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.
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.
Can we please stop saying that anything that has any type of problem is "broken?"
There is no way you can really claim 75% of the Earth's land mass is "broken". That is insane, it would imply the world was starving and farms everywhere were no longer viable.
I'm imagining they reached this conclusion after declaring any bit of land they could find a candy wrapper or wandering plastic bag as "polluted".
But then it is the "IPCC for biodiversity", so that really says it all as far as how much stock you can place in the report.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's the end of the world yet again?
In other news, 100% of IPCC scientists live in urban areas and have never visited a farm.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
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.
As far as I'm concerned, if it's not like a broken car, then it doesn't matter.
The total costs will be hugely less than what we are spending to deal with the mess they are making.
Poor people use fuck all resources. The average 1st worlder uses at least 100x resources than the average 3rd worlder.
Americans constitute 5% of the world's population but consume 24% of the world's energy.
On average, one American consumes as much energy as
o 2 Japanese
o 6 Mexicans
o 13 Chinese
o 31 Indians
o 128 Bangladeshis
o 307 Tanzanians
o 370 Ethiopians
https://public.wsu.edu/~mreed/380American%20Consumption.htm
Wow, none of you actually read the underlying report.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
He is right though. Popultion growth is the main driver of migration. The population grows in every country, the hunger becomes less and less. And they want to tell us that the food production is shrinking and driving migration? ...
I think these aid organisations are all unable to correct their world view, especially where they are actually causing problems.
A main driver of population growth is the reduction of child deaths
Many of the denial posts here seem to come from people who may think that a manicured and weed free lawn is 'natural'.
When you fly over the US, you see miles and miles of nice green farmland and everything looks fine. The problem is that that land has lost much of its topsoil and what is left has been poisoned with chemicals and the groundwater is depleted. From 30,000 feet it looks fine but when you look closely, not so good.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Which is why the comparison with the IPCC is rather appropriate. In both cases there’s a scientific study with bad (or even alarming) news, but a title and summary that aren’t supported by the study’s content, and are nothing short of politically motivated sensationalism. I just don’t get why true environmentalists would hurt their cause in this way by allowing such sensationalism to cast doubt on such studies... because the conclusions actually supported by the data are dire enough.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
"have lost some or most of their functions" the key word there is "some". If once fertile virgin soil now requires amendments in order to be productive, that's a lost function.
Well congrats for pointing out the weasel word that let's them make spurious claims while remaining technically true. But it doesn't change the fact that this is fear-mongering bullshit.
Put another way 75% of Earth is no longer pristine.
The article says that 75% of the land has lost at least one of its functions.
No, the report doesn't even say that. It says...
Less than 25% of the Earth’s land surface has escaped substantial impacts of human activity.
The metric they are using is biodiversity and the assessment technique they are using estimates that most of the forcing function for a reduction in bio-diversity is human related climate change since the beginning of human existance (not actually direct human intervention) which is how they can presume impact for areas where humans have never visited (and get to 75%-90%)....
Consequently, if your metric is not biodiversity, or if your threshold is not "escaped substantial impact" since the beginning of human existence due to climate change or direct intervention, your mileage may vary...
The actual report states "land degradation now critical". Nowhere in the actual report does it use the term "broken". The writer at MOTHERBOARD.COM, Stephen Leahy used the word "broken" in his headline. Nor is there any asinine comparison to 3.2 billion people to cell phone use in the report.
https://www.ipbes.net/news/med...
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
And interestingly enough, the US is about 25% of the world GDP...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!