EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Shock as Retreat of Arctic Sea Ice Releases Deadly Greenhouse Gas
Russian research team astonished after finding 'fountains' of methane bubbling to surface
Dramatic and unprecedented plumes of methane – a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide – have been seen bubbling to the surface of the Arctic Ocean by scientists undertaking an extensive survey of the region.
The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years.
In an exclusive interview with The Independent, Igor Semiletov, of the Far Eastern branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said that he has never before witnessed the scale and force of the methane being released from beneath the Arctic seabed.
"Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we've found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures, more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It's amazing," Dr Semiletov said. "I was most impressed by the sheer scale and high density of the plumes. Over a relatively small area we found more than 100, but over a wider area there should be thousands of them."
Scientists estimate that there are hundreds of millions of tonnes of methane gas locked away beneath the Arctic permafrost, which extends from the mainland into the seabed of the relatively shallow sea of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. One of the greatest fears is that with the disappearance of the Arctic sea-ice in summer, and rapidly rising temperatures across the entire region, which are already melting the Siberian permafrost, the trapped methane could be suddenly released into the atmosphere leading to rapid and severe climate change.
Dr Semiletov's team published a study in 2010 estimating that the methane emissions from this region were about eight million tonnes a year, but the latest expedition suggests this is a significant underestimate of the phenomenon.
In late summer, the Russian research vessel Academician Lavrentiev conducted an extensive survey of about 10,000 square miles of sea off the East Siberian coast. Scientists deployed four highly sensitive instruments, both seismic and acoustic, to monitor the "fountains" or plumes of methane bubbles rising to the sea surface from beneath the seabed.
"In a very small area, less than 10,000 square miles, we have counted more than 100 fountains, or torch-like structures, bubbling through the water column and injected directly into the atmosphere from the seabed," Dr Semiletov said. "We carried out checks at about 115 stationary points and discovered methane fields of a fantastic scale – I think on a scale not seen before. Some plumes were a kilometre or more wide and the emissions went directly into the atmosphere – the concentration was a hundred times higher than normal."
Dr Semiletov released his findings for the first time last week at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
537 Comments so far
Show AllIf this is true it's the most monumental piece of news of the millenium, yet I've not seen a trace of it on any other news source, just here at CD & it's source, The Independent. Is this evidence of a terribly ignorant and unreliable mainstream media or rather that this is maybe an unreliable report. I'm hoping, in a big way, it is the latter.
Hobgobline
Igor Semiletov is a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, as I understand it, and a Russian Federation 'visiting scientist' at the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Fairbanks, Alaska.
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/people/igorsm
He reported the information to the American Geophysical Union, at their prestigious Fall meeting, and also to the newspaper "The Independent."
His report would thus appear to be entirely reliable, and the readings of methane from the Barrow Research Station, called "heart attack dots" on this thread, would then appear to represent the bullet holes - if you will, with his report the smoking gun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun
Of course the Barrow readings are officially tentative - awaiting confirmation, but it seems to me vanishingly unlikely there is anything amiss with the readings.
This is a wake up call, because man made global warming is as certain as the Sun rising this morning, and just as certainly the public, in the western world and all over the globe, are unaware of the graveness of the very soft sounding words - global warming.
Globally, the human race has a terminal disease, and as Naomi Klein so correctly pointed out, global warming is a symptom of this disease, not its cause.
I don't think there is a good name for the disease itself yet. Some have called it 'the perfect storm', an illusion to a Hollywood movie of the same name, which might strike some as ironic - given that Hollywood itself may be another manifestation of this larger disease.
Perhaps the disease is "power and privilege" - John Gofman thought this.
The lack of mainstream media coverage is, I think, illuminating - another manifestation of this disease?
The civilized world is utterly dependent on the current hierarchy - and on fossil fuels.
Solutions - and heroic leadership - are very much needed.
Manysummits - going for a coffee in Calgary
=========
The Wikipedia article you link does a good job conveying the ups and downs of the clathrate gun hypothesis over the years. Bottom line: the ESAS deposits are particularly vulnerable, according to Shakhova and Semiletov.
From an abstract of theirs linked by that article:
The total value of ESAS carbon pool is, thus, not less than 1,400 Gt of carbon.
