WWF reveals wildlife has declined 60% in 40 years

[sglowrider]

'We are the first generation to know we are destroying our planet and the last one that can do anything about it'

https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...wf-elephants-rhinos-polar-bears-a8607341.html

Populations of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish have fallen off a cliff – dropping by 60 per cent in just over 40 years.
“Right now the destruction of nature is seen as the price of development, and we cannot continue like that,” Tony Juniper, WWF’s executive director told The Independent. An explosion of human activity, including overfishing, deforestation and pesticide use, has been at the heart of many species’ declines.
These declines have been particularly pronounced in tropical regions and freshwater habitats. Just a quarter of the planet’s surface is free from human activity, and this is expected to shrink to a tenth by 2050.
This habitat loss, combined with poaching, pollution and climate change, have all contributed to a crisis that experts think can no longer be handled using conventional tactics.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

'We are the first generation to know we are destroying our planet and the last one that can do anything about it'

https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...wf-elephants-rhinos-polar-bears-a8607341.html

I always like hearing the holy-rollers response when something like this is brought up. It’s some variation of “No, no, the earth will never die. God won’t let that happen. The earth will always renew itself.”

 

[sglowrider]

I always like hearing the holy-rollers response when something like this is brought up. It’s some variation of “No, no, the earth will never die. God won’t let that happen. The earth will always renew itself.”

Bible > Science

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Bible > Science

Bible = less thought than science

 

[sglowrider]

Bible = less thought than science

Bible Real. Science Fake.

 

[Cortez88]

In all seriousness, could a right leaning poster please explain why those on the right don’t seem to much care about the environment? Is it really based on some religious belief that nothing humans do really matters?

 

[sglowrider]

In all seriousness, could a right leaning poster please explain why those on the right don’t seem to much care about the environment? Is it really based on some religious belief that nothing humans do really matters?

Maybe it's because it's a 'leftist' agenda. So they have to oppose it. It's a political game after all.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Maybe it's because it's a 'leftist' agenda. So they have to oppose it. It's a political game after all.

Too many regulations involved that cut into the profits of the job creators.

 

[Hank Reardon]

I had no idea the Wrestling crowd had become so interested in the environment. I'd have pegged them as trumpsters.

 

[All4You]

Wildlife population down 60% since 1970, human population up over 200% and domesticated animal population also up 200% since then. Coincidence?

https://www.infoplease.com/world/population-statistics/total-population-world-decade-1950-2050

http://vitalsigns.worldwatch.org/vs-trend/farm-animal-populations-continue-grow

 

[CradleofBasketball]

In all seriousness, could a right leaning poster please explain why those on the right don’t seem to much care about the environment? Is it really based on some religious belief that nothing humans do really matters?

There is a man -- now in his late 70's -- that has always advocated for the concept of leaving a place better than we found it. He isn't afraid to make anyone feel uncomfortable about wasteful behavior or leaving trash in their wake. He was my Sunday school teacher.

There is a woman -- now in her mid 70's -- that has been recycling for as long as I can remember. She taught me the basics when I was a kid and I am teaching my kids now. She is my mother and the daughter of a Methodist minister.

There is another man -- also in his late 70's -- that taught me what it means to value what I have and to avoid impetuous consumerism. He is my father; the man who still leads prayer before every family meal.

Small little values learned early can affect a lifetime of decisions. As a result, my household faithfully believes that good stewardship of our shared resources is naturally right. That belief was born by experience; it is validated by reason; it is relived in tradition. I can't explain your presumption that conservatives do not value the environment. In my little bubble, we do.

 

[IDontWannaLargeFarva]

There is a man -- now in his late 70's -- that has always advocated for the concept of leaving a place better than we found it. He isn't afraid to make anyone feel uncomfortable about wasteful behavior or leaving trash in their wake. He was my Sunday school teacher.

There is a woman -- now in her mid 70's -- that has been recycling for as long as I can remember. She taught me the basics when I was a kid and I am teaching my kids now. She is my mother and the daughter of a Methodist minister.

