(Source: maizyandherstupidstories, via jo-discontent)
(via wet-nightmare)
Scientists: if we don’t act now we’re screwed
Jeremy Hance
mongabay.com
June 07, 2012
Aerial view of the infamous Río Huaypetue gold mine in the Peruvian Amazon. This remote but massive gold mine is known for the destruction of primary rainforest, widespread mercury pollution, and child and slave labor. Photo by: Rhett A. Butler.
Scientists warn that the Earth may be reaching a planetary tipping point due to a unsustainable human pressures, while the UN releases a new report that finds global society has made significant progress on only four environmental issues out of ninety in the last twenty years. Climate change, overpopulation, overconsumption, and ecosystem destruction could lead to a tipping point that causes planetary collapse, according to a new paper in Nature by 22 scientists. The collapse may lead to a new planetary state that scientists say will be far harsher for human well-being, let alone survival.
“The odds are very high that the next global state change will be extremely disruptive to our civilizations. Remember, we went from being hunter-gathers to being moon-walkers during one of the most stable and benign periods in all of Earth’s history,” co-author Arne Mooers with Simon Fraser University explains in a press release.
If it all sounds apocalyptic, the scientists say it probably should.
“In a nutshell, humans have not done anything really important to stave off the worst because the social structures for doing something just aren’t there,” says Mooers. “My colleagues who study climate-induced changes through the earth’s history are more than pretty worried. In fact, some are terrified.”
A new bleaker world?
Much like a single ecosystem can collapse if overexploited or degraded for too long, the scientists argue that the global environment could also reach a tipping point, leading to a whole new world. While planetary states have changed throughout Earth’s history—such as the mass extinction of the dinosaurs and the rise of the mammals—this would be the first global shift caused by a single species. The 22 authors—including ecologists, biologists, ecologists, complex-systems theoreticians, geologists and paleontologists—examined how human pressures are modifying our atmosphere, oceans, land, and climate to an extent in which current ecological states could collapse, impoverishing the world.
“The data suggests that there will be a reduction in biodiversity and severe impacts on much of what we depend on to sustain our quality of life, including, for example, fisheries, agriculture, forest products and clean water. This could happen within just a few generations,” says lead author Anthony Barnosky, with the University of California, Berkeley. Some species would likely come out as winners in this scenario, but overall biodiversity would crash with drastic impacts for human society.
Research on ecological collapse has shown that once 50-90 percent of an ecosystem is altered, it risks imminent collapse. Extrapolating this to the world as a whole, the researchers point out that today 43 percent of the world’s terrestrial ecosystems have been converted to agriculture or urban use with roads covering most wild areas. Experts say that by 2025, half of the world’s land surface will have been altered. Even untouched areas, however, are feeling the impacts of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution.
“Can it really happen? Looking into the past tells us unequivocally that, yes, it can really happen. It has happened,” Barnosky says. “I think that if we want to avoid the most unpleasant surprises, we want to stay away from that 50 percent mark.”
The scientists also compared today’s environmental pressures to past tipping points that led to wholesale planetary changes.
“The last tipping point in Earth’s history occurred about 12,000 years ago when the planet went from being in the age of glaciers, which previously lasted 100,000 years, to being in its current interglacial state,” explains Mooers. “Once that tipping point was reached, the most extreme biological changes leading to our current state occurred within only 1,000 years. That’s like going from a baby to an adult state in less than a year.”
However, he adds: “The planet is changing even faster now.”
Co-author Elizabeth Hadly says that tipping points may have already occurred in some regions, leading to a ruined environment, worsening conflict, and human misery.
“I just returned from a trip to the high Himalayas in Nepal, where I witnessed families fighting each other with machetes for wood—wood that they would burn to cook their food in one evening. In places where governments are lacking basic infrastructure, people fend for themselves, and biodiversity suffers,” she says. “We desperately need global leadership for planet Earth.”
Little progress
Global leadership will be attempted in a few week at the UN’s Rio+20 Summit on Sustainability, which marks twenty years since a landmark environmental agreement was signed at Rio in 1992. But a new report by the UN Environment Program (UNEP) finds that in the last twenty years the world has made little significant progress on its ambitious environmental goals.
“If current patterns of production and consumption of natural resources prevail and cannot be reversed and ‘decoupled,’ then governments will preside over unprecedented levels of damage and degradation,” said UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner in a statement.
The report, entitled the Global Environment Outlook, is the fifth to be released by the UNEP and the bleakest. While the world has made good progress on four goals—eliminating ozone harming products, removing lead from fuel, increasing access to improve water supplies, and research on reducing marine pollution—it has not tackled 86 others.
