Image above shows every fire that's started across Brazil since August, 13, 2019.
Scene from ground level near Humaita, Brazil on August 17.
Another view from Humaita, Brazil, from August 14th.
"Our house is burning. Literally. The Amazon rain forest - the lungs which produces 20% of our planet’s oxygen - is on fire. It is an international crisis." - Emmanuel Macron, Thursday
One need have looked no further than yesterday's WSJ (page A5 story), e.g.
Image above shows every fire that's started across Brazil since August, 13, 2019.
Scene from ground level near Humaita, Brazil on August 17.
Another view from Humaita, Brazil, from August 14th.
"Our house is burning. Literally. The Amazon rain forest - the lungs which produces 20% of our planet’s oxygen - is on fire. It is an international crisis." - Emmanuel Macron, Thursday
One need have looked no further than yesterday's WSJ (page A5 story), e.g.
'Fires Destroy Amazon Rainforest, Blanketing Brazilian Cities in Smog '
To behold how we are now at the tipping point for cataclysm with the planet's "lungs" now being burned to a crisp. This as human population growth has triggered ecological upheaval from India to Brazil to Siberia and Alaska and in between. While too many dunderheads and dopes still believe humans are "too puny" to cause or create a negative global impact, the evidence is now all around us.
In Brazil, for example, we learn (WSJ, ibid.) that many of the fires raging - and even visible from space- were set by loggers. These demented fools "have been burning newly cleared land for cattle ranching and agricultural use. The resulting clouds of smoke have reached such epic proportions as to be captured from a NASA satellite in space."
The idea has been to plunder as many forest resources as possible from the last great carbon repository on the planet- holding the line between humans and the runaway greenhouse effect. Of course, the 'joker' in the deck, if we can call it that, has been Brazil's Trump clone (nicknamed "the tropical Trump"), Jair Bolsonaro. Like Donnie Hitler Jr., this authoritarian maggot has no use for preserving the planet for future generations and even calls himself "Captain Chainsaw". He is the one who has incited farmers, loggers to go on this burning spree that now puts the whole planetary habitat at risk - for all of us. And the swine has done it by his mocking of environmentalists over their concern for the Amazon's preservation. ( In one spasm of rage he actually compared the Amazon to a "virgin" that "the outsiders want to take first".)
But say one thing, say the next. Though Bolsonaro and his anti-environmental policies are the proximate cause of the Amazon conflagration, population pressures - for arable land, living space and such - also played a role. Hence, we can't ignore the fact that twenty three million people live in the Brazilian Amazon, 45 % of them below the poverty line. In the words of one Sao Paulo -based journalist: "Starving people don't care about the rain forest.. They consider it a green hell and see forest rangers as enemies."
This is given that five of the six poorest states are located in the Brazilian Amazon according to the national statistical agency. Such problems then are ultimately of human overpopulation and inadequate resources to support it. Just as it is in respect of the worsening water woes in India. Not to mention the uncontrolled land development now devouring natural regions globally at the rate of two football fields ever 3 minutes. This according to a new UN report. So even if a lunatic like Bolsonaro didn't exist we'd still be in dire straits.
But perhaps not as quickly in the wake of "Capt. Chainsaw" having given so many subtle and overt cues to his eco-henchmen in waiting.
The scale of the Amazon fires alone is such that smoke from them is ending up affecting cities more than 5,000 miles away. Latest projections indicate that Amazon smoke will soon also cover the U.S. from LA to Detroit - which means we here in Colorado will be right smack in the middle of it. The sheer number of fires spawned is staggering: some 72, 843 separate fires since January. This marks an 83 percent increase over last year According to climate scientist Michael Mann:
"The impact is devastating because it's eliminating irreplaceable ecosystems and worsening climate change at the same time.. "
So it isn't for nothing the vast Amazon rainforest has been nicknamed "the lungs of the Earth" . This is because it has been responsible for the release of 20 percent of the world's oxygen even as it absorbs CO2 to generate that oxygen. But as those "lungs" are destroyed the dynamic will be solely one way: no more oxygen produced, only more CO2.
