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.
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?
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.
Well, if the land is no longer capable of supporting plants and animals, it is broken; it doesn't work; doesn't perform its desired function.
Sometimes it can be fixed. Other times not so much.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
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.
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
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!
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.