Since the area of geological disjunctives (fault zones, tectonically and seismically
active areas) within the Siberian Arctic shelf composes not less than 1-2% of the total area and area of open taliks (area of melt through permafrost), acting as a pathway for methane escape within the Siberian Arctic shelf reaches up to 5-10% of the total area, we consider release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage as highly possible for abrupt release at any time. That may cause ~12-times increase of modern atmospheric methane burden with consequent catastrophic greenhouse warming.
I just did the math based on the current best estimate of methane's global warming potential: 105 times that of CO2 over a 20 year span. The Wikipedia article says 12x atmospheric methane would be the equivalent of a doubling in CO2. By my numbers, 12x methane = 4.6x warming (worse than a quadrupling in CO2).
According to consensus climate sensitivity estimates, quadrupling of greenhouse forcing would mean 6°C of fast feedback warming within a decade or so, 12°C of total warming once the slow feedbacks kick in. Those would ice-sheet disintegration, vegetation changes, and outgasing from other methane reservoirs. The latter, in turn, is particularly worrisome for its potential to keep the ball rolling. The conventional concept of climate sensitivity falls short once methane gets into the dance.
In his book "The Vanishing Face of Gaia", James Lovelock uses a much simpler climate model which, if I understand it correctly, produces or uses a temporally changing climate sensitivity. This apparently produces an abrupt climate change, perhaps what Mark Maslin calls a 'bifurcation.'
Climate modeling is definitely not my field, but paleo-history is - of both life and increasingly - climate.
I think it likely that abrupt change is in our future, as does, I presume, Richard Alley, Jim Hansen - and company all over the climatological world.
Here is an article which may interest you - I was given this by a Buddhist monk in China when I blogged on the BBC environment site:
"Early-warning signals for critical transitions"
Marten Scheffer et al...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7260/abs/nature08227.html
Mike
=======
Yes indeed ~MIke~, it is a (wake-up call)... ZZZZZZZs.., With a New York Times article which says, "nonsense, go back to sleep"... And a "very credible" addition to Refkn's article from 5 climate scientists,,, who say there has been no methane released from the Arctic for the past 20 years.... Ho-hum,,, ZZZZZZZZs.
The "wake up" calls began in 2003,,, ZZZZZZ,, then in 2004,,, ZZZZZ,,, then in 2005- 6 - and 2007,,,, ZZZZZZZs.
Then the ISSS peer reviewed report in 2008, published in Journal Science in March of 2009... A very scary wake-up call report,,, which was just as alraming as this current one is... ZZZZZZZZs.... All warnings were IGNORED by world leaders and "climate" scientist, who kept right on saying, "By the year 2100, we will have big problems."
Well by the year 2100, I honestly do not believe any humans will be here to suffer those big problems... Humans are going to be suffering them by 2020 or sooner however... "We'll see",,, as Kem Patrick always said.
Michael Desautels wrote:
Of course the Barrow readings are officially tentative - awaiting confirmation, but it seems to me vanishingly unlikely there is anything amiss with the readings.
I don't know - the likelihood of there being something amiss with the readings is enhanced by a number of circumstances:
Semiletov's team made their observations in September (the month coinciding with a sea ice minimum), but the high reading in Barrow doesn't register until mid-November (the last reading recorded, if I'm reading the timeline correctly). Polar air currents would have to be moving very slowly to account for this delay.
It's a sudden anomaly, not an upward trend - as might be expected after a month or two of atmospheric mixing.
As Mairead points out, some new methane-monitoring equipment was installed at Barrow in October. It's possible some malfunction cropped up shortly after installation.
Amongst the five other Arctic monitoring stations, not one of them has registered any rise in methane:
Pallas-Sammaltunturi, Finland
Mould Bay, Nunavut, Canada
Alert, Nunavut, Canada
Summit, Greenland
Svalbard, Norway
A poster at Neven's blog offered this opinion:
I think in highest probability first order the possible causes are equipment failure, human error in carrying out measurement, and local source of methane. None of those would see a spike at other stations.
At any rate, the readings are updated weekly, so we don't have long to wait for more clarity from the monitoring stations. Reportedly, we'll need to wait until Spring 2012 for Semiletov's report. If the methane flux increase approaches an order of magnitude, then it should have registered over several weeks at more Arctic stations by then.
OK - we await confirmation.
There is a reason the dots are orange - after all.
But just for fun - I'll stick with my vanishingly small probability of those readings being in error. The direct observations of Igor Semiletov suggest something unprecedented, and the coincidence of the sky-high readings would have to be supposed to be that - possible, of course, but I think unlikely.
