Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Ocean Acidification Is Latest Manifestation of Global Warming
Carbon dioxide pollution adds to threat to world's oceans and marine species
The infernal origins of Vulcano Island are easy to pinpoint. Step off the hydrofoil from Sicily and the rotten-egg smell of hydrogen sulphide strikes you immediately. Beside the quay, there are piles of yellow sulphurous rocks and chunks of pumice; the beach is made of thick, black volcanic sand; while the huge caldera that dominates the bay emits a constant stream of smoke and steam.
By the middle of the century there will probably be only a few pockets of coral left, in the North Sea and the Pacific. Millions of species of marine life will be wiped out. (Photo: Vladimir Levantovsky/Alamy)
According to legend, this was the lair of the Roman god of fire, Vulcan, who gave his name to the island and subsequently to all other volcanoes. An early eruption here also provided history with one of the first recorded descriptions of a volcano in action.
But Vulcano's importance today has nothing to do with the rock and lava it has spewed out for millennia. It is the volcano's output of invisible carbon dioxide – about 10 tonnes a day – that now interests scientists. They have found that the gas is bubbling through underground vents and is making the island's coastal waters more and more acidic. The consequences for sea life are grim with dozens of species having been eliminated.
That discovery is highly revealing, and worrying, because Vulcano's afflictions are being repeated today on a global scale, in every ocean on the planet – not from volcanic sources but from the industrial plants, power stations, cars and planes that are pumping out growing amounts of carbon dioxide and which are making our seas increasingly acidic. Millions of marine species are now threatened with extinction; fisheries face eradication; while reefs that protect coastal areas are starting to erode.
Ocean acidification is now one of the most worrying threats to the planet, say marine biologists. "Just as Vulcano is pumping carbon dioxide into the waters around it, humanity is pouring more and more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere," Dr Jason Hall-Spencer, a marine biologist at Plymouth University, told a conference on the island last week.
"Some of the billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide we emit each year lingers in the atmosphere and causes it to heat up, driving global warming. But about 30% of that gas is absorbed by the oceans where it turns to carbonic acid. It is beginning to kill off coral reefs and shellfish beds and threaten stocks of fish. Very little can live in water that gets too acidic."
Hence science's renewed interest in Vulcano. Its carbon dioxide springs – which bubble up like burst water mains below the shallow seabed – provide researchers with a natural laboratory for testing the global impact of ocean acidification. "These vents and the carbonic acid they generate tell us a great deal about how carbon dioxide is going to affect the oceans and marine life this century," said Hall-Spencer. "And we should be worried. This problem is a train coming straight at us."
Scientists estimate that oceans absorb around a million tonnes of carbon dioxide every hour and our seas are 30% more acidic than they were last century. This increased acidity plays havoc with levels of calcium carbonate, which forms the shells and skeletons of many sea creatures, and also disrupts reproductive activity.
Among the warning signs recently noted have been the failures of commercial oyster and other shellfish beds on the Pacific coasts of the US and Canada. In addition, coral reefs – already bleached by rising global temperatures – have suffered calamitous disintegration in many regions. And at the poles and high latitudes, where the impact of ocean acidification is particularly serious, tiny shellfish called pteropods – the basic foodstuff of fish, whales and seabirds in those regions – have suffered noticeable drops in numbers. In each case, ocean acidification is thought to be involved.
The problem was recently highlighted by the head of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dr Jane Lubchenco. She described ocean acidification as global warming's "equally evil twin". It is a powerful comparison, though it is clear that of the two, the crisis facing our seas has received far less attention. The last UN climate assessment report was more than 400 pages long but had only two pages on ocean acidification – mainly because studies of the phenomenon are less well advanced than meteorological and atmospheric research in general.
The workshop, held last week on Vulcano, is part of the campaign to understand the likely impact of ocean acidification. Dozens of young oceanographers, geologists and ecologists gathered for the meeting run by the Mediterranean Sea Acidification (MedSeA) programme. Dr Maoz Fine, of Bar-Ilan University in Israel, reported work on coral reef organisms that had been exposed to waters of different levels of acidity, temperature and light in his laboratory.
