EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Mon Apr 21, 2014 3:09 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:20 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20355
Location: Southeastern US
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/3 ... 41435.html

LONDON, Jan 30 (Reuters) - The world is running out of time to make sure there is enough food, water and energy to meet the needs of a rapidly growing population and to avoid sending up to 3 billion people into poverty, a U.N. report warned on Monday.

As the world's population looks set to grow to nearly 9 billion by 2040 from 7 billion now, and the number of middle-class consumers increases by 3 billion over the next 20 years, the demand for resources will rise exponentially.

Even by 2030, the world will need at least 50 percent more food, 45 percent more energy and 30 percent more water, according to U.N. estimates, at a time when a changing environment is creating new limits to supply.

And if the world fails to tackle these problems, it risks condemning up to 3 billion people into poverty, the report said.

Efforts towards sustainable development are neither fast enough nor deep enough, as well as suffering from a lack of political will, the United Nations' high-level panel on global sustainability said.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 2:42 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2148
Location: Central Colorado
"Even by 2030, the world will need at least 50 percent more food, 45 percent more energy and 30 percent more water, according to U.N. estimates, at a time when a changing environment is creating new limits to supply."
Grain production per capita has been going down since 1986, ocean fisheries which have been providing 60% of the protein needs to 3 billion are below their last 10% and will be mostly gone by 2035, water is already critical in many areas and will get worse even without more population because of aquifer depletion and AGW effects. Needs for energy unmet except by more pollution and expense of money they do not have.
3 billion in abject poverty by 2030? Of course, and starving or out of water, too. Dying, or migrating, as collapses begin, region by region, country by country, progressive and cascading, with attendant riots and violence, lawbreaking including theft and murder. By 2050 or before, a point is reached where deaths outnumber births, in an accelerating manner.
People should have gone to one child families, all compost fertilizers, and water recycling and efficiency rules in the 1970s and to non-CO2 polluting power and steady state environmental economics in the early 1990s or before. No, instead they head toward a crash followed by "thermageddon" (like the book) and extinction of their own species along with most others.
There's shortages already, in all but people. Overshoot has been extant since 1930 at the latest. Since then, until the 1980s, everyone who had more than two kids caused it, and since the 1980s, everyone who had more than one. The Gordian knot of greed, overpopulation and stupidity, in a Juggernaut(again, see the book) taking all, even the good, with it. :-({|=

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:59 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2148
Location: Central Colorado
I watched this for 2 minutes and 442 kids were born, 161 people died, and 86,000 tons of CO2 pollution were put out by human activity.
http://www.breathingearth.net/

In a clock where human existence is 24 hours for the ~43K years of homo sapiens, that is two seconds per year. We've got less than 40 years left before the majority will be dead or dying off. One minute and twenty seconds or less.
We will not know if people made it through the coming bottleneck of 200K years. Will they have learned to live sustainably?? Or will they be extinct? :-({|=

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:45 am 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 7:59 am
Posts: 5
what say guys!! day by day, minute to minute and second to second the level of pollution is raising because of human activities that are violating the environment!! there is no control on pollution as well as population!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 12:44 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:53 pm
Posts: 49
We need to be like China and put a 1 child limit as well as subsidizing green energies.

China makes over 33% of all solar panels in the US, compared to 13% in 2008.

_________________
"In My view, all that is necessary for faith is the belief that by doing our best we shall come nearer to success and that success in our aims (the improvement of the lot of mankind, present and future) is worth attaining."- ROSALIND FRANKLIN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 1:53 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1649
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Maybe allowing gay marriages could be given carbon credits (lol)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:59 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1272
Wayne Stollings wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/30/world-food-demand-population-growth_n_1241435.html

LONDON, Jan 30 (Reuters) - The world is running out of time to make sure there is enough food, water and energy to meet the needs of a rapidly growing population and to avoid sending up to 3 billion people into poverty, a U.N. report warned on Monday.

As the world's population looks set to grow to nearly 9 billion by 2040 from 7 billion now, and the number of middle-class consumers increases by 3 billion over the next 20 years, the demand for resources will rise exponentially.

Even by 2030, the world will need at least 50 percent more food, 45 percent more energy and 30 percent more water, according to U.N. estimates, at a time when a changing environment is creating new limits to supply.

And if the world fails to tackle these problems, it risks condemning up to 3 billion people into poverty, the report said.

Efforts towards sustainable development are neither fast enough nor deep enough, as well as suffering from a lack of political will, the United Nations' high-level panel on global sustainability said.


The article also states:

"They should work with international organisations to create an "evergreen revolution", which would at least double productivity while reducing resource use and avoiding further biodiversity losses, the report said."

But ....