On the plus side, forty of the goals have seen some progress, including the establishment of protected areas on land, which currently cover 12 percent of the world’s land, and slowing the rate of deforestation. Although forests continue to fall worldwide for commodities and consumer products, nations like Brazil have achieved significant declines in deforestation. The report also finds some progress in fighting global hunger with the rate of people suffering from malnourishment decreasing even though the total number is on the rise.
Little to no progress was made on 24 of the environmental goals, including what many scientists say is the gravest threat to the environment (and humanity) today: climate change. Other goals in this category include increasing food production, combating desertification, saving endangered species, improving efficiency of resource use, and recognizing ecosystem services in the economy.
Declines were actually measured in eight of the goals, including on the health of coral reefs and wetlands, as well as in the consumption of freshwater.
The remaining fourteen goals, such as protecting freshwater ecosystems, lacked enough data to make a conclusion.
“The moment has come to put away the paralysis of indecision, acknowledge the facts and face up to the common humanity that unites all peoples,” Steiner said. “Rio+20 is a moment to turn sustainable development from aspiration and patchy implementation into a genuine path to progress and prosperity for this and the next generations to come.”
Fiddling while Rio burns 
Surface coal mining in Bihar, India. Around 40 percent of India’s power is currently provided by coal, the most carbon intensive fuel source.
But observers do not expect much from Rio+20, at least not from world leaders and governments. Nations are working on a draft document called “The Future We Want” to be agreed upon at the summit, but the document is merely a pledge without any binding actions. Still, government negotiations over the document’s wording have been fierce and persnickety according to observers, with the World Wide Fund for Wildlife (WWF) warning this week that negotiations over the already watered-down agreement could well “collapse.”
Greenpeace reports that developing nations are stripping the document of any references to “accountability,” making even calls for transparency difficult, meanwhile the U.S. has come out opposing the major reference for nations to deal with “unsustainable consumption and production patterns” and is cutting any reference to “equity.”
The summit has already dropped any focus on global environmental crises like climate change and deforestation, but some are holding out hope that it will result in better marine protections and greater strength for the UNEP. Observers also say that the thousands of attending NGOs, businesses, and experts may help move the world forward, while governments stall. Several of the world’s top leaders have opted out of attending the summit, among them U.S. President Barack Obama, UK Prime Minister David Camera, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Solutions to the world’s ongoing global environmental crisis are not mysterious. Scientists and experts urge a rapid transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, ending harmful subsidies, conservation of global biodiversity, protection of standing forests, an overhaul of fisheries and ocean management, increasing energy efficiency and access, transforming agricultural systems, changing measurements of national success to focus on human well-being over GDP, and combating overpopulation through education and contraceptive access.
“My view is that humanity is at a crossroads now, where we have to make an active choice,” integrative biologist Anthony Barnosky says. “One choice is to acknowledge these issues and potential consequences and try to guide the future (in a way we want to). The other choice is just to throw up our hands and say, ‘Let’s just go on as usual and see what happens.’ My guess is, if we take that latter choice, yes, humanity is going to survive, but we are going to see some effects that will seriously degrade the quality of life for our children and grandchildren.
=)) no way! “Sea level rise” is a left wing term =)). I suggest banning the use of the words “sea”, level” and “rise”, and deleting them from the dictionary, to keep those commies from pushing their propaganda! And what the hell is “coastal resilliency” suppose to mean? Yeah ..Nice tactic. Take a very simple descriptive phrase that anyone understands, call it “left wing” and then make it ambiguous. No wonder there are so many climate skeptics. AMERICA! Fuck Yeah!
Virginia’s legislature commissioned a $50,000 study to determine the impacts of climate change on the state’s shores. To greenlight the project,they omitted words like “climate change” and “sea level rise” from the study’s description itself. According to the House of Delegates sponsor of the study,these are “liberal code words,” even though they are noncontroversial in the climate science community.
Instead of using climate change,sea level rise,and global warming,the study uses terms like “coastal resiliency” and “recurrent flooding.” Republican State Delegate Chris Stolle, who steered the legislation,cut “sea level rise” from the draft. Stolle has also said the “jury’s still out” on humans’ impact on global warming:
State Del. Chris Stolle,R-Virginia Beach,who insisted on changing the “sea level rise” study in the General Assembly to one on “recurrent flooding,” said he wants to get political speech out of the mixaltogether.