"We found that species of coral reef respond differently to rising carbon dioxide levels," he said. "Bigger corals suffer but survive while smaller, branching varieties become less able to fight disease and die off. That sort of thing just makes it even more difficult to predict exactly what is going to happen to our oceans."
Few scientists doubt that the impact on reefs will be anything short of devastating, however. The Caribbean has already lost about 80% of its coral reefs to bleaching caused by rising temperatures and by overfishing which removes species that normally aid coral growth. Acidification threatens to do the same for the rest of the world's coral reefs.
"By the middle of the century there will probably be only a few pockets – in the North Sea and the Pacific. Millions of species of fish, shellfish and micro-organisms will be wiped out," said Fine.
Acidification has affected the oceans in the past. However, these prehistoric events occurred at a far slower rate, said Dr Jerry Blackford of Plymouth Marine Laboratory. "The waters of the world take around 500 years to circulate the globe," he said. "If carbon dioxide was rising slowly, in terms of thousands of years, natural factors could then compensate. Sediments could buffer the carbonic acid, for example."
But levels of carbon dioxide are rising much faster today. By the end of the century, surface seawater will be 150% more acidic than it was in 1800. "There is simply not enough time for buffering to come into effect and lessen the impact," said Blackford. "The result will be significant acid build-up in the upper parts of the oceans which, of course, are the parts that are of greatest importance to humans."
A vision of the seas we are now creating can be seen at Vulcano. On the eastern side of its main bay, beyond an open-air thermal spa filled with elderly bathers wallowing in volcanically heated mud, there is a long stretch of black sand.
Just offshore, in about four feet of water, silver beads of carbon dioxide stream up from stones that lie over an underground vent. The water, although cold, looks like a huge, frothing Jacuzzi. Water here is highly acidic and there is no marine life around the vent – not even seaweed.
"The acidity here is far greater than even the worst ocean scenario for 2100, so we have to be careful about making comparisons," said Dr Marco Milazzo, of Palermo University. "However, currents carry that acid water round the bay and it becomes more and more dilute. We can then study waters which reflect the kind of acidity we are likely to get at the end of the century."
Milazzo and his colleagues have placed open boxes containing coral and other forms of marine life in the waters round the bay and monitor the effects of the different levels of acidity in the sea water on these samples and also on the bay's natural marine life. "When I look one way, out to sea, where there is little acidity, the plant life is rich in reds, whites, greens and other colours. There is abundance and variety in the habitat," said Milazzo.
"However, when I look the other way – back towards the carbon dioxide vent – that habitat gets less and less varied as the water gets more acidic. It is reduced to a dark brown bloom of macro-algae. There is no richness or variety here. In effect I am looking at the oceans of tomorrow. It is profoundly depressing."
DEEP WATERAcidity is measured by its pH (power of hydrogen) value. Fresh water has a pH reading of 7. Readings below that are considered to be acidic. Those above 7 are alkaline. Surface sea water had a reading of 8.2 a century ago. Today it has dropped to 8.1 because so much carbon dioxide has been absorbed by the world's oceans. That may seem a small amount but the pH scale is logarithmic which means that 0.1 difference actually represents an increase in acidity of 30%. By the end of the century, the pH of surface sea water could have dropped to 7.8, which represents a decrease in alkalinity – or an increase in acidity, depending on your viewpoint – of around 150%.

51 Comments so far
Show AllAnd tar sands oil is one of the worst forms of global warming energy production.
And related is this great video speaking truth to power.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoKW771tG_Q
This one should go viral, please share with friends.
I stopped buying EXXON gas a long time ago. BOYCOTT EXXON PRODUCTS. That should get their attention.
And apart from polluting tar sands oil $Trillions of our money is been used to fund the corporate imperial energy war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan while Exxon pays next to nothing in taxes. Exxon is already operating in Central Asia (Pipelineistan/Afghanistan) and Iraq.
Our economy and energy consumption are declining so Exxon is expanding into Asian and other markets.
Exxon's environmental crimes and global $greed$ are affecting the entire planet.
Exxon is the biggest criminal corporate racket on earth.