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi ... ash/73117/

"Add to this corporate consolidation the spread of biotech crops and you see why biodiversity is becoming so threatened. Biotech crops, like other industrial crops, are monocultures, with single varieties planted over millions of acres and sprayed with chemicals. Despite promises about wonder crops that would end Vitamin A deficiency or withstand drought, nearly all commercially available genetically modified foods are just one of two types, designed either to withstand a specific pesticide or to include a built-in pesticide. Fifty percent of all biotech crops planted worldwide are soybeans. Three countries--the United States, Brazil, and Argentina--grow 77 percent of all genetically modified crops, nearly all destined for livestock, not the world's hungry."

Monsanto and the like are not the answer. They offer short term solutions while creating even bigger and more dangerous long term problems.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 7:40 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20355
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/30/world-food-demand-population-growth_n_1241435.html

LONDON, Jan 30 (Reuters) - The world is running out of time to make sure there is enough food, water and energy to meet the needs of a rapidly growing population and to avoid sending up to 3 billion people into poverty, a U.N. report warned on Monday.

As the world's population looks set to grow to nearly 9 billion by 2040 from 7 billion now, and the number of middle-class consumers increases by 3 billion over the next 20 years, the demand for resources will rise exponentially.

Even by 2030, the world will need at least 50 percent more food, 45 percent more energy and 30 percent more water, according to U.N. estimates, at a time when a changing environment is creating new limits to supply.

And if the world fails to tackle these problems, it risks condemning up to 3 billion people into poverty, the report said.

Efforts towards sustainable development are neither fast enough nor deep enough, as well as suffering from a lack of political will, the United Nations' high-level panel on global sustainability said.


The article also states:

"They should work with international organisations to create an "evergreen revolution", which would at least double productivity while reducing resource use and avoiding further biodiversity losses, the report said."

But ....

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi ... ash/73117/

"Add to this corporate consolidation the spread of biotech crops and you see why biodiversity is becoming so threatened. Biotech crops, like other industrial crops, are monocultures, with single varieties planted over millions of acres and sprayed with chemicals. Despite promises about wonder crops that would end Vitamin A deficiency or withstand drought, nearly all commercially available genetically modified foods are just one of two types, designed either to withstand a specific pesticide or to include a built-in pesticide. Fifty percent of all biotech crops planted worldwide are soybeans. Three countries--the United States, Brazil, and Argentina--grow 77 percent of all genetically modified crops, nearly all destined for livestock, not the world's hungry."

Monsanto and the like are not the answer. They offer short term solutions while creating even bigger and more dangerous long term problems.


If we are to believe that 50% of all GMO crops worldwide are soybeans and that three countries grow 77% of all GMO crops, then "nearly all destined for livestock" cannot be the truth. The math does not support such a claim. If such a misrepresentation makes the credibility for this source near zero.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 7:50 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20355
Location: Southeastern US
Just in case the math is not self-evident think of the total production as 100 tons worldwide. That means there are 50 tons of soybeans produced and 50 tons of everything else. The three countries produce 77 tons, which if they also produced the 50 tons of everything else leaves 27 tons of soybeans. Soybeans are grown for the oil not livestock feed. Livestock are fed the by-product after the oil has been removed.

If they are claiming the "everything else" is destined for livestock you still have a 27% of soybeans being produced, which is clearly not what could honestly be called "nearly all".

Epic fail factually.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:02 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1272
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Just in case the math is not self-evident think of the total production as 100 tons worldwide. That means there are 50 tons of soybeans produced and 50 tons of everything else. The three countries produce 77 tons, which if they also produced the 50 tons of everything else leaves 27 tons of soybeans. Soybeans are grown for the oil not livestock feed. Livestock are fed the by-product after the oil has been removed.

If they are claiming the "everything else" is destined for livestock you still have a 27% of soybeans being produced, which is clearly not what could honestly be called "nearly all".

Epic fail factually.


If you are going to get hung-up on a word, it should not be math. Think "biodiversity".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:26 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20355
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Just in case the math is not self-evident think of the total production as 100 tons worldwide. That means there are 50 tons of soybeans produced and 50 tons of everything else. The three countries produce 77 tons, which if they also produced the 50 tons of everything else leaves 27 tons of soybeans. Soybeans are grown for the oil not livestock feed. Livestock are fed the by-product after the oil has been removed.

If they are claiming the "everything else" is destined for livestock you still have a 27% of soybeans being produced, which is clearly not what could honestly be called "nearly all".

Epic fail factually.


If you are going to get hung-up on a word, it should not be math. Think "biodiversity".


I like to get hung up on the truth rather than emotionally charged misrepresentations.

