Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science

More Than 11,000 Scientists From Around the World Declare a 'Climate Emergency' (theguardian.com) 395

Posted by BeauHD from the climate-emergency dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: The world's people face "untold suffering due to the climate crisis" unless there are major transformations to global society, according to a stark warning from more than 11,000 scientists. "We declare clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency," it states. "To secure a sustainable future, we must change how we live. [This] entails major transformations in the ways our global society functions and interacts with natural ecosystems." There is no time to lose, the scientists say: "The climate crisis has arrived and is accelerating faster than most scientists expected. It is more severe than anticipated, threatening natural ecosystems and the fate of humanity."

The statement is published in the journal BioScience on the 40th anniversary of the first world climate conference, which was held in Geneva in 1979. The statement was a collaboration of dozens of scientists and endorsed by further 11,000 from 153 nations. The scientists say the urgent changes needed include ending population growth, leaving fossil fuels in the ground, halting forest destruction and slashing meat eating. Prof William Ripple, of Oregon State University and the lead author of the statement, said he was driven to initiate it by the increase in extreme weather he was seeing. A key aim of the warning is to set out a full range of "vital sign" indicators of the causes and effects of climate breakdown, rather than only carbon emissions and surface temperature rise. "A broader set of indicators should be monitored, including human population growth, meat consumption, tree-cover loss, energy consumption, fossil-fuel subsidies and annual economic losses to extreme weather events," said co-author Thomas Newsome, of the University of Sydney. Other "profoundly troubling signs from human activities" selected by the scientists include booming air passenger numbers and world GDP growth.

The scientists did identify some positive signs, including decreasing global birth rates, increasing solar and wind power and fossil fuel divestment, and a falling rate of destruction in the Amazon. They also listed a series of actions people can do to help the "climate crisis":

- Use energy far more efficiently and apply strong carbon taxes to cut fossil fuel use
- Stabilize global population -- currently growing by 200,000 people a day -- using ethical approaches such as longer education for girls
- End the destruction of nature and restore forests and mangroves to absorb CO2
- Eat mostly plants and less meat, and reduce food waste
- Shift economic goals away from GDP growth
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More Than 11,000 Scientists From Around the World Declare a 'Climate Emergency' More

More Than 11,000 Scientists From Around the World Declare a 'Climate Emergency'

Comments Filter:

  • no thanks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Tuesday November 05, 2019 @10:41PM (#59385604) Journal

    Shift economic goals away from GDP growth

    Even under communism the goal for the economy was growth. We can make a goal that negative externalities are accounted for, but convincing people to "not chase affluence" is dubious.

    • Re:no thanks (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Alwin Henseler ( 640539 ) on Wednesday November 06, 2019 @01:05AM (#59385838)

      Even under communism the goal for the economy was growth.

      Ah yes, that fairytale of everlasting economic growth. It keeps amazing me how even highly schooled scientists, economists, or otherwise intelligent people can not see that:

      • a) The planet we live on is effectively a closed system.
      • b) No matter how efficiently something is produced, or how much technology advances (for example: LED lighting vs. oil lamps), it takes resources (energy, raw materials) to produce items.
      • c) Resources are limited. Yes if you cover the entire planet in solar panels you'd have way more power than is currently used. Yes if/when hydrogen fusion becomes a thing, we may have 100s of 1000s of times more power than before, for countless centuries. Yes you can replace material X with a cheaper / more abundant material Y in many applications. But one way or the other, there's still limits. Especially raw materials like some metals.
      • d) Towing in materials mined in outer space, lifting the bulk of the population off this planet to live elsewhere in space, or having satellites beam our energy down, won't be feasible for a loooonng time to come. And probably not a long-term fix either.
      • e) And thus there's limits to the # of people this planet can carry, and the # or size of goodies they can have. In other words: we can't keep growing that # or size forever. Continued economic growth is unsustainable [wikipedia.org] in the long run.

      At some point, humanity will have to find some equilibrium between its population, the resources that population uses, and the resources this planet has available. If we don't find such equilibrium ourselves, physics & nature combined will find it for us.

      We can make a goal that negative externalities are accounted for, (..)

      Sure, carbon taxes and similar measures. I'm all for it. But if history is any indication, humanity has a piss-poor record of applying such measures on a global scale. Never mind that this approach tends to rely on market forces, which may not be the best approach to begin with.

