No scenario for escalation inevitable incentives for conflict minimization



Download 1.24 Mb.
Page16/29
Date19.10.2016
Size1.24 Mb.
#3843
1   ...   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   ...   29

Environment




Environment




The environment is resilient.


Easterbrook, ‘95

[Gregg, Distinguished Fellow, Fullbright Foundation, “A Moment on Earth,” p. 25]



IN THE AFTERMATH OF EVENTS SUCH AS LOVE CANAL OR THE Exxon Valdez oil spill, every reference to the environment is prefaced with the adjective "fragile." "Fragile environment" has become a welded phrase of the modern lexicon, like "aging hippie" or "fugitive financier." But the notion of a fragile environment is profoundly wrong. Individual animals, plants, and people are distressingly fragile. The environment that contains them is close to indestructible. The living environment of Earth has survived ice ages; bombardments of cosmic radiation more deadly than atomic fallout; solar radiation more powerful than the worst-case projection for ozone depletion; thousand-year periods of intense volcanism releasing global air pollution far worse than that made by any factory; reversals of the planet's magnetic poles; the rearrangement of continents; transformation of plains into mountain ranges and of seas into plains; fluctuations of ocean currents and the jet stream; 300-foot vacillations in sea levels; shortening and lengthening of the seasons caused by shifts in the planetary axis; collisions of asteroids and comets bearing far more force than man's nuclear arsenals; and the years without summer that followed these impacts. Yet hearts beat on, and petals unfold still. Were the environment fragile it would have expired many eons before the advent of the industrial affronts of the dreaming ape. Human assaults on the environment, though mischievous, are pinpricks compared to forces of the magnitude nature is accustomed to resisting.

Biodiversity




Biodiversity levels are higher than any time in planetary history -- loss is inevitable, impossible to forestall, and doesn’t cause catastrophe -- it’s a natural part of ecosystem evolution.


NPR 07 (North Pacific Research, The Myth of Biodiversity, 5/30/2007, northpacificresearch.com/downloads/The_myth_of_biodiversity.doc)//EM

Change is a vital part of the environment. A successful species is one that can adapt to the changing environment, and the most successful species is one that can do that for the longest duration. This brings us back to the cockroach and the shark. This of course dethrones egotistical homosapien-sapiens as god’s finest creation, and raises the cockroach to that exalted position. A fact that is difficult for the vain to accept. If humans are to replace the cockroach, we need to use our most important adaptation (our brain) to prevent our own extinction. Humans like the Kola bear have become over specialized, we require a complex energy consuming social system to exist. If one thing is constant in the universe, it is change. The planet has change significantly over the last 4 billion years and it will continue to change over the next 4 billion years. The current human scheme for survival, stopping change, is a not only wrong, but futile because stopping change is impossible. Geologic history has repeatedly shown that species that become overspecialized are ripe for extinction. A classic example of overspecialization is the Kola bears, which can only eat the leaves from a single eucalyptus tree. But because they are soft and furry, look like a teddy bear and have big brown eyes, humans are artificially keeping them alive. Humans do not have the stomach or the brain for controlling evolution. Evolution is a simple process or it wouldn’t function. Evolution works because it follows the simple law: what works—works, what doesn’t work—goes away. There is no legislation, no regulations, no arbitration, no lawyers, scientists or politicians. Mother Nature has no preference, no prejudices, no emotions and no ulterior motives. Humans have all of those traits. Humans are working against nature when they try to prevent extinctions and freeze biodiversity. Examine the curve in figure one, at no time since the origin of life has biodiversity been constant. If this principal has worked for 550 million years on this planet, and science is supposed to find truth in nature, by what twisted reasoning can fixing biodiversity be considered science? Let alone good for the environment. Environmentalists are now killing species that they arbitrarily term invasive, which are in reality simply better adapted to the current environment. Consider the Barred Owl, a superior species is being killed in the name of biodiversity because the Barred Owl is trying to replace a less environmentally adapted species the Spotted Owl. This is more harmful to the ecosystem because it impedes the normal flow of evolution based on the idea that biodiversity must remain constant. Human scientists have decided to take evolution out of the hands of Mother Nature and give it to the EPA. Now there is a good example of brilliance. We all know what is wrong with lawyers and politicians, but scientists are supposed to be trustworthy. Unfortunately, they are all to often, only people who think they know more than anybody else. Abraham Lincoln said, “Those who know not, and know not that the know not, are fools shun them.” Civilization has fallen into the hands of fools. What is suggested by geologic history is that the world has more biodiversity than it ever had and that it maybe overdue for another major extinction. Unfortunately, today many scientists have too narrow a view. They are highly specialized. They have no time for geologic history. This appears to be a problem of inadequate education not ignorance. What is abundantly clear is that artificially enforcing rigid biodiversity works against the laws of nature, and will cause irreparable damage to the evolution of life on this planet and maybe beyond. The world and the human species may be better served if we stop trying to prevent change, and begin trying to understand change and positioning the human species to that it survives the inevitable change of evolution. If history is to be believed, the planet has 3 times more biodiversity than it had 65 million years ago. Trying to sustain that level is futile and may be dangerous. The next major extinction, change in biodiversity, is as inevitable as climate change. We cannot stop either from occurring, but we can position the human species to survive those changes.

