Are we REALLY killing our planet?

[King of the Americas]

Humans CAN alter the landscape & atmosphereic conditions, on a continental scale.

It was called the Dust Bowl.

And moreover, we are capable of fixing such mistakes.

When I hear Rush Limbaugh say that we aren't capable of disturbing the Earth's systems, I just want to slap him, and give him a history book.

 

[Erigena]

You surely know better than to argue personal incredulity. It is a scientifically established fact. The typical place to start.


You surely know better than to argue group incredulity. See the above link for a start.

I did a search on it, so I've read that, but the only image I found was a video of a group of people hoisting up some garbage from the area they indicated as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. They also showed a jar of dirty water, but I haven't seen any aerial photos of a floating mass of garbage twice the size of Texas. I don't deny there is probably a large collection of it, but I'm not convinced that it's as big as what has been suggested.

 

[MikeSun5]

I did a search on it, so I've read that, but the only image I found was a video of a group of people hoisting up some garbage from the area they indicated as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. They also showed a jar of dirty water, but I haven't seen any aerial photos of a floating mass of garbage twice the size of Texas. I don't deny there is probably a large collection of it, but I'm not convinced that it's as big as what has been suggested.

Sounds fishy to me. After more reading, there are apparently two giant garbage patches in the Pacific, and smaller patches in the "gyres" around the world's other oceans. They claim they plastic debris isn't stacked on the surface, but floating just barely under it. I'm still not convinced...
With all that plastic bleached by the sun and salt, as enormous as the area's supposed to be, you'd think that at least some discoloration in the water would be visible. Twice the size of Texas? Pilots would be pointing it out on flights from LA to Honolulu. People would have SEEN it.

 

[applecorped]

Who says it's our planet?

 

[MikeSun5]

Who says it's our planet?

We do.

 

[Cavemonster]

http://theoystersgarter.com/2007/10/23/why-there-are-no-pictures-of-the-north-pacific-trash-gyre/

Here's the most common explanation for why there are no pictures of the garbage patch. Essentially, it isn't an island of garbage, but an area thick with smaller particles of plastic beneath the surface. How even from on top of it, it looks like normal ocean, but when a net is dragged, it is full of plastic compared to what's normally in a such a net.

So we're not talking bout a literal island of garbage, just a very large patch of water with a lot of plastic particles in it, in fact, most likely 1 piece per several square feet of water. It's problematic, but it doesn't look a thing like a floating landfill.

As other people said, when we talk about killing the planet, it isn't an altruistic love for Gaia, what we're really and reasonably worried about is the health of those systems that sustain us humans. These plastic patches, grown huge in just a few decades, are extremely inhospitable to large fish, the kind we like to eat and are already overfishing and polluting out of existence.

 

[MikeSun5]

http://theoystersgarter.com/2007/10/23/why-there-are-no-pictures-of-the-north-pacific-trash-gyre/

Here's the most common explanation for why there are no pictures of the garbage patch. Essentially, it isn't an island of garbage, but an area thick with smaller particles of plastic beneath the surface. How even from on top of it, it looks like normal ocean, but when a net is dragged, it is full of plastic compared to what's normally in a such a net.

So we're not talking bout a literal island of garbage, just a very large patch of water with a lot of plastic particles in it, in fact, most likely 1 piece per several square feet of water. It's problematic, but it doesn't look a thing like a floating landfill.

The only problem with all of that is the huge variations in reports. Some (like your link) said it's the size of Texas with a piece of plastic every few feet, while some say twice the size of Texas and actually give the approximate weight of all the trash. How in the hell would you compute that?

These plastic patches, grown huge in just a few decades, are extremely inhospitable to large fish, the kind we like to eat and are already overfishing and polluting out of existence.

Actually, sailors tend to avoid the gyres - where these garbage patches are supposed to be - because there's little current and little wind to move them if they get stuck. Not much fishing going on there, anyway... but that's besides the point.
I'm not denying there's garbage in the ocean. That picture of Hawaii is a good example. But all the pictures of this Great Pacific Garbage Patch are the same 3 pictures over and over again. Not very impressive or solid proof of some enormous "trash soup," IMO.