      • Increase (Score:5, Interesting)

        by JBMcB ( 73720 ) on Wednesday November 06, 2019 @08:26AM (#59386522)

        You are assuming economic growth requires increasing use of materials and energy. Growth can also happen by using *less* energy and materials via increases in efficiency. Use less stuff and energy, get more profit.

        • I think GP's point was that even using less stuff, including energy, you're still using stuff. At some point, there won't be any more stuff to use. We'll have millions of years of solar power, but what happens when all other resources are used up and all waste is too degraded to efficiently produce new items?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Does GDP growth = better quality of life?

      Perhaps to some extent when a country is developing, yes. But in developed nations? The US is the largest economy by GDP but doesn't have the best quality of life in the world.

      Also your quality of life tends to go down somewhat when you find your house is underwater and even Ben Shapiro doesn't want to buy it.

      • The US is the largest economy by GDP but doesn't have the best quality of life in the world.

        I can't think of another place on earth that I'd rather live.....

        We certainly don't have a shortage of people trying to come here....even illegally.....

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Jahta ( 1141213 )

      Shift economic goals away from GDP growth

      Even under communism the goal for the economy was growth. We can make a goal that negative externalities are accounted for, but convincing people to "not chase affluence" is dubious.

      Except that GDP not an effective measure of how an economy is doing [theguardian.com]. In fact it is often seriously misleading [boingboing.net], and "chasing affluence" is an illusion for most people.

      The reality is that the neoliberal economics practiced over the last forty years in countries like the US and UK has created a system, where while the economy appears to be booming, most people are actually worse off [vice.com] in real terms. Since the last recession, the 1% have experienced double-digit growth in their incomes, while the income of the 99 [theguardian.com]

  • We're hosed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Tuesday November 05, 2019 @10:50PM (#59385624)
    The fact is, many people are not going to sacrifice to improve conditions after they, personally, are dead. I am convinced that everything boils down to that. People will come up with 1001 "reasons," or simply dismiss anything requiring personal change out of hand as lunacy. But it all comes down to "me," regardless of the costs to others elsewhere or in the future.

    • No, we're not (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Okian Warrior ( 537106 )

      The fact is, many people are not going to sacrifice to improve conditions

      Nor should they.

      Let's take a look at the differences between now and 20 years ago, and see what improvements have been made:

      .) Electric vehicles are now a thing, they have lower total cost of ownership than ICE vehicles. (Tesla alone is poised to reduce carbon output by several tens of percent alone, and they are selling in China and Europe.)

      .) Solar, especially rooftop solar, is now a thing. The payback is in the neighbourhood of 8 years, and systems will last for over 20.

      .) Lithium batteries, that can

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Impy the Impiuos Imp ( 442658 )

        I've been saying for 10 years now asking us to crush our economy so the year 2100 or 2300 will be better would be stupider than asking people in 1900 to crush their economy, leaving us today with 1950s tech, if lucky, and a better environment.

      • You failed science then?

      • Re:No, we're not (Score:5, Informative)

        by Truth_Quark ( 219407 ) on Wednesday November 06, 2019 @07:06AM (#59386322) Journal
        Here's [noaa.gov] a graph of globally averaged CO2 concentration.

        Notice how it's not a straight line. It curves ... upwards. Including and particularly over the past 20 years.

        Now when that stops rising, the temperatures will still increase for about 40 or 50 years.
        But there's no sign of it stopping rising. Quite the opposite. The rate of rise in increasing.
      • Maybe in other countries, but the US seems to be going backwards.

        To meet the 50% reduction by 2030 goal, the US would need to replace existing fossil fuel energy use by installing 400 (+/- 50) 1GW nuclear power plants or their equivalent in renewables and storage. We installed 12GW of renewables in 2017, which is probably the equivalent of 6 1GW nuclear plants after taking capacity factor differences into account. We have 2-4 nuclear plants under construction; outside of that, don't expect any new US nucl
    • The solution of the paradox is : all civ when going to higher tech are stupid enough to go past the point of non return on climate change when going thru fossil fuel phase, and after ward spent increased energy and effort to fight off the after effect, and have no time to expand outside.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Reducing pollution and CO2 output improves people's lives. They are not going to settle for living in squalor and filth while others enjoy their 9 MPG SUVs.

