CHAPTER 1
Is Humanity 'Unsustainable' to the Planet Earth?
Environmental issues have taken the center stage in the last thirty years or so by many groups of individuals who notice Earth's changes and the elimination of nature. Many different subjects from sustainability to agro-ecology have become popular by students hoping for change in the way the world is being maintained by corporate interests and governments. It is almost impossible to say whether the entire world will be fed using organic farming methods and alternative energy sources as long as greedy corporate interests stand to lose profit. Another question would be how much damage has already been done and if this push for environmental "awareness" is even worth it.
Some examples taught in by the environmental studies curriculum avoid information presented by alternative media for obvious reasons. Others seem to teach an over optimistic view of how there is hope in feeding the world, living with 10 billion people, and coexisting together in the same conditions we have now peacefully missing big chunks of reality in the process. A questionable video presented by John Stossel (affiliated with ABC) in 2001 called Is Tampering with Nature a Good Thing? brought to light some interesting facts of what was considered noteworthy at the time. Main points included the conundrum of whether human impacts on the environment were as dangerous as they were made out to be. Stossel went even further to claim that there was no certain consensus that global warming was harming the planet in 2001. At the time, over 17,000 scientists agreed that no major evidence to prove that global warming existed while only 1,600 believed that there was an issue/cause for concern. It seemed that the panel of scientists was more concerned with the funding issue; considering the lack of capital for 'investigations' or 'research' programs.
Pat Michaels, a research professor at the University of Virginia presented his opinion by stating that the senate hearings (along with the administrator of NASA) could exaggerate any details just to fund and keep the program running. Now, scientists on this same panel have changed their idea ten years later with sufficient data that humans contribute 99% of the problem concerning climate change. If this is the case, why do many (along with policy makers and politicians) still believe that climate change is a marketing ploy or "junk science?" It could be speculated that the main reason for little or no support in the issue is due to the leading energy interests (coal, nuclear, and oil). With politicians in the U.S. receiving the majority of their funding from these corporations, it is highly unlikely that renewables or alternative energies (i.e. geothermal, PV, wind farms, methane hydrates) would be considered any further than they are at current levels.
Climate Change and the Future of Humanity
Climate change will always be attributed to anthropocentric changes and the consumption of fossil fuel for energy including GHG gasses. Whether or not humanity can utilize science to surpass this stage in finding more sustainable resources for energy use is at a standstill. If and when major energy corporations (coal, oil, gas) decide to take a cut in profit for the sake of the human race in the near future remains to be seen.
The American southwest is suffering the effects of climate change based on reports by many agencies like Los Alamos National Laboratory, the U.S. Geological Survey, the University of Arizona, and other partner organizations. Their research has led them to believe that combining the tree-ring growth record with historical information, climate records, and computer-model projections of future climate trends, the future of trees in the those areas may be disappear due to drought stress. According to future forest drought-stress levels, some scientists believe that they will exceed the "mega droughts" of the 1200s and 1500s. Using climate-model projections, the team projected that such mega drought-type forest drought-stress conditions will be exceeded and become problematic by 2050. If these climate-model projections are correct, forest drought-stress levels (even during the wettest and coolest years of the late 21st century) will be more severe than the driest, warmest years of the previous mega droughts wiping out flora and fauna of these areas.
To add to the negative effects of climate change, scientists have reported that due to global warming, the size of fish will likely shrink by 25% in coming decades. The reduction in individual fish size will be caused by a dwindling of overall fish stocks, and the world's growing human population. Since both are interconnected, fisheries are getting more pressure due to uncontrollable human growth rates that need to reduce in number if solutions are to be made. Professor William Cheung from the University of B.C. foolishly stated that "we were surprised as we did not think the effects would be so strong and so widespread." According to his research led by a team of scientists, the tropical areas of the globe will suffer between 14%-24% species loss by 2050 due to global warming.
Professor Callum Roberts from the University of York stated the connection between fossil fuel dependency and the reduction of these fish species could cause a large loss in food stock that many people depend on:
"We will see dramatic changes in the oceans likely to reduce productivity. One billion people rely on fish for primary animal protein and that is going to increase, especially in developing countries. We have to get to grips with our dependence on fossil fuels otherwise we are stuffed".