Biodiversity isn’t key to the environment.


NPR 07 (North Pacific Research, The Myth of Biodiversity, 5/30/2007, northpacificresearch.com/downloads/The_myth_of_biodiversity.doc)//EM

Biodiversity is a corner stone of the environmental movement. But there is no proof that biodiversity is important to the environment. Something without basis in scientific fact is called a Myth. Lets examine biodiversity through out the history of the earth. The earth has been around for about 4 billion years. Life did not develop until about 500 million years later. Thus for the first 500 million years bio diversity was zero. The planet somehow survived this lack of biodiversity. For the next 3 billion years, the only life on the planet was microbial and not diverse. Thus, the first unexplainable fact is that the earth existed for 3.5 billion years, 87.5% of its existence, without biodiversity. Somewhere around 500 million years ago life began to diversify and multiple celled species appeared. Because these species were partially composed of sold material they left better geologic records, and the number of species and genera could be cataloged and counted. The number of genera on the planet is an indication of the biodiversity of the planet. Figure 1 is a plot of the number of genera on the planet over the last 550 million years. The little black line outside of the left edge of the graph is 10 million years. Notice the left end of this graph. Biodiversity has never been higher than it is today.


No extinction -- their projections are wrong.

Simon 5 – adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute (Julian, BILL CLINTON; TRUTH OR SPECIES?, 8/3/05, http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Articles/SPECIES4.txt)//EM

