the Indian Ocean are expected to collapse as early as 2030 - and damage the food supply for hundreds of millions of people) whose livelihood is based on fishing,
or in the many that survive from diving and coral tourism, (on a personal note, we saw the destructive power of climate change when a terrible southern storm destroyed most of the beach facilities in Eilat and caused damage estimated at tens of millions of shekels, moreover the storm shattered, broke and destroyed large parts of the coral reef, a reef unique in being The beach facilities will be repaired, but repairing the damage to the coral reef will take decades.
Because of global warming, forests in South America, Africa, Indonesia and more are in danger. Pollutant emissions that, if they continue until 2050, will seriously damage the ability of forests to absorb carbon dioxide, wildlife populations will be damaged and the possibility of people to exist will be damaged again.
The described reality clarifies the urgent need to moderate the warming and quickly reduce pollutant emissions already in the current decade. The reality clarifies the duty to save thousands of species from extinction and preserve environmental services. Evaluating the time and places where species are exposed to the dangers of the climate will make it possible to create a warning system that will allow support for those species, setting policies to preserve species and creating protected areas that will be areas of refuge and adaptation. The reality also clarifies the urgent need to help human populations to mitigate the damage and adapt to changes, for example planting mangrove groves to moderate floods.
According to the researchers: "The ability to continue updating and validating the forecasts in order to respond correctly to future changes that will endanger the environment and the diversity of species is a central and important element for preventing climate disasters. Our planet is teeming with life. With the right policy of leaders and continuous activity of citizens, it can be kept that way."
And I will add again and again and again that it is appropriate that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there should be control of the human population for the sake of the environment.
More
5 תגובות
Ezra Elazar
This is simply not true, for at least two reasons:
The first is that the "bottleneck" of plants is often nitrogen (which comes from the soil). It turns out that adding PADH has little effect on the vegetation.
The second reason is that the negative effects of warming dwarf any positive effect of adding PADH.
I am one of those who are convinced and I have no doubt that a gloomy future is upon us and horror predictions that have been seen so far in the movies will be seen in our yards as we stumble through the window (for those who have a window).
The corona epidemic has proven that nervous predictions may or may be our lot, and we, ordinary mortals, are the ones trying to put a piece of bread on the table (for those who have a table) in the end, when the forecast is here - we are good soldiers and the words of the leadership fall on deaf ears.
And here is the problem.
A real existential problem is necessary in order for us mortals to keep the commandments of our Lord.
And the gentlemen have their share. Rich in connections and connections and their daily routine does not share problems that might happen (to them).
My thinking in this matter is quite simple: instead of trying to convince the convinced (that I am their son, but who am I, what am I... what??) the geniuses will devote efforts to true solutions.
And the solutions are in the domain of the machine.
And the solutions are in the political field.
And the solutions are in the area where the statesmen meet with the world's rich.
Today
My only way to the grocery store inevitably goes through my humble chariot (a battered and miserable Mazda 3).
It is unlikely that we will run on coals.
And I will definitely not climb the stairs (despite the fact that I live on the first floor).
I will also continue to purchase beer (even though I am aware of the direct and indirect damages)
And all...
Last line: In order for us mortals (those who have mortality) to do what is asked of us - there is a need for solutions that do not cause an earthquake in the realm of routine.
If you touched the routine - we all lost.
=======
And almost without any connection: my wife and I moved about 4000 km north and we are now staying on German soil. And the Germans are a people.
A generally serious people. Such that if he is required - he implements.
They know their limit and their responsibility within it. And in the meantime, the Mishkans look good. The yards - good. The attitude towards others is good and the attitude towards the plague: responsible. There are no overly oppressive closures here (if at all), people maintain their 2 meters (usually without masks), and now that there is no barrier, they abandon the public transport and switch to private vehicles (usually German).
Why am I telling this: a. Because there is nothing else to do. B. Because this nation and against it the Israeli nation are proof that it is indeed possible to implement things in a big way (like walking instead of using a car).
But in order for this to happen, the statesmen need to be neutralized from the lobbyists (of various companies [Google, Apple, Facebook, Dubek, Electricity Co., ...] and maybe then things will happen. And in order for this to happen, there is an (immediate) need to change the election system [worldwide] And no less important: change the voting method (with today's technology - it is possible to allow several hundreds of thousands to vote via telephone / computer. This in itself will neutralize the lobbyists))
This.
You could write a book about it
But I have to go to work.
Thanks for the nice site.
to the respondents.
To the writers…
We are heading into a period of recession, which will moderate production levels in factories.
The author of the article is right in all his words. I would like to point out: COXNUMX (carbon dioxide) is absorbed by the trees, grass and crops and becomes food for all animals, including humans, so the more COXNUMX there is, the more food there will be for the Earth's population up to a certain limit. I don't know where the aforementioned limit is that experts must calculate.
And here is all the barbarism of "man is to blame for global warming" just to get to the bottom line - you need to activate a mechanism to control people.
What does all the evidence of global warming and the "damage to nature" have in common and the need to limit humans by draconian means? myopia
A. Those who examine the specialization in the light of 2.5 million years see that it is not unusual, it is mainly part of the current Holocene period, a period of rapid warming similar to those that appeared between every two ice ages.
B. Pollution is a problem. Not carbon dioxide which is a comma among the greenhouse gases and whose effect is not at all clear compared to the sun itself. but an infection that harms humans and animals. Infection should and should be treated.
third. But first of all the illusion. So I will say first - "nature" as a term is still. He doesn't care about the earth, he doesn't care about animals and he certainly doesn't care about humans. Even among the animals none of them understand the idea of extinction or eternity or eternity. These are human terms. Nature has seen extinctions, species explosions, apocalypses and... nothing. A comma in billions of years of existence. Man is barely tickling the tip of a hair.
d. Instead of constantly engaging in peddling, peddling, peddling, we should be dealing with all things - improving the situation for the people. Improving the environment so that ours will be pleasant and healthy to live in. After all, man is the only one who even feels it and nature simply does not care. Man will not bring about the extinction of nature, not even the extinction of himself, but it can be more pleasant to live here.
God. The constant threats of destruction, apocalypse, diminishing species and other topics do not speak to the majority of the population. Clean nature, clean air, clean water, clean sea speaks to them. Yes, it speaks to people's health, quality of life. So instead of all the threats that simply refuse to happen, can we switch to talking about beneficial actions? (And no, reducing PAD is not helpful, reducing smoke and air pollution is).