It seems that oxygen poor waters and migration issues for fish are the two main culprits for species loss. This can be connected with the industrial use of fossil fuels, agricultural chemicals (insecticides, pesticides, and herbicides) running into bodies of water, and millions of people who eat fish for animal protein. Although the major suggestion is to cut carbon dioxide to prevent ocean acidification, other factors can help fish species thrive in ocean waters for other organisms that depend on them for a food source as well. Humans need to understand what limits are and consider that they are not alone on this planet. Other populations depend on fish for food and cannot have them available to eat due to human greed and ignorance.
Central American maize and bean farmers are also at risk with new reports in climatic changes. These two important crops are what keep Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Honduras alive as far as economy. Climate change with high temperatures and rainfall patterns could alter the landscape destroying the livelihoods of millions of farmers. The International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) already weighed in terrible future if changes are not made to halt or reduce climate change to the region:
"Even with our most conservative estimates, it's clear that climate change could transform the agricultural landscape across Central America. Conditions are already tough there; it's one of the poorest and most vulnerable parts of Latin America".
On the economical side of the equation, the results may force more action due to certain figures. According to the results of research, if the temperature increases just 1 degree Celsius by 2020 maize, water shortages, and plants suffering from heat stress are imminent. Large maize-growing areas could become unsuitable for the crop, resulting in economic losses to the region in the amount of around USD$ 100 million per year. Some groups are getting together to teach these uninformed farmers basic soil and water management to prevent further damage to future crops. It will be up to policymakers and climate scientists to debate on when they could adhere to "climate smart" practices to prevent further lose and preserve the four affected areas while they still can.
Overall, climate change is an issue despite skeptics and their theories of "junk science." Places all over the world are suffering at the mercy of high temperatures, droughts, water shortages, and food crop loss. Eventually, the transition for humanity to survive this thin at best. 2025 is just around the corner and if results are expected to transpire as scientists predict, we may suffer heavy population loss due to our actions of the past. The present is the most important time to focus on of we plan to have a future. If more informed people speak up, the more policymakers will be forced to take action rather than deliberate about an issue that has been long discussed with no conclusion reached.
On the other side of the argument, some scientists now in 2013 recently have been considering the movement for climate change as another religious group or cult following. M.I.T. professor Richard Lindzen specifically believes that the information held as gospel on global warming is twisted to fit a political agenda that has happened throughout history. He concluded that "global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly. It has also been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions."
It could be true that perhaps some of the information that activists and fanatics wishing to save the planet is misleading, however, the changes around us are proof that this may not be some crazy idea after all. The religious aspect he mentions reasons with the illusion that somehow if we concentrate on our carbon footprint hard enough, the planet will be saved. While there has not been a rise in global temperature in the last fifteen years, the ICC Claims there is a 95% chance that human activity (mostly from burning fossil fuels) seems to be the main cause of global warming.
Are humans killing the planet? In the author's opinion, the Earth has been around for more than four billion years. Within those billion years, this planet has undergone numerous changes including: meteor strikes, worldwide floods, worldwide fires, the magnetic reversal of the poles, plate tectonics, earthquakes, volcano eruptions, continental drift, solar flares, sunspots, magnetic storms, bombardment for hundreds of thousands of years by comets and asteroids, sandstorms, erosion, cosmic radiation, and recurring ice ages. Humans have existed for about 100,000-200,000 years and only have engaged in heavy industry for the last 200 years.
Can we compare the minute amount of sequential time humans have been 'harming the planet' against the four billion year track record? Does it not make us self-righteous and arrogant to create this idea of "saving the planet?" This mentality doesn't seem like environmentalists care about the planet in the abstract; rather they only seem to focus on their own personal space or a "clean habitat" that might be inconvenienced at a later date (in case a piece of technology goes out of our control). This may sound like the Dominant Western World View or Dominant Social Paradigm; however we seem to forget the grand scale of things.