Meanwhile, Africans also continue to burn wood from forests at a rate, using the material for fuel. People and more people everywhere, too many for sure, gobbling resources at a rate as if there were no tomorrow. And there may not be at the rate they keep consuming.
In India, meanwhile, we learn,
In Brazil, for example, we learn (WSJ, ibid.) that many of the fires raging - and even visible from space- were set by loggers. These demented fools "have been burning newly cleared land for cattle ranching and agricultural use. The resulting clouds of smoke have reached such epic proportions as to be captured from a NASA satellite in space."
The idea has been to plunder as many forest resources as possible from the last great carbon repository on the planet- holding the line between humans and the runaway greenhouse effect. Of course, the 'joker' in the deck, if we can call it that, has been Brazil's Trump clone (nicknamed "the tropical Trump"), Jair Bolsonaro. Like Donnie Hitler Jr., this authoritarian maggot has no use for preserving the planet for future generations and even calls himself "Captain Chainsaw". He is the one who has incited farmers, loggers to go on this burning spree that now puts the whole planetary habitat at risk - for all of us. And the swine has done it by his mocking of environmentalists over their concern for the Amazon's preservation. ( In one spasm of rage he actually compared the Amazon to a "virgin" that "the outsiders want to take first".)
But say one thing, say the next. Though Bolsonaro and his anti-environmental policies are the proximate cause of the Amazon conflagration, population pressures - for arable land, living space and such - also played a role. Hence, we can't ignore the fact that twenty three million people live in the Brazilian Amazon, 45 % of them below the poverty line. In the words of one Sao Paulo -based journalist: "Starving people don't care about the rain forest.. They consider it a green hell and see forest rangers as enemies."
This is given that five of the six poorest states are located in the Brazilian Amazon according to the national statistical agency. Such problems then are ultimately of human overpopulation and inadequate resources to support it. Just as it is in respect of the worsening water woes in India. Not to mention the uncontrolled land development now devouring natural regions globally at the rate of two football fields ever 3 minutes. This according to a new UN report. So even if a lunatic like Bolsonaro didn't exist we'd still be in dire straits.
But perhaps not as quickly in the wake of "Capt. Chainsaw" having given so many subtle and overt cues to his eco-henchmen in waiting.
The scale of the Amazon fires alone is such that smoke from them is ending up affecting cities more than 5,000 miles away. Latest projections indicate that Amazon smoke will soon also cover the U.S. from LA to Detroit - which means we here in Colorado will be right smack in the middle of it. The sheer number of fires spawned is staggering: some 72, 843 separate fires since January. This marks an 83 percent increase over last year According to climate scientist Michael Mann:
"The impact is devastating because it's eliminating irreplaceable ecosystems and worsening climate change at the same time.. "
So it isn't for nothing the vast Amazon rainforest has been nicknamed "the lungs of the Earth" . This is because it has been responsible for the release of 20 percent of the world's oxygen even as it absorbs CO2 to generate that oxygen. But as those "lungs" are destroyed the dynamic will be solely one way: no more oxygen produced, only more CO2.
Meanwhile, Africans also continue to burn wood from forests at a rate, using the material for fuel. People and more people everywhere, too many for sure, gobbling resources at a rate as if there were no tomorrow. And there may not be at the rate they keep consuming.
In India, meanwhile, we learn,
"Water crises are unfolding all across India, a product of population growth, modernization, climate change, mismanagement - and the breakdown of traditional systems of distributing resources."
More worrisome:
"Nearly all of India's biggest cities ...are rapidly depleting their groundwater resrves, and 40 percent of India's people could lack drinking water by the end of the next decade."
Of course, this was predicted back in a 'State of the World' report from 2000, which estimated that 1.8 billion would face water scarcity by 2025. The report even forecast "water wars" if the matter wasn't resolved or in some way addressed in an equitable manner.
Meanwhile, in a piece in last Sunday's Denver Post by Bruce Finley ('Development Devours Natural Landscape At High Rat According to Study', p. A7) we learned that the conversion of natural landscapes into developed tracts is proceeding at a feverish pace, displacing habitats for thousands of species and destroying natural vegetation which serves as a carbon absorber. As noted in the Post piece:
"A United Nations -backed biodiversity and ecosystem science panel determined that about three quarters of the land around the planet and two-thirds of marine environments have been significantly altered by human activity. An estimated 1 million plant and animal species face extinction."