Mike
=======
PS
Just checked Meteorology and the "Wind Rose" for Barrow in September, 2011 (Easterlies), Oct/Nov 2011 (Data not available), so I checked Nov 2010 - one strong westerly, which would have carried news of methane over the ESAS (not 'discovered' until 2011 - possibly not happening in 2010)
Having fun again - I'm going out on a limb - and suggesting that when the meteorology is available for Barrow in Nov 2011 - there will be a west wind - and that wind brought news of Semiletov's "fountains".
=======
PS #2
If there are still any diehards following this - this is the way science is sometimes done - in your face - back and forth - following the evidence - making predictions - which will ultimately be decided by the evidence.
I've personally learned everything I know about the East Siberian Arctic Shelf in the last few days - and I didn't even know of the existence of CH4 monitoring at Barrow, or the Earth System Research Laboratory stations.
Now I'm investigating the details of the wind rose at Barrow historically, and imagining those natural gas fumes wafting about the Arctic Ocean. Note the paucity of stations capable of monitoring CH4 down wind of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, save for Barrow, which would actually require a West wind to deliver methane to its sensors.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/index.php?code=BRW
---------------
PS #3
The Russian Federation may have monitoring stations proximate to the outfall of the Lena River or the Yenisei.
Who can find out if they picked up Semiletov's fountains?????
========
PS #4
Aleph!
Check our the wind rose month by month for 2011 - you'll see that in September 2011 - almost no wind from the West - all powerful Easterlies - hence no sensor reading of Semiletov's fountains...
Man, this is fun -
==========
It's a mixed bag. I'm glad the ESRL is making so much data available online, but at the same time I'm horrified that we haven't made it a priority to set up a much more dense network of monitoring stations, particularly around the Arctic, given the severity of our climate predicament. We could have much better knowledge of the state of the Earth if we decided it was worth the expense.
Thanks for pointing out the meteorology info at ESRL.
Hey -- just wondering if there's a coincidence between today's news of a Russian oil rig that was being towed into place sinking in the same general area as ESAS, or am i way off base? Someone earlier in this thread mentioned that methane-saturated water would lose the density necessary to support ships, thereby creating liquid sink holes of a sort. Is this true? And if so, can the oil companies be ignorant about it?
Wow ~ dechen palmo~ I has not heard that story... Will try Google and see if I can find it..
But your question could the oil companies be ignorant of it? __ Oh yeah, they have well proven that they can be very ignorant about many things.
Like ignoring the masssive amount of methane in the Gulf of Texaco, where they still kept drilling the Horizon well that finally blew a gaskt and BP then ruined the Gulf waters' for maybe forever with the Corexit chemicals... "Forever" in human's time anyway.
I don't know if methane in the water could cause a ship to sink, but It sure could become very dangerous in any specific area if the fuel/air mixture was right for a great big natural gas explosion, which could be set of by just static electrcity, or a lit match or a cig lighter, a spark from dropping a steel tool on a steel deck, etc.
I do not know either, but have seen a science show that explored the idea that disappearances of ships and planes in the Bermuda Triangle could be caused by methane bubbles, whose specific gravity is less than air thus providing a sudden drop in buoyancy.
Yes a Russian oil rig just sunk in the Arctic.
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1521/660/Four_dead,_49_missing_as_Russian_oil_rig_sinks.html
No, it happened just off Sakhalin, which is just north of Japan, nowhere near the Arctic.
There you go confusing everyone with the facts, again.
Actually anyplace north of that area of Japan is very close to the Arctic Circle... I understand from first reports the rig was on it's way to the Arctic Ocean to an area where Russia claims is their legal territory.
Btw, for the record, I never said it sunk due to releasing methane and NULL is still doing his thing... Try to discredit Wayne,, LOL.
Actually anyplace north of that area of Japan is very close to the Arctic Circle
"Very close" is not how I would characterise Sakhalin's relationship to the Arctic Circle, or even just "close", but I suppose it depends on how you want to see it. If you view Miami as being "very close" to Montreal, then okay. :-)
Oh, thank you for the correction ~.Mairead~
Guess my World Atlas is wrong.. . According to it, the top of Northern Japan is in the near same zone as Siberia and Nome, Alaska... Always thought they were very near the Arctic Circle,,,, or in it.
Well guess not, but it's a hell of a lot further north than Montreal, which is only 60 miles north of Plattsburg, New York... I hate it when my books are wrong, I put that damn $112 dollar Atlas in the re-cycle trash and wrote a letter to the publisher and told em off... Thanks again.