It's not just Exxon. BP, Shell, Chevron--hell, all of them--are equally complicit in the worldwide criminal conspiracy of big oil. They've got us all hostage.
Monsters from the ID (Forbidden Planet), We have met the enemy and he is us. These evil companies cannot survive without evil consumers. When I see the letters BP, I think Buying Public. These companies exist to fill the needs of our Mad drive for comfort. It's us, it's our cars an our central heating and airconditioning, clothes dryers etc. WE ARE THE PROBLEM.
Ride a BIke, walk, take a bus. Heat the room your in. CHANGE THE WAY YOU LIVE.
Americans are too lazy, spoiled and basically stupid to make the changes that you suggest. But, at least SOME are listening....
"Ride a BIke, walk, take a bus. Heat the room your in. CHANGE THE WAY YOU LIVE."
I agree (to a point), but tell it to the Chinese. Have you seen how many new coal fired power palnts they are building? The Chinese can't mine enough coal to fire them up so they buy coal from us. We have plenty of coal from our mountain top removal coal mining. __ I think maybe someone is making money from it.
Have you seen any coal fired plants in the US being shut down? How many? Until humans stop burning coal and cutting down the rain forests there is nothing individuals can do that will prevent the looming, soon to come disaster. That does not mean we should give up not do all we can, but that alone is far from enough.
We are willing captives. The door is wide open; you can walk right out.
How do people who live in the suburbs buy a quart of milk or get to work without a car, for instance? We are trapped in an infrastructure that is designed in hundreds of ways to require excessive amounts of energy. Extrication is not so easy. But you are right that we have to start to disengage. I just think it will require more social creativity and persistence than your comment implies. In all probability it will also require outright battles against the oil and coal interests.
One thing at a time though. Make clotheslines legal. Plant vegetables in the yard. It all helps.
jclientell, are clotheslines illegal? Oh, no! Busted again. I am still eating produce I grew last year: corn, salsa, tomato sauce, shallots, dried figs, etc. And I gather a fare bit. Damn it, oysters again tonight. And if you live in the suburbs, you might trade your inefficient mower in for a shovel, some seeds, a few chickens, and a wool sweater, for those cold nights.
I envy your use of a clothesline! It is such a quiet, good smelling and satisfying fresh air experience. And philiphoko I agree with replacing lawns and lawn mowers with food gardens. When I visit friends and relatives in the suburbs, I am astonished at the noise from mowers and leaf blowers, the chemicals and energy devoted to eradicating dandelions, whose flowers are cheerful and whose leaves are delicious braised or in salad.
However, many suburban home owners' associations ban clotheslines because they look too redneck or ghetto. Chickens and vegetable gardens are not allowed in many communities. These are minor manifestations of a mindset that values illusion and appearance over substance. We try to mimic manicured English estates even though our environment is becoming chemically degraded and our homes are being lost through foreclosure etc. Thriftiness is a lost art, an art widely ridiculed and undermined by marketing. We are told that we need fashion, 10 of everything, bloated houses and cars and the latest iEveryThing.
I do not live in the suburbs but in a place with subways and buses, which reduces my CO2 footprint for transportation. I also live in a high-rise multiple dwelling, which reduces heating fuel consumption over a stand-alone house, many of which are ridiculously super-sized. However, the trade-off is that there is no space for personal gardens where I live. We need to move toward ways of living that offer multiple opportunities, both physically and legally, for people to live simply.
Some people are unemployed or poor, so this preaching does not apply to them. Only to those of us who are a little bit spoiled and wasteful.
Is this "the end of times"? Maybe we are just Camping out.
Most likely Curtis... The "camp out" party may be over a lot sooner than most realize.
How do climate deniers deal with ocean acidification? Do they deny that, too? The science is absolutely clear (as it is with AGW). Will the deniers go through a progression: It isn't happening. It may be happening, but it isn't us that's doing it--the ocean's pH has always changed. It is happening but the effects will be positive. It may be happening, but it won't be too bad. It may be happening, but there is nothing we can do about it. Fall-back positions are manufactured at the outset and adopted by conservatives when overwhelming evidence ruins a prior hypothesis.
drosera,
How do climate deniers deal with ocean acidification?