      A more efficient house means less money spent on electricity. Renewable energy means energy independence and freedom. EVs mean clean air.

      It's so bad in Delhi right now that people are being advised not to go outside. Schools are closed to protect children from the smog. Do you think adding more fossil cars is going to improve conditions for them?

  • Loving the nostalgia (Score:3, Funny)

    by bblb ( 5508872 ) on Tuesday November 05, 2019 @10:58PM (#59385632)

    Man, it's like the 80's all over again with the climate change impending doom predictions... can't wait until puffy jackets and pastel colors are back in style too.

  • Anyone under 40 is going to suffer horribly for an extended period unless they are wealthy. And maybe even then.

    I look at the pathetic half measures, wishful thinking, rationalization, and denial and the only solace I can take is that most won't be able to die before it gets worse than "bad".

    • Anyone under 40 is going to suffer horribly for an extended period unless they are wealthy.

      What kind of suffering are you predicting here? Extreme weather or something?

      • Comment removed (Score:4)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday November 05, 2019 @11:47PM (#59385726)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • The folks living in the villages that are exploited for labor to make your shirts, though, they're screwed.

          Which village in particular are talking about here?

          • The one where people will futilely flee in terror from the sea level rise that is stretched out over a hundred years. Nobody can outrun that, after all.

      • Anyone under 40 is going to suffer horribly for an extended period unless they are wealthy.

        What kind of suffering are you predicting here? Extreme weather or something?

        The suffering of people in a command-and-control economy is the only real and accurate prediction. With a chaser of loss of freedom of speech, already pushed by politicians who want to hurt facebook legally because they won't censor political speech against them.

  • The do hate us (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rickb928 ( 945187 )

    "the urgent changes needed include ending population growth"

    Of course. WE are the problem. You and me. Not them.

    "A broader set of indicators should be monitored, including human population growth, meat consumption, tree-cover loss, energy consumption, fossil-fuel subsidies and annual economic losses to extreme weather events,"

    Sure, not that the actual statistics gathered for decades means anything, it's about the latest storm, as if hurricanes and high winds are some newly exaggerated phenomenon... Seriousl

  • The BEST way to reduce population growth is to increase your GDP. Asking to reduce both doesn't work.

  • "Every Disaster Movie Begins With A Scientist Being Ignored" https://www.cbc.ca/news/techno... [www.cbc.ca]

  • The world's people face "untold suffering due to the climate crisis" unless there are major transformations to global society, according to a stark warning from more than 11,000 scientists.

    And...

    Prof William Ripple, of Oregon State University and the lead author of the statement, said he was driven to initiate it by the increase in extreme weather he was seeing.

    Weather is not climate, and climate is not Weather.

    • Re:Weather is not Climate (Score:4, Informative)

      by deviated_prevert ( 1146403 ) on Wednesday November 06, 2019 @01:05AM (#59385836) Journal

      The world's people face "untold suffering due to the climate crisis" unless there are major transformations to global society, according to a stark warning from more than 11,000 scientists.

      And...

      Prof William Ripple, of Oregon State University and the lead author of the statement, said he was driven to initiate it by the increase in extreme weather he was seeing.

      Weather is not climate, and climate is not Weather.

      Enough with the rationalizing and bullshit about weather and climate not being related. Yes you can easily ignore empirical evidence like the return of the blob [mongabay.com] and not consider the consequences to key weather systems, but the reality is quite different. The blob moves the jet stream north and causes Arctic air to blast down the flat interior of the North American continent. So assholes like the majority of mid western Republican supporters then claim that global warming is a hoax because their winter is suddenly colder than normal therefore Trump is genius and must be right.

      In the mean time the fish populations of the North Pacific all the way up to the (Aleutic) Aleutian Islands are put under stress from radical ocean temperature change as California experiences extreme drought. But no we have an absolute moron in power who claims that removing brush is the solution to drought in California and idiots who cannot see the forest for the trees or understand that weather systems are climate dependent and can be changed radically in short periods of time to systems that will radically disrupt the ecology of entire systems. The Sahara Desert was once a verdant land and it changed radically but it happened over a long enough time frame for species to adapt and move.