Hey; are you still worried about over-population? Stop worrying,,, when runaway GW begins in the very near future, that will handle over population just perfectly.
If we just do what NULL and his other sidekick ~Alycon~ say we should ALL do, runaway GW will most certainly soon occur.
Their solutions to the problem are to (do nothing), because everyone on Earth has to reduce their personal carbon footprint by 6% and stop eating meat and by 2100 all will be well..... Problem solved.
But don't do anything at all to reverse the Arctic sea ice from melting off, uh-uh, let it melt, nothing to be concered about there.
Arctic methane, "The Ticking Time Bomb" ? Ahhh,, laughable says NULL,, that isn't a serious (proven) problem, even though Semiletov MAY be right after all... The primary problem is too many people, gotta use condoms and be happy, eat spinach, cucumber and carrot sandwiches,,, turn,off the lights at night and that will save our dumb asses and we can continue to burn coal to boil water..... Fools!
Guess my World Atlas is wrong.. . According to it, the top of Northern Japan is in the near same zone as Siberia and Nome, Alaska... Always thought they were very near the Arctic Circle,,,, or in it.
What the relationship looks like depends on the projection, so don't chuck the book yet. The best non-distorting projection I know of is the one Bucky Fuller invented - it unpeels the globe like an orange, but relative sizes and distances are preserved very well.
The actual distance from Sakhalin to the Circle can be calculated by the difference in latitude. The Circle is at 66 degrees, and Sakhalin at 46. One degree of latitude (which doesn't change size the way longitude does) is 69 miles. Thus 20 degrees is 1390 miles, about 30 miles less than from Miami to Montréal.
As to letting climate change handle the overpop problem: not if I can help it, and bad luck to any who'd suggest such a thing.
Okay... I read a news report the rig left from Sakhalin and sunk north of Japan. The top of Jana is close to the Arctic Circle... Anyway I kept my Atlas afterall.
Runaway GW won't happen if you or I were in charge, but we're not in charge... We're in very serious trouble if something isn't done very soon to stop the Arctic methane from releasing by less than a percent or two.
If it does burst out, over population won't be a problem anymore.. And over population is a serious problem,, the Arctic methane threat is the most serious right now... Peace and I do apreciate your courtesy when I err with word use... "In the Arctic" was not specifically correct.
No, just that the location got garbled somehow. The rig sank in a storm off Sakhalin, on the east coast not the north coast. Near Japan and Korea, not the Siberian Shelf.
Horrible for the 49 people still missing and the 4 confirmed dead, but nothing directly to do with the methane.
More methane news from the New York Times:
As Permafrost Thaws, Scientists Study the Risks
Mairead,
“Remember that we're talking about this world, not some abstract world…”
Well, OK…
“and that the problem is population, not anything else.” Well, you haven’t proved that yet so I can’t stipulate to that.
I remember now why you didn’t convince me before. Your thought experiments have misled you again. As long as we’re talking about the real world, let’s. The high and low numbers you give are nowhere near anything that is possible. Yes, if there were 3 people on Earth there would be no global ecological problem(except…suppose 2 of them are really poor, but the richest 1 of the 3 has a hobby of exploding nuclear weapons just for fun); and if there were 500 quadrillion people…well, there couldn’t be.. That’s why I’ve said many times that if we can avoid climate catastrophe long enough by using other solutions we may at some point have a population problem. And I’ve agreed in almost every post that localized population problems (which are actually just symptoms of the global inequality/consumption-of-the-rich problem) make local solutions harder and we should make the changes in society that fix that: equality, security, access to contraceptives, empowerment of women…)
But we’re talking about the real world and the real possibilities we can reach, not my silly numbers and not yours. We need to come up with solutions that may actually work.
So I was looking forward to your program and solutions with real numbers, but again you don’t give any numbers there, only some theoretical solution. So let me supply the numbers for it:
I’ve repeatedly proposed a completely effective birth control solution: no children born anywhere in the world for 20 years as a thought experiment, leading to a reduction of our 7 billion to 6.89 billion in that 20 years. (about the most possible time we have to solve climate cataclysm. If we’re lucky.) You’re proposing about half that reduction, so maybe (rounding off): 6.95 billion. Is that the number you think will solve our problems? If not, what population solution do you have that WILL solve the problem?