He said “sea level rise” is a “left-wing term” that conjures up animosities on the right. So why bring it into the equation?
“What people care about is the floodwater coming through their door,” Stolle said. “Let’s focus on that. Let’s study that. So that’s what I wanted us to call it.”
(via lifting-of-the-veil)
Plays: 559
(Source: jo-discontent, via undercoveranarchist)
PARIS — Climate change, population growth and environmental destruction could cause a collapse of the ecosystem just a few generations from now, scientists warned on Wednesday in the journal Nature.
The paper by 22 top researchers said a “tipping point” by which the biosphere goes into swift and irreversible change, with potentially cataclysmic impacts for humans, could occur as early as this century.
The warning contrasts with a mainstream view among scientists that environmental collapse would be gradual and take centuries.
The study appears ahead of the June 20-22 UN Conference on Sustainable Development, the 20-year followup to the Earth Summit that set down priorities for protecting the environment.
The Nature paper, written by biologists, ecologists, geologists and palaeontologists from three continents, compared the biological impact of past episodes of global change with what is happening today.
The factors in today’s equation include a world population that is set to rise from seven billion to around 9.3 billion by mid-century and global warming that will outstrip the UN target of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).
The team determined that once 50-90 percent of small-scale ecosystems become altered, the entire eco-web tips over into a new state, characterised especially by species extinctions.
Once the shift happens, it cannot be reversed.
To support today’s population, about 43 percent of Earth’s ice-free land surface is being used for farming or habitation, according to the study.
On current trends, the 50 percent mark will be reached by 2025, a point the scientists said is worryingly close to the tipping point.
If that happened, collapse would entail a shocking disruption for the world’s food supply, with bread-basket regions curtailed in their ability to grow corn, wheat, rice, fodder and other essential crops.
10 years!
.In recent years the debate around the desirability and sustainability of civilization has to some degree been thrust from the margins of fringe-radical theory into a surprisingly mainstream spotlight. While the topic is by no means ubiquitous or mundane, the popularity of Derrick Jensen, Lierre Keith and Aric McBay’s books on the topic, coupled with increasing media coverage of the mass environmental crises of our times has made it so that you don’t have to lurk the small alternative coffee shops of Eugene, Oregon any more to get a decent dose of anti-civilization (anti-civ) theory. More established, long-time figures in the field, such as John Zerzan, are suddenly getting a bit more main-stream attention as a result as well. Interestingly, a few characters usually thought of as liberal-progressive celebrities, such as Arundhati Roy (author, God of Small Things) and Chris Hedges (Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist) have joined in the radical questioning of civilization.
Additionally, I believe that the revitalizing emergence of Zapatismo in the 1990s and an upsurge in decolonization theory by radical indigenous authors such as Waziyatawin and Ward Churchill, in some instances geared specifically towards anarchists, has shifted the center of anarchist debate toward a place friendlier to anti-civ thought. It has in part done this by helping to target the more problematic aspects of our collectively Marxist-influenced anarchist politics, questioning the logic of even collective or non-authoritarian settler/industrial society. The few trans anti-civ radicals that I have known personally have, for their part, tended to get to that position by a more esoteric route, sometimes drawing on the work of French philosophers that I find to be thoroughly confusing, or the likes of Stanley Diamond, an intriguing anthropologist who came to a kind of anti-civ stance because of his Marxism.In any case, I think it’s relevant to note that one of those three authors mentioned at the beginning of all this, Lierre Keith, has been identified as a rabid transphobe. For some time it had been suspected, considering her background in radical feminist (radfem) and lesbian separatist circles. Suspicions were confirmed when she responded to questions about the issue prior to speaking at an anti-porn event with something of a transphobic polemic. In it she goes so far as to claim that she watched the concept of ‘trans’ be created by the porn and s/m culture during her own lifetime, though overall her attack is made up of the same tired tropes that we’re used to debunking.
Is it just a coincidence? Do her anti-trans and anti-civ politics overlap in any significant way? It appears to me that they are largely incidental, but also not particularly surprising. I have to imagine that she’s at least sympathetic towards Janice Raymond’s paranoid view of trans women as duped gunea pigs, fodder for the medical industrial complex’s evil scheming and ultimately monsters on par with Frankenstein’s. Within the context of her anti-civ analysis, she most likely sees transsexual people as naturally reactionary defenders of the industrial system, hopelessly addicted to a ‘medical empire’ that can’t last. She probably suspects, in as much as she might think about it at all, that trans people will simply wither away and disappear after civilization is brought down. Never mind the fact that we have existed in just about every place, in every culture, through the ages.