What gives? Well, to put it bluntly, too many people! Sir David Attenborough, in his BBC documentary entitled: 'How Many People Can Earth Hold?', pulled no punches in his assessments. He observed that every current major societal, environmental problem- from clogged highways, to overflowing hospital ERs to crowded schools, as well as scarcity of commodities (reflected in their much increased prices) to fouling of our water and atmosphere, can be laid at the feet of too many people on this planet - each needing food, air, water and energy from the time it's born.
Of all the resources, the most critical is water because no one can live without it for very long. Even now, 1 billion people live in water-stressed conditions, meaning that renewable water supplies drop below 1,700 cubic meters per capita. This is now the case with what's transpiring in India - and many other regions of the planet.
The point is we're rapidly approaching the threshold at which there will simply be too many people to feed given existing resources- water, arable soil, fertilizers etc.. The projections now are for at least 10 billion people by 2050, and an 80 percent probability of 12.3 billion on Earth by 2100. Simply put, there simply aren't the resources to support even the lower addition. At root, the issue is sustainability - especially for water which is needed for crops. NO water, no crops to feed a growing population. The graphic below puts this into perspective;
The interpretation of the graph (upward) is simple. By June, 2030 TWO full Earths - that is the resources therein - will be needed to support the then population. Already we are at 1.5 Earths. Every year Global Footprint Network raises awareness about global ecological overshoot with its Earth Overshoot Day campaign. Earth Overshoot Day is the day on the calendar when humanity has used up the resources that it takes the planet the full year to regenerate.
A core problem is that people have a difficult time grasping any kind of exponential increase such as with population.
The late Univ. of Colorado physics professor Albert Bartlett delivered one of the best lectures on the nature of the exponential function as it applies to computing future population growth. It can be found at the link below :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZA9Hnp3aV4
Go to time index 13:04 and continue watching as he computes the global population projections at an estimated growth rate of just 1.3 percent per year. Within a minute or so we see the graphic appear:
Which Prof. Bartlett specifies as the full stop to further population increase, i.e. the absolute arrival of "zero population growth". (Though he goes on to show that at the same assumed birth rate the mass of humans would equal the mass of the whole planet in 2400 years.) As he notes:
"It's absolutely clear people could not live at that density on Earth. So zero population growth is going to happen!"
In other words, there exists an absolute limit to human population growth. It cannot go on indefinitely! Prof. Bartlett even includes a humorous cartoon to reinforce the point for any simpletons:
Why is this not possible? Well because each human needs a defined living space to support him over a lifetime, not merely the minimal space his body may occupy. This is owing to the fact humans need resources to live which are extracted from a given land area. This life support basis is a function of the rate of consumption of resources in this living space, and the birth rate. The current average – when all humans are factored in – amounts to nearly 2.1 hectares per person . This reckons in crops, lumber, water, meats-cattle etc., consumed over a life . A square meter therefore cannot be a life support space. Only a certified moron would believe so. (Unless we are talking about immobilized humans put into a deep coma or deep freeze and remaining in stasis).
Thus, no high population density scheme that doesn’t factor in acreage impact can be taken seriously. Our species became a blight and cancer on the planet and to itself (bear in mind cancer occurs when cells fail to cease dividing, growing) at the instant it lost track of bio-support capacity and when we exceeded it. The signs all around us now, from the massive Brazilian Amazon fires, to the dearth of water in India, scream in resonance of the failure of our species to control its numbers.
As for solutions, as a recent blurb summarized them for Attenborough's BBC documentary:
"The filmmakers endorse the need for smaller families and increased access to contraceptives. Renewed investments in education are also championed in the film, particularly for women in impoverished countries, because the highly educated are less likely to have multiple children. Attenborough contends that it is only by following each of these steps that mankind can effectively limit the creation of new life and ensure a sustainable future for our species."
That sustainability is tied to the ability to reckon the bio-support capacity for the planet. How many can it support but without a total absence of life quality, only survival?