Then you propose a couple of solutions I agree with, sort of to pretty much. I think they’d be better without the projections and scapegoating of the rich though, because after all, WE are the rich. We are the ones who have overconsumed, overemitted and allowed even greater consumption by the super rich (as well as distraction of us, partly by scapegoating the poor). But of course getting rid of capitalism and your other solutions have almost nothing to do with reducing population over the next 20 years. So does that mean you don’t really think population is the problem? Suppose we do really well with the population program; we still have more than 2 degrees C worth of GHGs emitted already and in the pipeline (emitted but not fully warming anything yet) and no sign yet of slowing, let alone stopping GHGs. We have tipping points galore, and we have, fortunately, real solutions that will replace coal, oil and gas, reducing emissions, and proven ways to sequester the carbon we can’t avoid: efficiency, solar, wind, tree-planting, permaculture… For more details, check the other articles on population on Grist and CD. So once again, how do you think population is either the problem or the solution?
I knew you wouldn't listen. Pester someone else from now on.
I have explained perfectly well; you continue not to understand. I don't want to leave it hanging and I don't want to be cruel, but maybe you should have a friend read the exchange and explain it to you.
J4zonian wrote:
I’ve repeatedly proposed a completely effective birth control solution: no children born anywhere in the world for 20 years as a thought experiment, leading to a reduction of our 7 billion to 6.89 billion in that 20 years.
Your math is way off here. Given the current worldwide mortality rate (from the CIA World Factbook) of 8.37 per thousand per year, after 20 years of no births the world population would fall from 7.0 billion to 5.917 billion:
1.0 - 0.00837 = 0.99163
0.99163^20 = 0.845265
0.845265 x 7.0 = 5.917
Ah, but what makes you think he's playing it straight (i.e., that his apparent mistakes are honest rather than a baited hook)?
I used to believe he was being authentic, but his persistent failure to respond substantively, empty assertions, claims of victimhood, and insults have finally sobered me up.
Oh yeah! His math is WAyyyyyy off... and NO births for 20 years is a credible thought?
Who in hell actually knows exactly how many annual deaths there are per 1,000 world wide every year?
Who takes the census in all of the world's countries and counts dead babies? __ Shitt, the census was said by experts to be off by a million or more in New Jersey alone. after the last census. The people counters were sitting in beer joints filling out paperwork.
Anyway; the most serious issue for everyone on Earth is not screwing around and having kids, it's the Arctic methane threat and disrupting this thread with bullshit is bullshit... There are many very serious problems, there is only one which is the most deadly serious and we have to try to correct it now... NOW!
Wayne,
Exactly, those are pretty much my points. The 20 year no-children thing is---once again---a thought experiment whose very impossiblity is what proves my point--that we cannot rely on population solutions to solve global warming.
Mairead, Aleph,
I assure you I’ve been researching and arguing in good faith, to get to the solution that will best get us out of the horrific mess we’re in. World population is by necessity an estimate with a wide range of reasonable figures. Not being an expert in the field I cobbled together what I have from a number of sources, including the UNFPA State of World Population report, a Guardian UK article and some other organizations that seem trustworthy—academic sources like Ted Rosling, secondary sources like ClimateProgress and the Pachamana Alliance (confirmed by a second source when I can) even some from the World Bank. Everyone makes assumptions and has biases, but I’d trust the UN over the CIA anytime for coming up with the least ideological numbers. But let’s say Aleph’s numbers are right, and at the end of 20 years we would have nearly 6 billion instead of nearly 7.
Mairead, is that low enough to solve our climate problems?
And don’t tell me I’m the one who has failed to answer substantively. I have tried and tried and tried to get population-obsessed people to talk about numbers and real solutions. It seems to me it’s simply loony to talk about population without talking about numbers; it’s a subject that is clearly entirely about numbers. But over and over when I try they only distract, attack and then disappear when I insist and it finally comes down to answering for real.Then they pop up on another article.
(queerplanet, for example, comes in as s/he did here, makes a few unsupported, unreferenced, incorrect assertions and never responds to factual debates.) I’m glad to have a discussion about the relative credibility of numbers, although the more sources I find on it the more sure I become that population is not the problem or solution to climate change. So at some point, faced with people who stubbornly refuse to talk about the only important issue (numbers), and yet continue to spread what I firmly believe to be false and destructive lies and confusion about the solution, (which also happen to racist in effect if not also in intent, and a tactic funded by the climate denying delayalists Koch, Exxon, et al), I get angry and start denouncing their tactics. Aleph, I do appreciate, finally, your willingness to talk about real stuff.
