Slashdot Mirror
Permafrost Loss Greater Threat Than Deforestation
Pierre Bezukhov writes "Emissions from thawing permafrost may contribute more to global warming than deforestation this century, according to commentary in the journal Nature. Arctic warming of 7.5 degrees Celsius (13.5 degrees Fahrenheit) this century may unlock the equivalent of 380 billion tons of carbon dioxide as soils thaw, allowing carbon to escape as CO2 and methane, University of Florida and University of Alaska biologists wrote today in Nature. Two degrees of warming would release a third of that, they said. The Arctic is an important harbinger of climate change because the United Nations calculates it's warming at almost twice the average rate for the planet. The study adds to pressure on United Nations climate treaty negotiators from more than 190 countries attending two weeks of talks in Durban, South Africa that began Nov. 28."
Permafrost makes it harder to dig, hurting the economy and killing jobs. That's why everyone hates it.
Permafrost gives villages something firm to set buildings and roads on. When the permafrost melts, areas typically turn into a marshy bog. This increases the cost of living, travel, infrastructure, etc. The increased insects increase disease.
If you want to live and work in a bog swarming with bugs, go for it. Perhaps you can explain the benefits to the rather annoyed polar bears, or to all the farmers in Texas, Oklahoma, and most of Colorado and Kansas who will see their land turned into an arid desert.
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
Not sure the Canadian North can count as "more usable land" once thawed -- it's largely frozen muskeg swamp at the moment, somewhat usable due to permafrost since at least that way you don't sink into it.
There's some interest in the northern seabed for gas exploration.
Not sure the Canadian North can count as "more usable land" once thawed -- it's largely frozen muskeg swamp at the moment, somewhat usable due to permafrost since at least that way you don't sink into it.
There's some interest in the northern seabed for gas exploration.
Great bit on the construction of the trans-Alaskan highway, in Mitchner's Alaska. When they tore the top layer off the tundra their equipment, paving, everything sunk into mud. The only way to build roads was on top of the Permafrost. Nobody going to do any mining, drilling or anything else if the ground is thawed and you have the biggest plain of mud in the world between you and your dreamed of profits.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
If the permafrost thaws, the way to recover the land would be to borrow from permaculture principles and let nature do most of the work.
First, plant fast growing, cold tolerant plants that fix atmospheric nitrogen like Russian Olives, Bog Myrtles, Northern Bayberries and Buffalo Berries. They'll grow like mad and firm up what soil is there. Then you run an annual slash-and-drop program to build soil. You wouldn't need heavy equipment, just chain saws, because you wouldn't be letting anything get particularly large, and you won't be carting anything in or out, so costs would be relatively low.
Using heavy equipment to cart in material to build up the land when you can let nature do the work would just be stupid.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
1. There have been reports that we really can't stop global warming anyways. It is "too late".
It's not a binary issue. The more we increase greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the worse it gets on a smooth curve. There is the global warming that's already occurred and is in the pipeline that we can't stop. That includes the fact that once we get really serious about CO2 emissions it will take 30 or 40 years to to build the infrastructure necessary to convert to non-carbon energy sources so CO2 levels will continue to rise until then. But in the end the total global warming we will see (barring a significant change in the Sun) is largely set by the maximum level that CO2 reaches in the atmosphere. There is good reason to slow down and eventually stop carbon dioxide emissions to keep things from getting worse than they already have to be.
1) And the US has a metric shit ton more resources than Germany. Your point?
2) You fail basic economics. If the mark or the euro are overvalued, exports are terrible because they're more expensive than local goods. Try again.
3) A declining population has nothing to do with economic greatness. Unless you're thinking immigration - in which case, the US is trying real hard to come down to Europe's level.
4) You know squat about German corporate taxes, squat about US taxes and even less about real corporate taxes that arise from such niceties as the dutch sandwich or various indirect contributions.
5) You also know squat about the German university system. Anyone can go to University, except those who keep failing their High School classes. Those that do fail classes go to technical trade schools. It's exactly like the US system, except it's predicated on grades rather than money.
6) Your choice.
7) You're making a lot of assumptions about future events. Would you also like a pony?
8) No idea how that bit of (factual, for once) information relates to how well Germany is doing.
9) Yes, you can get fancy food all over the place. That said, I'd rather walk into a random Braustaette than a random American diner.
10) Your info is about 3 years out of date. In the meantime, the Porsche Panamera bettered the laptime by about 4 seconds.
There are a ton of reasons why Germany has a ton of problems and is worse than the US, but for some reason, you managed to barely allude to only one in your list of ten.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
An overvalued currency harms exports - it makes your prices higher than those of places without overvalued currencies. (And nothing is overvalued relative to the US dollar - well OK, US treasuries but those are really just future US dollars anyway).
So your logic has Ethiopia, Liberia, Somalia, etc. as being "greater" than the US? And Luxemburg and Turkey have faster growing populations than the USA so your facts are wrong too.
15% business tax + 15% corporate tax + 5.5% solidarity tax is much lower than a 15-35% federal + 0-12% state progressive scheme? That would depend entirely on which two locations in the countries you are comparing the income of the corporation. Pick a US corporation booking its income in a state with a 12% corporate income tax then sure, saner corporations not so much.
And having consequences for your actions is a bad thing now?
You ignore half the equation. Germany has more external assets than the US. if I owe $5,000 on my credit card but have $6,000 in my checking account I'm in better shape than the guy who only owes $4,000 on his credit card but has $3,500 in his checking account.
Subtract external debts from external assets and Germany is at +$1.2 trillion (USD) while the USA is at -$2.4 trillion (USD). Note that Japan, whom Americans who like to pretend debt doesn't matter love to cite, is at +$3.4 trillion (USD).