The recommendations that leading biologists and ecologists base on non-facts are staggering. Wilson and Stanford's Paul Ehrlich actually ask that governments act "to reduce the scale of human activities." More specifically, they want us "to cease `developing' any more relatively undisturbed land" because "every new shopping center built in the California chaparral...every swamp converted into a rice paddy or shrimp farm means less biodiversity." Science magazine applauds those calls for major governmental policy changes. The proposals -- brakes on progress -- are what the movers and shakers of the Rio summit hope to impose on the nations of the world. This is no small potatoes. Yet a fair reading of the available data suggests a rate of extinction not even one-thousandth as great as the one the doomsayers scare us with. The proximate source of all the scary forecasts is a 1979 book, The Sinking Ark, by Norman Myers. Myers gives two statistics: the estimated extinction rate of known species of animals between the years 1600 and 1900 was about one every four years. And the estimated rate from 1900 to the present was about one a year. Myers gives no sources for his two estimates, but let us assume they are valid. Mr. Myers then departs spectacularly from that modest evidence. He goes on to say that some scientists have "hazarded a guess" that the extinction rate "could now have reached" 100 species per year. Next, the pure conjecture about an upper limit of present species extinction is increased and used by Mr. Myers and Mr. Lovejoy as the basis for the "projections" quoted everywhere. Mr. Lovejoy -- after converting what was an estimated upper limit into a present best estimate -- says that government inaction is "likely to lead" to the extinction of between 14 and 20 percent of all species before the year 2000. That comes to about 40,000 species lost per year, or about one million from 1980 to 2000. In brief, this extinction rate, which is a thousand times greater than the present rate, is nothing but pure guesswork. Yet it is widely published and understood as a scientific statement. In articles in the mid-1980s in the well-known New Scientist magazine, in newspapers, in book form, and at conferences, Aaron Wildavsky and I documented the complete absence of evidence for the claim that species extinction is going up rapidly, or even going up at all. No one has disputed our documentation. Nor has anyone adduced any new evidence since then that would demonstrate rapid species extinction. Instead, until recently the biologists who shout up the species extinction scam simply ignored the data that falsify their claims of impending doom. Just recently, in response to the questions that we and others have raised, the "official" World Conservation Union (IUCN) published a book edited by T. C. Whitmore and J. A. Sayer (1992) that inquires into the extent of extinctions. The results of that project must be considered amazing. All the authors continue to be concerned about the rate of extinction. Nevertheless, they agree that the rate of known extinctions has been and continues to be very low. This is a sampling of quotations (with emphasis supplied), first on the subject of the estimated rates: "60 birds and mammals are known to have become extinct between 1900 and 1950"..." forests of the eastern United States were reduced over two centuries to fragments totalling 1 2% of their original extent, and that during this destruction, only three forest birds went extinct"..."IUCN... has amassed large volumes of data from specialists around the world relating to species decline...the number of recorded extinctions for both plants and animals is very small..." Known extinction rates are very low...", and on and on.

Technologies solve the impact to bio-d loss.


Simon 5 – adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute (Julian, BILL CLINTON; TRUTH OR SPECIES?, 8/3/05, http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Articles/SPECIES4.txt)//EM

We are delighted that this species of truth, which we thought was dead, is stirring into life. Bill Clinton should heed the astonishing reversal in scientific assessment. Three additional observations are worth keeping in mind. First, it is now practicable to put samples of endangered species into "banks" that can preserve their genetic possibilities for future generations. Second, genetic recombination techniques now enable biologists to create new variations of species. Finally, it is not easy to extinguish an important species even when we try, as the experience of fighting smallpox and the Medfly revealed. All these factors reduce the danger of extinctions. I do not suggest that we should ignore possible dangers to species. Species constitute a valuable endowment, and we should guard their survival just as we guard our other physical and social assets. But we should strive for a clear and unbiased view of the gains and losses to help judge how much time and money to spend guarding our biological assets.
Population growth makes bio-d loss inevitable

Science Daily 7/28/11 (“Ongoing Global Biodiversity Loss Unstoppable With Protected Areas Alone” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110728123059.htm, PZ)

Continued reliance on a strategy of setting aside land and marine territories as "protected areas" is insufficient to stem global biodiversity loss, according to a comprehensive assessment published July 28 in the journal Marine Ecology Progress Series.