Well, in addition to espousing those positions you mentioned, they go the "it's natural" route. I have seen ridiculous claims by alleged scientists quoting scientific literature in a scientific way for the sake of science, etc. Once they have got you hooked on the "hey, we are scientists and you therefore must believe what we say" meme, they proceed to tell you that the dissolving of shells and other marine life structures made from calcium carbonate is no big deal. The organisms will adapt and evolve. The sulphuric acid content of volcanic eruptions worldwide (a far more potent agent of ocean acidification than carbonic acid from CO2) is far greater in quantity than our beloved toxin and acid spewing industrial processes produce. It's the same pattern in the pro-nuclear argument which attributes increased cancer rates to background radiation. It's an amazing coincidence that all these "scientific" conclusions from the deniers always blame nature instead of the "profit for the elite and ecological destruction for the masses" industrial worldwide machine.
Money keeps paying people to lie until the truth overwhelms us. These elite morons actually believe that all this is a good thing because:
1) Billions of humans will die.
2) The elite will survive in their bunkers.
3) After the riff raff are "taken care of" the elite will emerge into a brave new world of robot servants, ecologically friendly factories and energy systems.
So, please understand, the elite WANT this. They are monsters and they are stupid because they will not listen to the true scientists that say you cannot trash an ecosystem and expect to come out smelling like a rose UNLESS you are very low on the food chain (i.e. roach, bacterium, etc.). A top predator is toast in an ecosystem crash. Humans, this means you!
And these elite morons are in charge...
I predict a wonderful future for extremophiles.
"It's the same pattern in the pro-nuclear argument which attributes increased cancer rates to background radiation."
No one has ever attributed, increased cancer rates (to the extent, if any, that they are increasing) to background radiation.
"No one has ever attributed, increased cancer rates (to the extent, if any, that they are increasing) to background radiation."
Sure they have. The actuarial tables for long haul pilots has them dying at an increased rate compared to ground-pounders like you, largely due to increased radiation at altitude. At sea level you are shielded by 104,000 feet of air; which is equivalent to thirteen feet of concrete. But at 35,000 feet, Captains, who fly the left seat, experience an increased incidence of melanoma on the tops of their left forearms and Co-pilots, who sit on the right side of the aircraft experience a disproportionate number of skin cancers on their right arms. This is even true of night cargo pilots, so the cosmic background radiation is causing it. When you cross the country at FL350 (35,000 feet) you receive the equivalent in radiation of a chest x-ray caused by Cosmic Background radiation.
Source: ALPA Aeromedical Department, ALPA magazine, fifteen years ago in concert with the New England Journal of Medicine and Wisconsin, IIRC.
And many days, the Concord (SST) could not climb all the way up to 50,000 feet because radiation was too bad that day and would take out the radios (HF) and zap the crew and passengers. On the B-747 we disliked going to 45,000 for the same reasons. Long term exposure, to low-level radiation is bad news when combined with an event like Fukushima, smoking, or GMO food, imho.
We hauled unlimited quantities in TI (transport index) radioactive materials on cargo flights and the company make a fortune doing it. We were well trained on exposure levels and wore dosimeters (film badges) to "protect us". No one was ever advised, however, of exceeding limits to my knowledge.
One Captain took his film badge and put it in the microwave and zapped it for several minutes. He mailed it to the radiation film monitoring dept, like we did every month. He got a call later that week: "This is Joe Johnson from the Radiation Badge Monitoring Department; Is this Captain Dossen?"
"Yes, replied Captain Dossen"
"We had a question about your Sept badge, You put it in the microwave, didn't you?"
"No," lied the Captain.
"Well, then, you laid it on top of the T.V. didn't you?"
"No," said Dossen, "Why? Is there a problem?"
"Oh No," said the radiation monitor," No problem, Thanks..." Click.
TJ
Yeah, unfortunately about all that the current branch of great apes will get out of that is, "Gee, now we won't have to put lemon on our fish!"
