Slashdot Mirror


More Than 75 Percent of Earth's Land Areas Are 'Broken,' Major Report Finds (vice.com)

Like a broken cell phone that can only text or take pictures, but not make a single call, more than 75 percent of the Earth's land areas have lost some or most of their functions, undermining the well-being of the 3.2 billion people that rely on them to produce food crops, provide clean water, control flooding and more. From a report: These once-productive lands have either become deserts, are polluted, or have been deforested and converted for unsustainable agricultural production. This is a major contributor to increased conflict and mass human migration, and left unchecked, could force as many as 700 million to migrate by 2050, according to the world's first comprehensive evidence-based assessment of land degradation, released today in MedellÃn, Colombia.

Land degradation -- including deforestation, soil erosion, and salinity and pollution of fresh water systems -- is also driving species to extinction and aggravating the effects of climate change, the report concludes. It was written by more than 100 leading experts from 45 countries for the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). IPBES is the 'IPCC for biodiversity,' a scientific assessment of the status of non-human life that makes up the Earth's life support system.

8 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. Oh for fuck's sake by SensitiveMale · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Can we please stop saying that anything that has any type of problem is "broken?"

    1. Re:Oh for fuck's sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      And more often then not, such as in the cases of the tundra in northern Canada, Tibet, the Himalayas, the high Andes, Sahara, Gobi or many others, it was broken to begin with with no human involvement what so ever (or even human presence).
      Statistics like the one in story are just bullshit pushing a political agenda (yeah yeah - I'm sure it can be fixed with a multi-billion dollar grant to some institute/government or other entity... uh huh.).

    2. Re:Oh for fuck's sake by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Note that they consider land that was changed to forest to farmland as "broken". I guess changing land to feed more people is a bad thing? Back to hunter-gatherers for all! Oops, we can't hunt, that's cruel and inhumane, so just gatherers from here on out...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    3. Re:Oh for fuck's sake by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most of the world's farmland is so "broken" that the problem in most countries is people getting fat. This now includes such historically poor places as South Korea, China and growing swaths of India. The areas that are actually in trouble are for the most part where farmers are being massacred by whatever latest tribe of bloodthirsty savages happens to be radiating from the Middle East this year. Al Shabab and Boko Haram are not environmental problems.

  2. Re:This seems highly unlikely, and sensationalisti by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wow, none of you actually read the underlying report.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  3. Re:This seems highly unlikely, and sensationalisti by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's clear on the face of it that the underlying report can'tr possible support the headline/summary of the report.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  4. Free LifeHack by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Here's a hint for a happier life: Don't read anything where the summary screams "bullshit".

    Why would I bother to read anything based on an obvious lie like "75% of land is broken".

    Now if someone somewhere wrote a better summary that actually made some sense, then I might be tempted to read the report. But as things stand I can be pretty sure (A) that will not happen and (B) the original report is very likely a complete waste of time (mine and theirs).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  5. The real problem is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    The real problem is that current researchers do not look at many things that predate the WWW, so time started ca. 1987. (If they are really motivated, they may find some black and white photos from the 30's.) What these stupid lazy screwups don't realize is that in the 4.5+ billion years that the Earth has been around the land areas have "broken" many times over.

    The Great Oxygen Event changed much of the exposed land areas. Just think of the devastation that occurred to the algae-covered rocky areas when plants first came on the scene! And then came the dirty animals that messed up those ecosystems.

    These researchers are a bunch of whinny ass hats. The one thing that hasn't changed is that the Earth's environment is always changing.