If one divides the total output of bio-productivity (determined in terms of food crops generated per hectare, water volume per hectare, etc.) and divide that by the population, one can get some idea. One expert to whom Attenborough turned calculated that based on his models - if we wanted a planet with equally shared bio-productive output - each human would get TWO hectares. If we inhabited such a world, then the planet might support 15 billion people.
The reality is that the bio-productive output is not equal, and using a map of the world, Attenborough showed the divergences, what with the UK consuming 5.5 hectares per person, and the USA, 9.5 hectares. Thus, the average American is consuming more than four times that which is defined as a fair, equal apportioning of resources across all the numbers on the planet. According to Attenborough's expert, by this reckoning of such unequal apportioning of output, the planet can only hold 1.5 billion people.
The world then is overcrowded by roughly 6 billion humans. Sadly, it shows wherever one looks, from the massive housing shortages, to the water shortages (admittedly partly from drought) to the ever lowering GDPs of most nations. Will we wake up in time to save some semblance of the future for our kids and grandkids?
It would be nice to believe so but with degenerates like Bolsonaro and Trump around it appears doubtful. The clear addendum remedy? Voters need to be intelligent enough not to vote in such unhinged, anti-environmental extremists and nationalists. Of course, this is an even more cogent reason for Millennials to get off their duffs and vote Dem in the 2020 elections. Personally, I suspect the planet cannot withstand another 4 years of Hitler Junior.
See also:
Excerpt:
"I often worry whether we aren't one of those species that self-eliminates, that commits "ecological suicide" as many bacteria do when they turn their environment too acid to live in. It's certain we're polluting the air with CO2 in a way that will change the climate from habitable to very inhospitable."
"Water crises are unfolding all across India, a product of population growth, modernization, climate change, mismanagement - and the breakdown of traditional systems of distributing resources."
More worrisome:
"Nearly all of India's biggest cities ...are rapidly depleting their groundwater resrves, and 40 percent of India's people could lack drinking water by the end of the next decade."
Of course, this was predicted back in a 'State of the World' report from 2000, which estimated that 1.8 billion would face water scarcity by 2025. The report even forecast "water wars" if the matter wasn't resolved or in some way addressed in an equitable manner.
Meanwhile, in a piece in last Sunday's Denver Post by Bruce Finley ('Development Devours Natural Landscape At High Rat According to Study', p. A7) we learned that the conversion of natural landscapes into developed tracts is proceeding at a feverish pace, displacing habitats for thousands of species and destroying natural vegetation which serves as a carbon absorber. As noted in the Post piece:
"A United Nations -backed biodiversity and ecosystem science panel determined that about three quarters of the land around the planet and two-thirds of marine environments have been significantly altered by human activity. An estimated 1 million plant and animal species face extinction."
What gives? Well, to put it bluntly, too many people! Sir David Attenborough, in his BBC documentary entitled: 'How Many People Can Earth Hold?', pulled no punches in his assessments. He observed that every current major societal, environmental problem- from clogged highways, to overflowing hospital ERs to crowded schools, as well as scarcity of commodities (reflected in their much increased prices) to fouling of our water and atmosphere, can be laid at the feet of too many people on this planet - each needing food, air, water and energy from the time it's born.
Of all the resources, the most critical is water because no one can live without it for very long. Even now, 1 billion people live in water-stressed conditions, meaning that renewable water supplies drop below 1,700 cubic meters per capita. This is now the case with what's transpiring in India - and many other regions of the planet.
The point is we're rapidly approaching the threshold at which there will simply be too many people to feed given existing resources- water, arable soil, fertilizers etc.. The projections now are for at least 10 billion people by 2050, and an 80 percent probability of 12.3 billion on Earth by 2100. Simply put, there simply aren't the resources to support even the lower addition. At root, the issue is sustainability - especially for water which is needed for crops. NO water, no crops to feed a growing population. The graphic below puts this into perspective;
The interpretation of the graph (upward) is simple. By June, 2030 TWO full Earths - that is the resources therein - will be needed to support the then population. Already we are at 1.5 Earths. Every year Global Footprint Network raises awareness about global ecological overshoot with its Earth Overshoot Day campaign. Earth Overshoot Day is the day on the calendar when humanity has used up the resources that it takes the planet the full year to regenerate.