Some Finlanders were involved in preparing the communication that would be triggered automatically (assuming it worked) when someone stumbled on the sealed nuclear waste storage facility they built recently that goes 5 kilometers down in 1.5 million year bedrock.
What do you tell someone that finds this place accidentally several thousand years in the future?
One suggestion was:
'This place has high levels of radioactivity and is deadly to life. We buried this hoping that no one would find it. Please do a better job of taking care of your civilization than we did."
Finland nuclear waste storage facility
Approximately at 61 degrees North, 21 degrees East
Only a few hundred thousand marine species have been identified, with estimates of total marine species of about 1.5 million (so 15-20% have been identified).
Saying "millions of marine species" will be lost is needless hyperbole. It will be scary enough, just stating percentage drops.
If I were an osterage, I could stick my head in the sand and forget it all.
Don't forget COAL!
Possibly you mean osterich, since I don't think anything called "osterage" exists.
Possibly you mean ostrich, since I don't think anything called "osterich" exists.
If you are going to highlight someone's misspelling of a word, I suggest you turn on your spell checker.
Best laugh I've had all day - and in a thread of responses to a really grim article!
Me too. ;>)
The 'speling' was fine.... We have a pet osterich and once had a pet Australian (rary)... The rary is a very, very rare talking parrot and they grow to be huge. We didn't know that or we would never have captured it when it was a baby chick. After three years it grew from one pound to over 350 pounds, it was much too heavy to fly and yakked all night long, nearly drove us crazy... Maybe it did?
We got rid of it one night at the Grand Canyon. We put it in a wheebarrow rolled it to the edge, tipped it up and dumped the rary over the side of the canyon. It "sang" out,
" It's a long long, way to Tip a rary".
Which all is as off toic as an oster-ach or whatever.
Dying coral reefs world wide are one of our most serious problems.. Most of the coral reefs in most areas of the Indian Ocean have bleached out and died just this past year due to warming waters.
Australia's Great Barrier Reef, the only living thing on Earth visible with the naked eye from the space station is in very serious trouble due to global warming and the recent flooding in Northern Australia which has polluted the ocean waters there for many miles.
Acidification of the oceans is natural from volcanic activity. Mother Nature normally handles natural events, however she has a lot of trouble dealing with (un-natural) events, such as human's burning fossil fuels. That is primarily (coal) that she had safely sequestered deep in the earth during the past several billion years.
Burning coal was the stupidest thing humanity has ever done, prior to splitting the atom.
"If sunbeams were weapons of war, we would have had solar enegy centuries ago" ~~Sir George Porter~~ Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
Don't forget geothermal George.
osterage are extinct
How the heck did you know our pet osterage Dumfuk choked to death with her head in the sand last night? __ The rary are extinct too.
Our immediate job is to start boycotting the use of oil as much as possible. Heat & AC less, walk, bike, don't drive if you don't have to.
Trying here and looking at every penny I don't spend on oil as keeping it away from them.
Donnalou, you can't possibly repeat that often enough! It's exactly the right thing, and it needs to be made the first thought everyone has each day. Brava!
Donnalou, exactly. But it's so discouraging. Most people just don't seem to get the connection betwen their lifestyle "choices" and the collective damage that is happening to our planet. Basketball payoffs and Facebook dominate their mental airspace....
I agree donnalou that each of us can cut down on our use of oil and coal. It is a start. It is a consciousness raiser.
However, it is probably not nearly sufficient, since the basics of life, especially in the United States, such as heating and transportation have been designed over at least a century to require us to use huge amounts of fossil fuels. I would like to see some data about how much energy is saved by a person bicycling to the store for an hour as opposed to using a SUV, or even flying a combat helicopter for an hour. I suspect that in terms of scale, each of us can contribute to a small part of the solution, but those gains will quickly be erased by massive practices of energy irresponsibility.
We need a big evolutionary leap in how we approach urban design and transportation. And we especially need to eliminate that big useless gas guzzler - war.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/april/prehistoric-mass-extinction-042710.html
We do not want to go here.
If I ran the government I would start putting thousands of micro-sized ocean species into aquariums and into vats of nitrogen, for restoration to their native habitats in a few hundred years. Very WALL-E.