The issue is, however, one that cannot be dealt with in a single, cutting come-back. Calling the topic ‘complex’ would be putting it lightly. Everything from social/personal identity to physical survival is bound up in this stormy field of consideration. As someone who is actively seeking to medically transition in certain ways, and someone who has serious qualms with (particularly industrial) civilization, how to navigate this field is one of THE questions that I find myself preoccupied with.I feel that disability politics are intimately bound to this discourse. For his part, Lierre’s co-conspirator Derrick Jensen has made it clear that when or if civilization comes down, the presumed lack of access to the drugs that he currently relies on for survival (he has a chronic, degenerative disease) will kill him. He says he’s ready to pay that price, and I believe that he means it. Plenty of folks have asked them both what they suggest people with various disabilities do in order to survive or maintain mobility, etc., in a post-civilized world. Their responses tend to be less nuanced than I would like, often hinging on crass admonishments to stockpile drugs or wheelchair parts, for example. That archeologists have made it fairly clear that people with various debilitating conditions were supported well enough to make it to reasonably old ages in plenty of ancient, pre-industrial settings is somewhat more comforting to me, but doesn’t come close to answering all of my questions.
On a scientific/environmental basis I agree with most of what folks like Jensen, Keith and McBay say about industrial infrastructure. For those not familiar with the basics of this position, essentially the creation, expansion and maintenance of this infrastructure, the whole complex of fossil fuel/electric energy and its metal and plastic components, is at its very base toxic through and through. Industrial civilization in particular is so destructive that it will eventually obliterate itself, and presumably anyone dependent upon it for survival. However, simply waiting for civilization to implode and then preceding from there is not much of a viable option since it’s likely to collapse the life sustaining capacity of our environment in the process. Therefore, if we want to survive, we need to bring civilization down sooner rather than later.
—
i am loving this blog. loving it for so many reasons.
1. anti civ trans man writing nuanced and critical work about gender, disability, trans experience, deep green resistance, etc.
2. that it was posted by bella, who has, i guess stopped working with dgr and was writing in the comments about how she thought that the way that rad fems in general talk about trans folk is dehumanizing and horrible. which is a shift from what she was saying a few months ago when i last talked to her and she was much more dogmatic in her defense of rad fems.
*i am doing a little booty shake in joy*
(via guerrillamamamedicine)
(via cuntymint)
Hands Turn to Ghosts (HTG) - was a short lived experimental/screamo/doomgrind project. The band got together on the BIG friday, 2012 at around 21:24 only to disband at about 21:32. This is the only photo of them.
parkinson
upcoming show in cluj, kick-ass poster again!!!
“WHEN I WAS A CHILD LIFE WAS EASIER BECAUSE THERE WAS FOREST, ENOUGH FOOD AND WE MADE FARINHA
[MANIOC FLOUR] AND FISHED. WE MADE OUR OWN SUGAR FROM THE FOREST BEES. I WAS BORN IN AMAMBAI AND
IT WAS AN INDIGENOUS VILLAGE THEN. I THINK THINGS ARE MUCH WORSE NOW. WE ARE SURROUNDED BY
RANCHERS HERE. THEY HAVE FENCED US IN AND THEY WON’T LET US IN TO HUNT ARMADILLOS AND PARTRIDGES.
THEY WON’T EVEN LET US LOOK FOR MEDICINAL PLANTS ON THE FARMS. THE TIME WHEN WE USED TO GET HONEY
FROM THE BEES IS OVER BECAUSE THERE IS NO FOREST LEFT. THERE IS NOTHING FOR THE INDIAN NOW. HE HAS TO
LOOK FOR EVERYTHING IN THE TOWN NOW. SO THAT’S WHY THE YOUNG ARE COMMITTING SUICIDE BECAUSE THEY
THINK THE FUTURE WILL BE WORSE’ (ADOLFIN NELSON, LIMÃO VERDE, 1996)”
from: Progress can Kill (pdf, 61 pg.), Survival International.
(Source: survivalinternational.org)
Plays: 213
The Endless Blockade - The Stain
(Source: forgottencityiram, via noreasoningmind)
The mythology of human superiority justifies their doing whatever they please with the world, just the way Hitler’s mythology of Aryan superiority justified his doing whatever he pleased with Europe. But in the end this mythology is not deeply satisfying. The Takers are a profoundly lonely people.” Daniel Quinn
— (via thegabriellawrence)
(via thegabriellawrence)