A core problem is that people have a difficult time grasping any kind of exponential increase such as with population.
The late Univ. of Colorado physics professor Albert Bartlett delivered one of the best lectures on the nature of the exponential function as it applies to computing future population growth. It can be found at the link below :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZA9Hnp3aV4
Go to time index 13:04 and continue watching as he computes the global population projections at an estimated growth rate of just 1.3 percent per year. Within a minute or so we see the graphic appear:
Which Prof. Bartlett specifies as the full stop to further population increase, i.e. the absolute arrival of "zero population growth". (Though he goes on to show that at the same assumed birth rate the mass of humans would equal the mass of the whole planet in 2400 years.) As he notes:
"It's absolutely clear people could not live at that density on Earth. So zero population growth is going to happen!"
In other words, there exists an absolute limit to human population growth. It cannot go on indefinitely! Prof. Bartlett even includes a humorous cartoon to reinforce the point for any simpletons:
Why is this not possible? Well because each human needs a defined living space to support him over a lifetime, not merely the minimal space his body may occupy. This is owing to the fact humans need resources to live which are extracted from a given land area. This life support basis is a function of the rate of consumption of resources in this living space, and the birth rate. The current average – when all humans are factored in – amounts to nearly 2.1 hectares per person . This reckons in crops, lumber, water, meats-cattle etc., consumed over a life . A square meter therefore cannot be a life support space. Only a certified moron would believe so. (Unless we are talking about immobilized humans put into a deep coma or deep freeze and remaining in stasis).
Thus, no high population density scheme that doesn’t factor in acreage impact can be taken seriously. Our species became a blight and cancer on the planet and to itself (bear in mind cancer occurs when cells fail to cease dividing, growing) at the instant it lost track of bio-support capacity and when we exceeded it. The signs all around us now, from the massive Brazilian Amazon fires, to the dearth of water in India, scream in resonance of the failure of our species to control its numbers.
As for solutions, as a recent blurb summarized them for Attenborough's BBC documentary:
"The filmmakers endorse the need for smaller families and increased access to contraceptives. Renewed investments in education are also championed in the film, particularly for women in impoverished countries, because the highly educated are less likely to have multiple children. Attenborough contends that it is only by following each of these steps that mankind can effectively limit the creation of new life and ensure a sustainable future for our species."
That sustainability is tied to the ability to reckon the bio-support capacity for the planet. How many can it support but without a total absence of life quality, only survival?
If one divides the total output of bio-productivity (determined in terms of food crops generated per hectare, water volume per hectare, etc.) and divide that by the population, one can get some idea. One expert to whom Attenborough turned calculated that based on his models - if we wanted a planet with equally shared bio-productive output - each human would get TWO hectares. If we inhabited such a world, then the planet might support 15 billion people.
The reality is that the bio-productive output is not equal, and using a map of the world, Attenborough showed the divergences, what with the UK consuming 5.5 hectares per person, and the USA, 9.5 hectares. Thus, the average American is consuming more than four times that which is defined as a fair, equal apportioning of resources across all the numbers on the planet. According to Attenborough's expert, by this reckoning of such unequal apportioning of output, the planet can only hold 1.5 billion people.
The world then is overcrowded by roughly 6 billion humans. Sadly, it shows wherever one looks, from the massive housing shortages, to the water shortages (admittedly partly from drought) to the ever lowering GDPs of most nations. Will we wake up in time to save some semblance of the future for our kids and grandkids?
It would be nice to believe so but with degenerates like Bolsonaro and Trump around it appears doubtful. The clear addendum remedy? Voters need to be intelligent enough not to vote in such unhinged, anti-environmental extremists and nationalists. Of course, this is an even more cogent reason for Millennials to get off their duffs and vote Dem in the 2020 elections. Personally, I suspect the planet cannot withstand another 4 years of Hitler Junior.
See also:
Excerpt:
"I often worry whether we aren't one of those species that self-eliminates, that commits "ecological suicide" as many bacteria do when they turn their environment too acid to live in. It's certain we're polluting the air with CO2 in a way that will change the climate from habitable to very inhospitable."