I think that environmentalists say these things to get reactions out of non-environmentalists. Their hearts are in the right place, but I wish they'd quit making stuff up.

 

[Cavemonster]

The only problem with all of that is the huge variations in reports. Some (like your link) said it's the size of Texas with a piece of plastic every few feet, while some say twice the size of Texas and actually give the approximate weight of all the trash. How in the hell would you compute that?


Actually, sailors tend to avoid the gyres - where these garbage patches are supposed to be - because there's little current and little wind to move them if they get stuck. Not much fishing going on there, anyway... but that's besides the point.
I'm not denying there's garbage in the ocean. That picture of Hawaii is a good example. But all the pictures of this Great Pacific Garbage Patch are the same 3 pictures over and over again. Not very impressive or solid proof of some enormous "trash soup," IMO.

I think that environmentalists say these things to get reactions out of non-environmentalists. Their hearts are in the right place, but I wish they'd quit making stuff up.

The article I linked was a couple years old for one thing, and in context was using "The size of texas" colloquially, not as an exact measurement.

Most official accounts are somewhat inexact, but do stick to the 2X texas figure. But let's say we can't know how large it is. What we do know-
1) It's meaningfully sizable compared to local land masses.
2) It's highly toxic and phyically dangerous to wildlife
3) It takes about ~20ish years for plastic to end up there.
4) Since we've only been producing so much plastic waste for less than 50 years, and we've been ramping up the amount as we go, we can expect it to continue to grow and continue to be a problem.

I'm also dubious of overstated panic inducing environmental claims, but I think regardless of the severity, the evidence is strong that there's a lot of plastic that is damaging major marine ecosystems.

Edit: As for the effect on fishing, fish travel, the plastic poisons small feeder fish and either they die and starve the larger fish who may eat them elsewhere, or they pass on the pollutants.

 

[Erigena]

Sounds fishy to me. After more reading, there are apparently two giant garbage patches in the Pacific, and smaller patches in the "gyres" around the world's other oceans. They claim they plastic debris isn't stacked on the surface, but floating just barely under it. I'm still not convinced...
With all that plastic bleached by the sun and salt, as enormous as the area's supposed to be, you'd think that at least some discoloration in the water would be visible. Twice the size of Texas? Pilots would be pointing it out on flights from LA to Honolulu. People would have SEEN it.

Fishy indeed. They could have been anywhere and found dirty water or a pile of garbage. I won't dispute that we're polluting the oceans and we ought to to make the effort to clean it up. I just don't agree with the assessment regarding the size of it and there seems to be some ambiguity in the reporting of it. There isn't a clear consensus among environmentalists except that it exists.

 

[RandFan]

Every time Jesus kills a puppy Gaia cries. Or something like that.

 

[skeptifem]

I'm wondering exactly how much we're really damaging our planet through pollution and waste, as opposed to what the media tells us...
.....

I know full well that humans' habits of resource consumption and trash disposal (or lack thereof) are certainly not helping the situation, but I can't help but wonder how much of that is inflated by the media and others as a scare tactic?

The issue of how the media portrays the issue, or how much actual damage occurs to the planet is kindof secondary for me. There is a lot of undeniable evidence that american style living has real measurable consequences for other PEOPLE in the world, and it is pretty inexcusable. The outsourcing of factory jobs (to places like china and indonesia) are good examples, if we paid people who did those jobs a living wage we could not reasonably expect to live the way that we do now. or at least the majority of americans could not afford to. Another problem is that minor climate change issues that are happening now are effecting poorer nations, it isn't a 'what if' problem for the seas to rise if you live on a small island.

You could also take the practical position that if climate change is not a big deal and we work towards reducing our environmental impact we have lost nothing, but if climate change is a big deal and we don't reduce our consumption we lose a lot.

 

[The_Animus]

As others have said the planet and likely some forms of life will continue to survive regardless of what we do. If we do totally mess up the planet with pollution I'd just guess there will be a much smaller variety of life.

How much damage is being done is debatable and hard to get an accurate idea on a planetary scale.