There is another man -- also in his late 70's -- that taught me what it means to value what I have and to avoid impetuous consumerism. He is my father; the man who still leads prayer before every family meal.

Small little values learned early can affect a lifetime of decisions. As a result, my household faithfully believes that good stewardship of our shared resources is naturally right. That belief was born by experience; it is validated by reason; it is relived in tradition. I can't explain your presumption that conservatives do not value the environment. In my little bubble, we do.

Reminds me a lot of my mother. One of the most economical people I know,and routinely you'll see her outside with a garbage bag picking up neighbors trash that blew away while waiting to be picked up.

She vehemently opposes any sort of climate regulation, as opposed to Leo DiCaprio and Al Gore who fly around on G6's telling middle America how they're destroying the environment.

 

[iuwclurker]

Trump is the greatest wildlife ever.

 

[All4You]

Of course we can argue amongst each other about the who, what, why, when and how much of it all but I think most of us can agree that the natural world is in a heap of deep dook on a number of fronts. I've said before that I have a sneaking suspicion as I get older and more jaded that we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. From air, water and land pollution, exacerbated by the exponential increases in human population vs. resources vs. our ability to sustain either. Add in an ever increasing developing world and expecting these countries made up largely of those who for generations that went without to accept taking a step backwards when it comes to enjoying the excesses that we in the developed world have had a 20-30-50-100 year head start on? When many of us aren't even willing to take the baby steps, much less make the hard choices, to do the same?

I don't have much faith in humanity to put aside their individual self interests in lieu of the common good, and even less faith in the powers that be to do the same. And to be honest, I worry we may have already passed the point of no return in reversing much, and can only hope through wholesale change to delay the inevitable.

 

[herrli]

Recycling is not just taking your '' trash'' to recycle bins it is fixing things vs buying new, reusing things , using them for purposes that were not what they were originally made for . Landfills are the mines of the future

 

[DrHoops]

It's the same reason they for some bizarre reason don't like hybrids or electric cars. For some reason it's annoying to conservatives.

Maybe it's because it's a 'leftist' agenda. So they have to oppose it. It's a political game after all.

 

[sglowrider]

It's the same reason they for some bizarre reason don't like hybrids or electric cars. For some reason it's annoying to conservatives.

They aren't vested in the future nor do they care.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

They aren't vested in the future nor do they care.

I beg to differ. They are extremely vested in the future, but it’s only in regards to money and power. The current presidency, senate, house, SCOTUS, lower court federal judgeships, governorships, and state legislatures are the culmination of 40+ years of working on a political agenda. Now dems are upset they didn’t completely undo it all in two years. The people you speak of are extremely vested in the future.

 

[outside shooter]

Small little values learned early can affect a lifetime of decisions.... I can't explain your presumption that conservatives do not value the environment. In my little bubble, we do.

It's great that you recycle, that you are not wasteful, and that you don't litter. You are doing some nice little things, in your local sphere.

Now... how do you feel about other issues that are not right in your backyard, like...

-relaxing environmental oversight of offshore oil drilling
-disbanding the EPA review panel on air quality
-repealing Obama-era regulations to limit emissions of methane and other greenhouse gases at drilling sites
-repealing air quality rules for coal-powered power plants
-halting the NASA program to evaluate global carbon emissions
-canceling higher fuel economy mandates for the auto industry, which would reduce USA carbon emissions substantially (and allow USA-made cars to be sold in Europe, where TOUGHER standards have already been approved)
-slashing Department of Energy funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives
(I could add a dozen more, but I think you get the idea)

How many of these actions do you support? If the answer is more than zero, you are certainly running the risk of negating everything positive you have done regarding helping the environment in your own corner of the world.

 

[CradleofBasketball]

It's great that you recycle, that you are not wasteful, and that you don't litter. You are doing some nice little things, in your local sphere.

Now... how do you feel about other issues that are not right in your backyard, like...