When we talk about "Mother Earth" we are, or should be, referring mainly to the earth's oceans. Our earliest ancestors evolved there. Some mammals even went back there after being land dwellers for a time.
More limestone is carried in solution to the oceans by rivers than any other mineral. This limestone (CaCO3) could raise the pH of the ocean's if, as the article says enough TIME was available. On the other hand when the limestone reacts with acid it produces carbon dioxide----back into the atmosphere.
So where do you want your CO2? Making the oceans more acetic or making the atmosphere warmer? It is ironic that the people with the most money and political power who could effect change won't do it, can't do it, or don't even believe the problem exists.
There isn't time for the oceans to correct themselves and there isn't time for the power brokers to wake up. I'd say we were fucked.
The oceans will become more acidic, not acetic. An acetic ocean would be vinegary, a prospect even less pleasant than it containing too much carbonic acid.
You are, of course, exactly right. Now if you could just tell me how that correction aids in the greatest problem mankind has ever faced.
The bicycle burns fat and not hydrocarbons.
Unfortunately, I live in a cold northern climate and can't ride all year.
For those interested:
"The World is Blue" (2009), by Sylvia Earle, former head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Highly readable.
When considering various schemes, and that's what they are, for geo-engineering to cool the Earth - the effect is zero for reducing ocean acidification.
As the oceans go - so do we go - towards extinction.
Sea-level rise is also the single best indicator of global warming, and the rise is accelerating, exceeding by some sixty percent the IPCC model predictions, which do not include several known positive feedbacks. The rise has essentially two components - one from the thermal expansion of the oceans as they warm (over 90 percent of the Earth's energy imbalance goes into warming the oceans); and second, runoff from the melt of above sea-level glaciers worldwide. That includes mountain glaciers, the Greenland Ice Sheet, and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, and to a lesser extent, the much larger East Antarctic Ice Sheet.
James Hansen's website at Columbia contains a wealth of information in one place, and NOAA's yearly "State of the Climate" likewise.
It feels good to be talking science again - politics is bullshit.
Manysummits
====
Speaking as an inventor, I don't know how to tell the bureaucrats how inexpensive and environmentally benign (preserves the natural anaerobic environment under the ice, nothing in the atmosphere) it is to reverse most of the air effects of climate change. I estimate that in the range of $1 billion per year will do the job. Of course, then BP couldn't drill in the Arctic Ocean so for God's sake don't let this one out of the closet.
That said, no, my invention does nothing for ocean acidification. Ocean acidification damages the ocean's ability to convert carbon dioxide into carbon compounds and oxygen. It's another long-term positive feedback mechanism for climate change. The only real cure that I can see is massive carbon sequestration in big lignite mountains in the desert, and that would require the government to lift a finger, God help us.
Years ago, the great Wallace Broecker jumped on the idea of Klaus Lackner to withdraw carbon directly from the atmosphere and bring the level of CO2 down to a level which might reverse some of the effects now underway.
It is my opinion that we will have to do this soon - and I believe that necessity is not only the mother of invention, but the only good reason for doing anything.
We would of course have to drastically cut back on CO2 emissions at the same time, and use best practice farming and soil conservation methods, reforest etc etc etc...almost ad infinitum..not to mention figuring out how to reduce our numbers humanely.
The situation is so bad as to defy words. Every living system is in decline - we face global ecological collapse. The only uncertainty is the timeframe.
But we have gotten ourselves into this mess, and unlike the cyanobacteria of some two point seven billion years ago who created the oxygen holocaust, we do know what we are doing, if only at a few levels of human perception, and we can change course.
And if we wish for a future for ourselves and the present web of life - we must get over our cultural worldwide depression and act in our own interests, and in the interests of the web of life.
Manysummits
=======
Besides green plants and their exquisitely evolved organelles, how can we withdraw carbon directly from the atmosphere? Is there some practical way?
There are those who want us to believe that global warning is a hoax. We unfortunately will never in the short term get away from hydrocarbon dependence as long as the lobbyists keep the money flowing.
Years ago we talked about solar energy by putting giant panels in space and that idea went the way of the goony bird.