Despite impressively rapid growth of protected land and marine areas worldwide -- today totalling over 100,000 in number and covering 17 million square kilometers of land and 2 million square kilometers of oceans -- biodiversity is in steep decline. Expected scenarios of human population growth and consumption levels indicate that cumulative human demands will impose an unsustainable toll on Earth's ecological resources and services accelerating the rate at which biodiversity is being loss. Current and future human requirements will also exacerbate the challenge of effectively implementing protected areas while suggesting that effective biodiversity conservation requires new approaches that address underlying causes of biodiversity loss -- including the growth of both human population and resource consumption. Says lead author Camilo Mora of University of Hawaii at Manoa: "Biodiversity is humanity's life-support system, delivering everything from food, to clean water and air, to recreation and tourism, to novel chemicals that drive our advanced civilization. Yet there is an increasingly well-documented global trend in biodiversity loss, triggered by a host of human activities." "Ongoing biodiversity loss and its consequences for humanity's welfare are of great concern and have prompted strong calls for expanding the use of protected areas as a remedy," says fellow author Peter F. Sale, Assistant Director of the United Nations University's Canadian-based Institute for Water, Environment and Health. "While many protected areas have helped preserve some species at local scales, promotion of this strategy as a global solution to biodiversity loss, and the advocacy of protection for specific proportions of habitats, have occurred without adequate assessment of their potential effectiveness in achieving the goal." Drs. Mora and Sale warn that long-term failure of the protected areas strategy could erode public and political support for biodiversity conservation and that the disproportionate allocation of available resources and human capital into this strategy precludes the development of more effective approaches. The authors based their study on existing literature and global data on human threats and biodiversity loss. "The global network of protected areas is a major achievement, and the pace at which it has been achieved is impressive," says Dr. Sale. "Protected areas are very useful conservation tools, but unfortunately, the steep continuing rate of biodiversity loss signals the need to reassess our heavy reliance on this strategy." The study says continuing heavy reliance on the protected areas strategy has five key technical and practical limitations: Concludes Dr. Mora: "Given the considerable effort and widespread support for the creation of protected areas over the past 30 years, we were surprised to find so much evidence for their failure to effectively address the global problem of biodiversity loss. Clearly, the biodiversity loss problem has been underestimated and the ability of protected areas to solve this problem overestimated." The authors underline the correlations between growing world population, natural resources consumption and biodiversity loss to suggest that biodiversity loss is unlikely to be stemmed without directly addressing the ecological footprint of humanity. Based upon previous research, the study shows that under current conditions of human comsumption and conservative scenarios of human population growth, the cummulative use of natural resources of humanity will amount to the productivity of up to 27 Earths by 2050. "Protected areas are a valuable tool in the fight to preserve biodiversity. We need them to be well managed, and we need more of them, but they alone cannot solve our biodiversity problems," adds Dr. Mora. "We need to recognize this limitation promptly and to allocate more time and effort to the complicated issue of human overpopulation and consumption." "Our study shows that the international community is faced with a choice between two paths," Dr. Sale says. "One option is to continue a narrow focus on creating more protected areas with little evidence that they curtail biodiversity loss. That path will fail. The other path requires that we get serious about addressing the growth in size and consumption rate of our global population.”
Squo solves

Loki 4/13/12 - media executive with 15 years experience in the private and non-profit sectors, Reynard is the co-founder of MomenTech (Reynard, “A Venture Capital Solution to for Biodiversity Loss” http://www.justmeans.com/A-Venture-Capital-Solution-for-Biodiversity-Loss/53352.html, PZ)

Governments seem to be unable to stem the tide. Could market-based conservation initiatives help? That's what a new biodiversity-focused fund supporting small sustainable businesses in Latin America hopes to do. The Multilateral Investment Fund (MIF), a member of the Inter-American Development Bank Group (IDB), the European Investment Bank (EIB), the Dutch Development Bank (FMO) and the Nature Conservancy, has launched the next stage of EcoEnterprises Fund II, a venture capital fund that aims to support biodiversity, preserve critical ecosystems and support local poor by directing capital to community-based sustainable businesses. The MIF is one of the biggest investors in microfinance and venture capital funds for small businesses in Latin America and the Caribbean. The fund "will provide expansion capital to small sustainable businesses, so they may generate livelihoods for rural communities and preserve ecosystems for future generations," according to an IDB press release.[4] The first EcoEnterprises fund, a joint-project of the MIF and the Nature Conservancy launched in 2000, invested $6.3 million in 23 Latin American and Carribbean sustainable companies that cover a wide array of eco-friendly products, including organic shrimp, organic spices, FSC-certified furniture, pesticide-free biodynamic flowers and acai palm berry smoothies. Together, these firms have created over 3,500 jobs, benefited almost 300 communities and conservation groups, generated more than $280 million in sales, leveraged $138 million in additional capital and—much to the delight of conservationists and environmentalists—conserved over 860,000 hectares of land (around 3,320 square miles, or about a third of the area of Massachusetts).[5]





Download 1.24 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   ...   29



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
united states
soviet union
true nature
united states did
fletcher school
british ministry
real situation