1. relaxing environmental oversight of offshore oil drilling
2. disbanding the EPA review panel on air quality
3. repealing Obama-era regulations to limit emissions of methane and other greenhouse gases at drilling sites
4. repealing air quality rules for coal-powered power plants
5. halting the NASA program to evaluate global carbon emissions
6. canceling higher fuel economy mandates for the auto industry, which would reduce USA carbon emissions substantially (and allow USA-made cars to be sold in Europe, where TOUGHER standards have already been approved)
7. slashing Department of Energy funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives
(I could add a dozen more, but I think you get the idea)

How many of these actions do you support? If the answer is more than zero, you are certainly running the risk of negating everything positive you have done regarding helping the environment in your own corner of the world.

The aggregate of my personal behavior and that of every other earthly soul is at the root of local, regional, and global consumption > demand > supply processes and their associated environmental impacts. Recognizing and taking responsibility for our own footprint is quite different than relying on bureaucrats to do it for us. Besides, our vote doesn't entitle us to see our wants 100% satisfied.

Environmental regulations are a downstream reaction to behavior. They're designed to monitor or treat environmental symptoms; or they are designed to prevent human error and the risk of environmental accidents; or they're designed to artificially modify undesirable behavior by making it more expensive and creating exclusionary conditions. They don't, however, directly address root cause. With that said, I'm not implying that some regulations aren't necessary; otherwise, we would still be roasting marshmallows over the flames of the Cuyahoga.

Regarding the examples you listed:

1. I assume you're referring to the Well Control Rule created after the Deepwater Horizon accident. The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement is still enforcing the WCR. "We can confidently say that not a single one of the changes that we made have ignored or contradicted a single recommendation that any one of these 14 external organizations made through those 26 reports,” "...84 percent of the provisions in the 2016 rule are going untouched." -- Scott Angelle, BSEE Director

2. That disbanded EPA panel is chartered to review metrics specifically for air particulate matter, not air quality. Particulate matter is just one of five categories comprising the EPA's overall review of air quality, and the Clean Air Act mandates periodic review, in 5-year cycles, to adjust metrics and provide guidance. The next review for particulate matter isn't due until 2020. If it's not reassembled in 2020 to do the review, then that's a problem.

3. The Methane Rule was put in place in 2016 and it's been in litigation ever since. Article It's important to note what is not in the proposed changes: the Bureau of Land Management is still going to require measuring methane released by drillers and fining them for it. Meanwhile, air quality regulations fall under EPA purview, not the BLM.

4. Not all coal emissions rules are being changed; nevertheless, I still don't like this one, and I'm willing to pay more in my monthly bill for coal alternatives. At the same time the US coal market is contracting, the OUS market is expanding; so it'll be interesting to see what India and Japan, for example, put in place to regulate their coal power utilities.

5. The OCO-3 mission. I don't particularly like this budget cut. Outcomes from the mission could fuel (ahem) academics, science, and technology development for years. It also would provide long-term data to help understand the atmospheric carbon cycle and if human efforts to change it are having the desired impact. If we don't have real measurement data, then we're legislating, regulating, and managing blindly.

6. Let's be clear on what happened with the updated CAFE: the new standard wasn't scheduled for release until 2018. Instead, the outgoing administration shorted the review period in 2016 and established 54.5 mpg as the new 2025 goal. The current administration is now reopening the midterm review process and involving (gasp!) industry. Also, the EU doesn't have more stringent emissions standards than the US -- they've just regulated different pollutants -- and it's worthwhile to understand why. Research and EU Study

7. We need continued R&D to bring renewable energy costs down. The budget cut of 2/3 amounted to about 1.5 billion (I think) for that agency. As an alternative budget move, I'd rather see us stop subsidizing corn farmers and ethanol production and redirect those funds back into more feasible clean energy programs. The ethanol experiment needs to end. Per unit of measure, ethanol contains less thermal energy than the same unit of gasoline, it results in poorer fuel mileage, and the environmental impacts of producing and consuming ethanol are not a net positive when considering all upstream supply chain inputs.