Humans are a very interesting species when compared to other mammalian species. When a mammal exists within an ecosystem, by instincts they develop a sort of equilibrium within their natural habitat coexisting and giving back. We on the other hand do not operate within our mammalian contractual agreement with nature. Instead we multiple consuming every natural resource until there is nothing left. When all of the resources have extinguished, we must move to another area and continue our consumption; while displacing other species or utilizing what we consider "necessary" to survive. Human civilizations have followed this modus operandi for over 5,000 years (excluding small agrarian/native tribes). Along with advancing technology, the efficiency of human consumption has become increasingly easier. If anything, nature is a threat to humans simply because we refuse to abide by its law. Stossel stated that man tampers with nature to accustom our needs to survive. Have our needs overstepped the boundaries? If so, how far are humans willing to go before payment is due?
Biotech and the Fate of the Natural Order
Global warming has since been an issue debated by both sides as either a hoax or an ever growing concern. As noted earlier, most scientists agree now that climate change is real and could alter our planet in a detrimental way for all species or that it has been twisted to follow a political agenda. Jorgen Randers of the BI Norwegian Business School in Oslo argues that enough data sufficiently displays that the second half of the 21st century will bring humans near "apocalyptic conditions." Many scientists at MIT have agreed that some scenarios concerning the "limits to growth" model (where humans manage to control production and population to live within planetary limits) is no longer sustainable or accurate due to humans failing to act accordingly.
Many key examples displayed after global tracking data show all of these variables reaching peak and then suddenly dropping until collapse. Randers himself stated in his new book that food per capita has gone down, energy has become scarcer, and GHG gasses are being emitted twice as much as the oceans and forests can handle/absorb. He compared this data to the 1972 statistical data where humans only used 85% of "regenerative capacity" of the biosphere to support economic activities (i.e. growing food, producing goods, and assimilating pollutants) to now where humans use an astounding 150% (and continues to rise)! Although Randers has suggested that renewable energy and efficiency would be needed to starve off the worst effects of climate change until 2050, he doesn't believe humanity's efforts to ameliorate climate change have been sufficient. Concurring with Randers, some have made it difficult to help change the course of humanity for the better in terms of tampering with nature's system.
More experts agree with the collapse of civilization; however blame the peak of oil instead of climate change. They are mostly concerned with this nonrenewable source becoming more expensive to extract. In order to keep up with the demand of the oil supply, many suggest that society has to divert investment from agriculture causing a drop in food production. Either way the model plays out humanity (if it survives until 2050) will have many obstacles in the latter half of the 21st century if it plans to live to see 2100.
Environmental impacts are the cause of climate change, and if humanity plans to make a positive difference for a better tomorrow, we must be vigilant in regards to our actions. The biotech industry on the other hand, is trying to push laws to grant them immunity from repercussions of their actions. The "Monsanto-rider" laws was interjected into the multibillion dollar FY 2013 Agricultural Appropriations Bill allowing them to plant (by temporary permit authorized by the Secretary of Agriculture) and cultivate GMO crops even if the Federal courts have not authorized them to until further notice. If farmers (under the payroll of Monsanto or DuPont) ask for the permit, their crops could be released into the environment contaminating conventional and organic crops without penalty.
Unless someone takes action, the House of Representatives will more than likely pass the law soon. According to the Center for Food Safety, Monsanto has been circumventing and trying to corner the food industry which places the nation's food supply at risk. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) has created an amendment to halt the acceptance of the rider law; however even if it survives the House vote, it still has to be accepted by the Senate. Along with the Organic Consumers Association, Center for Food Safety, FoodDemocracyNow!, The Alliance for Natural Health USA, and others are gathering signatures to support and protest this blatant misuse of power. If Congress allows the biotech industry their wish for complete autonomy and immunity, the environment will be subjected to numerous alterations and negative changes for the biosphere.
Despite many lawsuits to the slow the approval of GE crops, biotech industries still have challenged the USDA and the NEPA act. What is the point to establish guidelines and laws if corporations just find ways to get around them? Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa has already contaminated organic alfalfa crops without analyzing risks. Unless the Center for Food Safety brought up lawsuits concerning this issue in 2007, the USDA would have never done a four year study of GMO alfalfa impacts on other crops. Why do other organizations have to force the government agencies responsible in policing the activities of these industries to act in the benefit of the people rather than the benefit of the industries by issuing lawsuits? What ever happened to the concept of law and order? The USDA was ready to approve the chemical legally until there was a lawsuit to challenge the legality issue.