We need alternative energy options now not when its to late.
To answer, but not particularly to single you out,...
If you think the Earth needs something, then you, where "you" is either you as a small group of people or you personally, need to make morally courageous but slightly risky financial decisions, to risk being a light unto your neighbors. Your choices to go off the beaten path and support various almost-proven but still slightly unknown alternative energy options, and the more innovative the better, are what will drive the alternative energy options to get established and get better. You are the genuine alternative energy economy. BP has no wish to be morally courageous as its gift to you, not in this lifetime, so don't look to them for "alternative energy options". Declare ownership of your personal power to change the world, with careful fact-checking of course.
If you're a conservative, the old saw is, "the second mouse gets the cheese." You're reading this, so that's not you. If you're a progressive, there's an old saw about a turtle making progress when he sticks his neck out. If you're a carpenter the old saw needs sharpening...had to throw that in.
I went snorkeling today just off Gili Riggit and Gili Layar, south west Lombok, Indonesia. The people here are very lucky because these reefs are still so alive its amazing. Fifteen years ago the government actually cracked down on the fishermen who were bombing and using chemicals to kill and stun the fish. I have heard stories that they actually shot a few fisherman and put several in jail. The point is, it worked, the reefs are thriving, at least for now. If only the plastic trash wasn't overwhelming all that beauty. Must be a million tons a year in just Indonesia! If only humans weren't basically stupid. And I must accept that tag to and pick up some trash. Not many of the local people will do anything about it. They are to busy trying to make a living: It makes them feel stupid picking up someone else's trash. Stupid if you do, stupid if you don't. The human enigma. And I doubt the Government will shoot them for littering, at least not before all that fantastic marine life dies from plastic asphyxiation or CO2 caused acidity. Who knows, maybe things will change and police brutality will be more just. Sometimes justice prevails, just maybe baby.
Another useless paper on global warming that is totally bereft of suggestions for what ordinary people like me can do to stop this disaster from happening. Vote Green? Well, in Germany that means increased CO2 production from coal- and gas-fired power plants without a clear-cut proof that solar and wind will compensate for the closing of the nuclear plants.
There are many things individuals can do at a local level, and I am sure that you will receive many suggestions.
Adopting these changes will, at best, merely temporarily delay the inevitable. Why? The majority of people on our planet will not voluntarily adopt these changes to their lifestyle/livelihood. It is the nature of the human condition.
The only authority that can implement sweeping change in the coming decades are governments. And most governments will never implement the necessary draconian change until the government of the United States makes the first, and largest, step.
So to answer your question, the most potent contribution you can make is to change US government policy, by whatever means necessary.
First people have to understand there is a problem. Clearly written articles like this play a role in explaining the nature of the problem and the implications. The author may not have a formula for remedying the situation. Nobody is omniscient. In fact the "great leader" model is filled with pitfalls.
So many good people are scientifically illiterate but creative in other ways such as in terms of political or social activism, and vice-versa. So when the information gets out into the world, someone else, or many other people, may together figure out what can be done. It is our collective responsibility to figure out some part of what can be done, and it is a project that will never end.
ALL conservatives are stupid, especially the rich ones. One can't measure intelligence by how much wealth one has. Having too much wealth or aspiring to is not winning when you're killing the earth as a result. Killing the only planet capable of sustaining life within millions of lite years away from other such planets.
The polluting, growth addicted conservative super-rich won't be moving to another planet when they finish off the earth in a few short years, much less would their poor and middle class stupid conservative superpatriot booze addled flunkies and minions, happily waving the flags the Koch's provide and giving their meager savings to the Wall Street Casino to administer.
So true ezeflyier; they won't move to another planet; they will all be with jesus. Alas.
How has Al Gore been able to dump millions of tons of Tums into the ocean with no one noticing?
Ocean acidification alone is sufficient reason to move to solar and wind power as quickly as possible, and to start redesigning Western technological life to be in harmony with the natural world. Building and community design, transportation, industrialized agriculture all urgently need to change. Those of us who are above poverty need to rethink our habits, what we really need and what we do not. Everything we have in excess exacts a price on the natural world.