Three countries--the United States, Brazil, and Argentina--grow 77 percent of all genetically modified crops, nearly all destined for livestock, not the world's hungry

When I find the truth has been replaced by such misrepresentations I find it difficult to trust that source on anything without some independent verification. This is clearly one of those cases.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:02 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2148
Location: Central Colorado
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
"Even by 2030, the world will need at least 50 percent more food, 45 percent more energy and 30 percent more water, according to U.N. estimates, at a time when a changing environment is creating new limits to supply."
Grain production per capita has been going down since 1986, ocean fisheries which have been providing 60% of the protein needs to 3 billion are below their last 10% and will be mostly gone by 2035, water is already critical in many areas and will get worse even without more population because of aquifer depletion and AGW effects. Needs for energy unmet except by more pollution and expense of money they do not have.
3 billion in abject poverty by 2030? Of course, and starving or out of water, too. Dying, or migrating, as collapses begin, region by region, country by country, progressive and cascading, with attendant riots and violence, lawbreaking including theft and murder. By 2050 or before, a point is reached where deaths outnumber births, in an accelerating manner.
People should have gone to one child families, all compost fertilizers, and water recycling and efficiency rules in the 1970s and to non-CO2 polluting power and steady state environmental economics in the early 1990s or before. No, instead they head toward a crash followed by "thermageddon" (like the book) and extinction of their own species along with most others.
There's shortages already, in all but people. Overshoot has been extant since 1930 at the latest. Since then, until the 1980s, everyone who had more than two kids caused it, and since the 1980s, everyone who had more than one. The Gordian knot of greed, overpopulation and stupidity, in a Juggernaut(again, see the book) taking all, even the good, with it. :-({|=

I watched this for 2 minutes and 442 kids were born, 161 people died, and 86,000 tons of CO2 pollution were put out by human activity.
http://www.breathingearth.net/

In a clock where human existence is 24 hours for the ~43K years of homo sapiens, that is two seconds per year. We've got less than 40 years left before the majority will be dead or dying off. One minute and twenty seconds or less.
We will not know if people made it through the coming bottleneck of 200K years. Will they have learned to live sustainably?? Or will they be extinct? :-({|=
GMO will not save them. The ying yang of demand =P~ and opposition [-X will probably go on until collapse. #-o :mrgreen:

Historically, the start of increased environmental activism----
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v699/ ... rth002.jpg

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:31 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1272
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Just in case the math is not self-evident think of the total production as 100 tons worldwide. That means there are 50 tons of soybeans produced and 50 tons of everything else. The three countries produce 77 tons, which if they also produced the 50 tons of everything else leaves 27 tons of soybeans. Soybeans are grown for the oil not livestock feed. Livestock are fed the by-product after the oil has been removed.

If they are claiming the "everything else" is destined for livestock you still have a 27% of soybeans being produced, which is clearly not what could honestly be called "nearly all".

Epic fail factually.


If you are going to get hung-up on a word, it should not be math. Think "biodiversity".


I like to get hung up on the truth rather than emotionally charged misrepresentations.

Three countries--the United States, Brazil, and Argentina--grow 77 percent of all genetically modified crops, nearly all destined for livestock, not the world's hungry

When I find the truth has been replaced by such misrepresentations I find it difficult to trust that source on anything without some independent verification. This is clearly one of those cases.


So write to them about their faulty math! But is it possible to deny .....

"Add to this corporate consolidation the spread of biotech crops and you see why biodiversity is becoming so threatened. Biotech crops, like other industrial crops, are monocultures, with single varieties planted over millions of acres and sprayed with chemicals. Despite promises about wonder crops that would end Vitamin A deficiency or withstand drought, nearly all commercially available genetically modified foods are just one of two types, designed either to withstand a specific pesticide or to include a built-in pesticide."

Save your seeds folks, before they become owned.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:45 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20355
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
So write to them about their faulty math! But is it possible to deny .....

"Add to this corporate consolidation the spread of biotech crops and you see why biodiversity is becoming so threatened. Biotech crops, like other industrial crops, are monocultures, with single varieties planted over millions of acres and sprayed with chemicals. Despite promises about wonder crops that would end Vitamin A deficiency or withstand drought, nearly all commercially available genetically modified foods are just one of two types, designed either to withstand a specific pesticide or to include a built-in pesticide."

Save your seeds folks, before they become owned.


Sure it is possible to deny. If they are as accurate in this statement as they were concerning the math, there may be no real concern to speak of .... thus the question regarding credibility and the loss thereof due to blatent errors.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:02 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1272
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
So write to them about their faulty math! But is it possible to deny .....

"Add to this corporate consolidation the spread of biotech crops and you see why biodiversity is becoming so threatened. Biotech crops, like other industrial crops, are monocultures, with single varieties planted over millions of acres and sprayed with chemicals. Despite promises about wonder crops that would end Vitamin A deficiency or withstand drought, nearly all commercially available genetically modified foods are just one of two types, designed either to withstand a specific pesticide or to include a built-in pesticide."

Save your seeds folks, before they become owned.


Sure it is possible to deny. If they are as accurate in this statement as they were concerning the math, there may be no real concern to speak of .... thus the question regarding credibility and the loss thereof due to blatent errors.


http://digg.com/newsbar/Worldnews/peru_ ... y_monsanto

What is their reason? Biodiversity.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group