How much damage is being done now shouldn't affect the green and sustainable movement that is starting to take effect. Regardless of whether the damage right now is minimal or not, in the future with rising population and third world industrial development the rate of consumption is going to exceed what our planet can handle.

 

[Cavemonster]

I just don't agree with the assessment regarding the size of it and there seems to be some ambiguity in the reporting of it. There isn't a clear consensus among environmentalists except that it exists.

Environmentalists as a group are anyone who wants to don that label. Consensus among them reflects as much on the reality of the situation as consensus among forum members reflects the position of the JREF.

The experts are consistent in reporting the size as between 1.1 and 1.4 million square kilometers, or twice the size of either texas or france. Non expert sources will colloquially say "the size of Texas" but that's equivalent to non experts in evolution saying colloquially "We evolved from monkeys"

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

 

[Gangularis]

Damnit!! I was just about to post that!!

 

[Delvo]

The most dire types of environmental and human-population-support damage we're doing are the ones that get the least attention. (soil erosion, soil cation depletion, well-water depletion)

 

[King of the Americas]

I spoke to a Navyman once, who claimed that all of the garbage they created on board, was compacted, plastic wrapped, and set adrift near land based artilary ranges to be used as naval targets, "...because they could take a lot of sink".

I am not suggesting that this is 'the' cause for this sea-plastic the size of Texas, but rather I think it is important to understand that many people have been using the ocean as a dumping ground for a long time. It is not surprising int he least that there 'could' be a large amount of plastic debris accumulating in a singular spot in the ocean somewhere...

The bright point is that if it is being localized by currents or whathaveyou, then clean up could be easier, right?

 

[Beerina]

Well, with as many species as are threatened, endangered or recently extinct, we are doing damage.

We won't kill the earth though. Make it uninhabitable for modern human society, possibly.

All evidence so far points to modern capitalism being able to supply more and more food and nutrition for more and more people. The only want, aside from occasional disasters, comes in countries that are decidedly not free and capitalist.

The prediction is simple and has been found correct time and again: Barring government intervention (a key point), economic measures increase over time. The Ultimate Resource II

So pick what you want to measure, food per acre, calories or nutrition available per person, cost of a day's food per person, longevity, clothing, price of goods, and so on, they're always improving*.





So, no. The only way the Earth will become uninhabitable for modern society will be if we succumb to scare tactics and allow the government to institute controls over production.

And yes, that implies that dirty environment + free capitalism still increases those factors faster than "clean" environment + great strictures on production.

And that makes people angry to think that, the way an atheist makes a Christian angry by saying, well, how can God sit there while children are raped to death?











* With a minimum granularity of 10 years, and ideally somewhat more.

 

[Travis]

What I worry about is us exhausting our strategic granite reserves. If that goes then the strategic Lego reserve might be next.

 

[GreyICE]

MikeSun5 is creating a strawman here. He personally refers to, multiple times, sources that say the planet will be destroyed within a generation. He has linked to none of them. He has cited none of them. He has asked people to defend something that he has no proof exists.

He can't link to these sources, because anything he finds will be significantly more intelligent than he is painting it. Thus, he is doomed to carry around this strawman, or admit it's a man of straw.

He has been proven wrong on any particulars he has cited.

- The Great Pacific Garbage Patch exists.
- Global Warming exists, and is occurring at a significant pace
- Mass extinctions are possible
- Enabling the deaths of millions of people through negligence is possible

MikeSun5 sees nothing to worry about because a fisherman in Bangladesh sees nothing to worry about. The same fisherman also probably thinks that the lucky yellow rock he's carrying around is a gift from the gods.

Why is he an idiot when he's carting around uranium, but some super-genius when he doesn't care about the environment? He's a goddamn fisherman.

Basic facts:
- Environmental change can kill millions of people
- Environmental change can damage the farming we rely on for food
- Mass extinctions have been caused by things like overfishing (see: Bangladesh fishermen)
- Pollution causes dozens of nasty health effects, including birth defects, cancer, brain damage, poisoning, long-term nerve damage, and death
- Your ignorance is killing people