So what’s your opinion? Is a 20 year decline to 6 billion enough to solve our problems? (Except, please remember, my 0% ‘solution’ is a farther-than-possible fantasy that would actually be an utter cultural and demographic disaster in its own right if it actually happened. The real numbers of an extraordinarily successful real-world program, as in Mairead’s proposal, would be something on the order of half as effective, so maybe 6.5 billion.)
What do you mean "let's say Aleph's numbers are right"? Are you stipulating something contrary to the accepted facts? Do you have a more reliable estimate of the worldwide mortality rate? (Your number, declining to 6.89 billion after 20 years, implies a worldwide mortality rate of 0.7916 per thousand per year, off by an order of magnitude.)
What do you mean "Aleph, I do appreciate, finally, your willingness to talk about real stuff"? What imaginary stuff have I previously been talking about?
I do sincerely appreciate your thoughts on permaculture, a vital subject for the future of humanity. But I am baffled by your hostility to those who acknowledge the population dimension of the problem. The number of humans the Earth can sustain without permanent harm to ecosystems is finite. There's absolutely no conflict between this concept of carrying capacity and permaculture. You would be a more effective advocate for permaculture if you were not obsessed with this nonexistent conflict.
Aleph,
These discussions are rife enough with strife; if when I agree to your numbers you start arguing with my agreement this is going to take a very very very long time.
Did I not say pretty much that since no one knows EXACTLY what the human population of Earth is, and there is a wide range of estimates reasonable people would consider reasonable, that although for the reasons mentioned I originally went with the figures i used (that people seem to be so set against) I WOULD BE WILLING to use your figures. So let's. Tell me please, someone, if you think getting our population down to 5.9 billion in 20 years will be sufficient in itself to solve the climate crisis?
Everything else here seems like a tangent to me. That question is the essence of the argument at the moment, as far as I can tell. So shall we argue about whether I'm right about that?
Where's that smiley face app when you need it?
(And as for the other, "finally..." please don't assume I'm insulting you when other interpretations are just as likely. We'll make progress so much quicker that way. I think I am both a good enough writer and am made angry enough sometimes here that when I insult you I believe you'll know it. What I meant was, while many OTHERS in this long long comment section are ignoring numbers, it's nice to have you in the mix to pay attention to them.
Of course I have no problem with the concept of carrying capacity. What I'm saying is that the actual human carrying capacity of Earth:
1. is higher than many people here assume, perhaps lacking exactly that awareness of permaculture which you are appreciating, and which stretches the boundaries of what is known to be possible; and
2. depends on lots and lots of other factors: technology, equality, consumption rates, just to name 3 crucial ones. Without discussing them, any talk of carrying capacity is talk of angels on the heads of pins.
And let's please not jump on J4 because s/he wants us all to live on a planet with 47 bazillion people crushed together like only Tokyo subway packers could manage. I suspect my idea of an ideal human population is not that different than yours, and I only mention the "higher than assumed" thing because I don't want people to despair and stop trying to help in other ways if we get to some number they assume automatically means the end of everything. We may have a few tricks up our organic sustainably grown, permaculturally guilded bamboo sleeve yet. We may be able to turn those assumptions about carrying capacity on their heads. (We know heads have many assumptions but Does an ASSumption have a head?)
As to: "this nonexistent conflict", more in the next post.
In combination with other measures, limiting human population growth is indisputably central to limiting human impacts on Earth systems: rivers, forests, oceans, and air. Your recurring straw man "Would a lower population be sufficient in itself?" is just silly.
Of course we don't have absolutely exact figures on practically anything. That's why we have peer-reviewed research, in order to develop reliable estimates. There is not a "wide range" of reasonable estimates where current (as opposed to projected) population statistics are concerned: birth rate, mortality rate, and total. The mortality rate you implicitly cited is flat-out wrong.
The onset of the sixth extinction is strong empirical evidence that the carrying capacity of the Earth, for humans who behave as humans currently behave, has been exceeded. The severity of the ecological crisis calls for all possible measures. However dramatically human behavior is modified for the better, human activities will exact some toll on the environment. The number of humans is one of two factors: the per-capita overhead of a human times the number of humans equals the total impact of humans.