      The changes we are bringing about are dangerous only in the fact that we may not have adequate time to adapt and a huge human die off will be the result. Perhaps this is a natural process where humans as a dominant species only way to effectively limit human population is through our own actions destroying the environment. Some would say that war is the means by which to limit our population but history has proven this theory wrong time and time again. Hitler tried genocide, Stalin tried systematic starvation, as did Mao, the middle east is rife with a history of tyrants who preach genocide all of whom have failed to halt or limit the expansion of "undesirables", "untermensch" or today the Kurds in Turkey, or in China today the Uyghurs.

      I give unchecked human caused climate change an edge in regard to finally limiting human growth. Because as the masses die off the rich will no longer have poor people to exploit or blame for their troubles. The rich will survive but their riches will become worthless without the poor to support them.

      Eventually socially we will be forced to change our ways and turn away from an economy based upon mindless consumerism, then finally turn to a realistic one based upon the maintenance of the environment which in truth is the economy which sustains us. Adam and Eve were put on the earth in a garden to maintain it they only fucked it up when they decided to screw around too much and created a moron who chose to kill his brother. Strange as it seems there is some very interesting wisdom in this little fairy tale. We still have not comprehended the implications of why we exist and until we do as a species we are and will remain fucked.

  • 11,000 trillion dollars and they will start thinking about what might be done to mitigate the effects for those living in 2119.

    Just my 2 cents ;)

  • More than 11,000 scientists don't sign (Score:3)

    by mveloso ( 325617 ) on Wednesday November 06, 2019 @12:39AM (#59385808)

    In other news, the vast majority of people who other people claim are scientists don't sign the statement. News at 11.

  • The climate change community keeps telling us that we can green up without harming the economy. These guys list "Shift economic goals away from GDP growth" as a goal. So. Which is it?

    I'm inclined to believe GDP growth is possible without harming the environment--witness the rise of renewable energy companies at the expense of coal. Therefor, I'm inclined to dismiss this press release as a load of crap. I may not be an economist or a climate scientist, but I did stay at a major chain motel that shall rem

  • The predictions have been consistently wrong. This indicates the climate models are also wrong. Wake me up when they get a single prediction right. Until then I'll be eating meat in my air conditioned home.

  • In before "Ending population growth" is "racist" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rv6502 ( 5793142 ) on Wednesday November 06, 2019 @01:21AM (#59385856) Homepage

    I am frankly amused "Educating women" is the dodge they used.
    Elephant? What elephant?

    Activists cant bring themselves to directly and openly say it and instead insist on lecturing countries with shrinking population about the over-population problem.

    Countries with fertility rate UNDER 2.0 (shrinking population) :
    USA, Canada, Russia, Spain, UK, France, Hungary, Croatia, Slovakia, Germany, Brazil, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan, China, Thailand, Hong Kong, Portugal, Poland, Greece, ...
    TLDR: Central+East Asian and European/Western countries

    Countries with fertility ABOVE 3.0:
    Niger, Somalia, Mali, Chad, Angola, Uganda, Nigeria, Mozambique, Central African Republic, Rep of Congo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Ethiopia, Yemen, Kenya, Zimbabwe, ...
    TLDR: African and Middle-East countries

    With this knowledge you can now make popcorn and enjoy watching activists desperately beating around the bush, ideologically conflicted, figuratively pulling oratorical dance moves that would make Cirque du Soleil jealous to not be associated with the people parading with Tiki torches and pointy ghost costumes.

    At some point they will have to address the issue of various fanatical groups like Boko Haram that are expressly against "educating women" or any form of education for that matter other than what is fundamentally religiously-permitted.

    But activists just keep passing the hot potato around.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by rastos1 ( 601318 )
      Excuse me, but are you saying that activists are against educating women in African an Middle-East countries?

  • Nuclear War between Pakistan and India would solve the problem.

    https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]

  • Recent analysis of the data actually indicates that a full stop on eating meat wouldn't have a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions and there were a number of factors previous studies failed to account for. Why would scientists be advocating for this when it is a massive change that is unlikely to occur and there are other far more viable paths the resources could be spent on?

  • Here's how you get the list (Score:5, Informative)

    by vix86 ( 592763 ) on Wednesday November 06, 2019 @02:58AM (#59386026)

    Since so many people are like "Who are these scientists? Where's the list?" Here is how you get the list.