It is unreasonable to say that paying attention to population detracts from efforts to lower per capita consumption. How could it? To the contrary, creating spurious divisions between conscientious people who should be allies is a disservice.
Well, clearly Null I am disputing that population is central. I think it’s pretty clear my numbers (poorest 80% of people causing 7% of damage, eg) show it’s not central, that the consumption of the rich is central and everything else, THOUGH IMPORTANT (population growth, homelessness, deforestation in Tibet, the oppression in Libya, Egypt and Syria… etc) is secondary. Have I not said in almost every post that we should take strong measures to stop population growth? That doesn’t seem to be enough for the PIPPs.
I repeatedly show numbers and then have to answer post after post after post trying to get PIPPs to respond to them substantively. Then the main response is to argue about EXACTLY how many people are dancing on this pinhead of a planet. I’ve been told on the one hand no one knows what the population of New Jersey is and then criticized for saying we don’t know exactly what the population of the world is. Hmmmm.
So again, I accept your numbers, leading to 5.9-6.5 billion in 2032. I have repeatedly said population growth is A problem, and that’s not enough for the PIPPs. They claim population is THE problem. If that’s true, switching to efficiency, solar, wind, reforesting, permaculture… won’t have any effect because it doesn’t reduce the population. That is clearly wrong and I won’t accept it. I know you have more subtlety than that and can hold the 2 ideas in your head at once, and don’t disbelieve or ignore those solutions. But many people can’t. The message from the PIPPs is that population is the problem, and that WILL lead to the dismissal of those as solutions. It already is. Arizona has scapegoated people of color. It has not, despite its prime location in the sunshine belt, mandated solar or energy self-sufficiency in every building built from now on. It has not moved to rapidly and massively retrofit government buildings and switch to solar-charged EVs. It’s willing to spend money on guns and computer lists of supposed offenders but not put on solar panels, efficiency, wind generators. The “population” frame has been activated and conscious thought has been stopped. But it doesn’t end there.
If we allow population to be thought of as the main reason for climate change, we will try to fix climate change by limiting population. (That makes sense, right?) Since birth control is not enough, (>5.9 billion in 2030) then the only population control left is increasing the death rate. This does not mean I’M saying we should kill more people; I’m saying that’s the only solution left IF POPULATION IS THE PROBLEM and birth control isn’t enough, and people who believe that will allow others to die if they believe it to be the only way out. They will, for example, close themselves to the suffering of others; close our borders; stop, reduce or not increase foreign aid at a time when it’s absolutely crucial to increase it dramatically for OUR survival. They will allow wars; sit by passively and watch our per capita burning of fossil fuels continue to rise while others die of thirst and starvation and toxic contamination as glaciers melt and coasts flood. They will believe it’s the fault of the poor people of color and feel justified in any repression of any group that threatens their right to burn fossil fuels and militarize everything. They will continue to allow the delay of the real solutions: switching to renewables and sequestering carbon by increasing forests and soil organics. They will continue to lead us toward the end we both are trying to avoid:
“The onset of the sixth extinction is strong empirical evidence that the carrying capacity of the Earth, for humans who behave as humans currently behave, has been exceeded.”
The acceleration of extinction is strong evidence that SOMETHING is wrong, but whether it’s “carrying capacity” (by which I assume you mean “population”; correct me if I’m wrong.) is another question. I think it’s evidence that some people are consuming too much, while others consume at rates that don’t threaten anything at the moment.
THAT’S my problem with this argument. Whatever the motivation of people here, the population meme IS being used in the US to slow down the most important solution: reduction of fossil fuel use and switch to renewables. This is being done by Koch, Exxon, the US Chamber of Commerce and their network of unthink tanks and political organizations dedicated to preserving the profits of coal, oil, gas and nuclear companies. The main problem we have is the consumption of the rich, including us, and that is what we have to solve to survive.
Who is advancing the argument that population is THE problem? I haven't seen anyone here make the straw man case that you're so interested in refuting. Certainly not Mairead, or me.
Perhaps I've not articulated it well. Population is central in the sense that the width of a rectangle is one of two terms used to calculate its area. The height of the rectangle is per capita consumption. In a culture where overconsumption is endemic such as the US, overpopulation is of much greater concern. By the same token, in a country with a large population such as the US, overconsumption is of much greater concern.
If what I'm interested in is the area of the rectangle (total consumption), an argument over whether the height or width is more important serves no purpose.