    Go here: https://academic.oup.com/biosc... [oup.com]

    Scroll to the bottom and download: supplemental zip file. Open it. The list is the "supplemental S1" PDF.

    Yes, some of the scientists are climatologists and meteorologists. The vast majority of signatories are scientists whose field is tangentially impacted by climate change though: biologists, ecologists, marine biologists, botanists, bee scientists, etc. Yes, there are people on this list that some would question their credentials in commenting on the topic: psychologists, mathematicians, engineers, astronomers, etc. but a scan through the document shows these people aren't the majority.

    • Don't confuse me with facts...

    • Re:Here's how you get the list (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sferics ( 189924 ) on Wednesday November 06, 2019 @04:44AM (#59386134)

      What to say. Meteorologist, here. This being Slashdot, I will hang my hat on one of the saner posts.

      I didn't sign this statement but would have in a heartbeat. My point in response to poster is that this is very much a multidisciplinary issue. The whole biosphere (you know, our source of food and habitat and life support systems) is in trouble now. That makes it also a biologist's and an agronomer's, and a forester's business. People are having trouble coping with the issue, that makes it a matter for social scientists, spiritual leaders and health practitioners. The climatology of weather and climate-related disasters is changing. That makes it a matter for disaster preparedness and response organizations. Truth needs to be spoken to power, that makes it everyone's business, but most especially those with direct access to powerful people. Communities need foresight and preparation. It doesn't have to be totally awful (yet). And no, I take no fucking joy in warning of impending disaster. I'd much rather we all did something about it and kept it from getting worse (it is already happening).

      There is no scientific controversy. This is well-understood, 19th century physics. A simple 1-dimensional vertical model of the atmosphere gets 90% of the phenomenology right. The rest is figuring out the ghastly details. What controversy there is was manufactured, very successfully I might add, mostly by petrochemical interests. Congratulations, you psychopathic liars. Take your place on the podium, you handily beat the cigarette industry and the opiate pushers.

      This is not about who is qualified to say that the climate crisis exists. It is proven and let's move on to solutions.

      • Is the cure worse than the disease? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by wayward_son ( 146338 ) on Wednesday November 06, 2019 @10:25AM (#59387002)

        What is the cost to humanity of making the "major transformations of human society" advocated by the statement?

        Cheap energy has made life better for billions of people and has caused a dramatic reduction in global poverty. Changing that will have serious negative consequences. I don't think over a billion Chinese people are willing to go back to extreme poverty.

        The scientific community seems to be in as deep denial about the cost of the transformations as the "denialists" are about climate change itself.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Altus ( 1034 )

          The reason these other scientists are on there is because the impact on agriculture and the biosphere is general is significant and its already starting to have an impact on humanity. You ask what the cost is to make these changes but not what the cost is to deal with failing farms, with the loss of pollinators, with the increase in severe weather and the damage that brings never mind the direct impact to the economy.

          Plus the cost of providing solar and wind and geothermal power isn't really that high now,

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by skaralic ( 676433 )

        What to say. Meteorologist, here.

        You guys can't even predict tomorrow's weather...

        This is well-understood, 19th century physics. A simple 1-dimensional vertical model of the atmosphere gets 90% of the phenomenology right.

        WTF are you talking about, "19th century physics"? It's a non-linear chaotic system. If you think it's "well understood" then you have no idea what you're talking about.

        This useless paper uses data from only the last 40 years, while trying to predict a timeline that is longer than that. The last 40 years conveniently starts during the cold snap of the 70s and ignores the heat wave of the 40s. It also ends in 2010 when global temperatures begin to drop agai

  • “11,000 scientists” climate emergency petition includes a bunch of fake names [wattsupwiththat.com]

    From the “there’s no quality control in climate science” department comes this laughable revelation, via the Australian [theaustralian.com.au]:

    Scientists’ petition on climate crisis blocked over fake signatories

    Dozens of signatories including Mickey Mouse and Harry Potter headmaster Albus Dumbledore from Hogwarts have been removed from an Alliance of World Scientists declaration of a “climate emergency”.

    Access to the 11,000 name-petition that accompanied a statement of concern published in BioScience on Tuesday was blocked on Thursday.

Slashdot Top Deals

You are always doing something marginal when the boss drops by your desk.

Close