I'm aware of the Koch brothers, Exxon, and the US Chamber of Commerce funding climate denialist propaganda. I haven't heard about fossil fuel interests funding organizations dedicated to population control, or otherwise advancing the "population is THE problem" agenda you object to.
I'm not saying it's not happening, but I'm skeptical, because the PTB are good capitalists, and capitalism is a Ponzi scheme predicated on endless growth. Investing energy in population control doesn't sound like corporate style to me. If you have any solid information on corporate support for population control, I'd be interested in hearing about it.
I do actually argue that overpopulation is "The" problem, AN, in the sense that solving it is the only thing (my 100K/100T Gedankenexperiment) both necessary and—IFF we had arbitrary time—sufficient to make the threat of pan-extinction go away.
But as you point out with your elegant rectangle analogy, we do not have arbitrary time in which to get the required area decrease by shrinking only the population sides of the rectangle.
Whence the need to "dope the process" by simultaneously adjusting the grossly uneven per-capita-burdening dimension, which makes the overall shape currently better represented by a near-triangle or asymmetrical trapezoid than by a rectangle.
We must make that adjustment by sequestering the takers whose greeds have got us into this fix and doing all the other things needed to create an attractive world that the healthy, adaptive majority everywhere will willingly support. If we're lucky, that combination of humane pop reduction and frantic world-reconstruction will produce a pop x burden rectangle of sufficiently-small area in time to save us.
(edit: it was embarrassing to realise that I'd to rewrite my imagery because I'd totally deformed your rectangle analogy. furrfu!)
If the rectangle is 30 x 20 it's not so important, but if the rectangle is 7x 80 it matters very much whether you pay attention to the height or the width. What do you say to the fact that the poorest 80% of world population causes 7% of greenhouse gases (and similar proportions of most ecological problems (and therefore social and political problems, I think, but let's not argue about that.) What do you think about that 80/7 thing?
Sorry that it's taken me a couple of days to respond.
Your 80/7 split sounds credible to me (but I'd still like to know the source). Right now I'm still grieving over the Durban agreement, which has done much to destroy the concept of common but differentiated responsibilities at the foundation of the Kyoto Protocol. Andrew Light of the Center for American Progress recently wrote an embarrassingly awful apology for Matt Stern and the rest of Obama's negotiating team in Durban.
Democratic Party hacks want to portray the Durban agreement as a token of progress for Obama. The relevance of this to your concern over the 80/7 inequity is that Durban is now celebrated, in some quarters, for planning that all countries shall reduce emissions "equally," using the most bizarre definition conceivable of the word "equally."
Apparently, equal percentage reductions for all countries, regardless of current emission levels, is what Durban contemplates. Nothing resembling equal per capita (cumulative) carbon emissions has ever been recognized as a goal by climate negotiators. If it were, residents of poor countries could double their emissions, while north Americans would have to cut back to one-tenth of their current footprint.
This is a tangent from your question, but it's what I'm thinking about regarding issues of population and global inequity: Durban has made it almost impossible to even imagine a future agreement based on justice.
Aleph Null,
I agree with you about Durban, although having watched the last 2 COPS closely I expected nothing different this time. But Durban is not permanent; it is just one more manifestation of the clinging to power of those we are revolting against. If we succeed we can then forge a new international agreement that respects equality and has an interest in democracy and not only recognizes what is needed to survive but is willing to do it.
Again, I’ve cobbled together the stats from many sources: I was using 80% of people/20% of GHGs and the 80/7 figure appeared on climateprogress.org recently; don’t have the exact post; for some reason it wouldn’t save on my computer and now I can’t find it via search. I included the references the first few times I used them (more than a year ago) but now can’t find either my posts or the original citations. (My hard drive died in the meantime and was replaced so I lost a lot of such things). I’ll keep trying to find all the sources I’ve used.
Ted Rosling has some related ones about income rather than GHGs but it's related:
www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html :
bottom 20% of people have 2% of income, middle 60% of people have 24% of income, top 20% of people have 74% of income. The World Bank has similar figures: wealthiest 20% consuming almost 77% ; poorest 20% consuming 1.5%, leaving 22% for the middle 60% of people.
“Breaking that down slightly further, the poorest 10% account for just 0.5% and the wealthiest 10% accounted for 59% of all the consumption.”
http://www.globalissues.org/issue/235/consumption-and-consumerism
After Hopenhagen I was almost there, but now I’m absolutely ready to lump Obama in with the rest of the climate denying delayalists as having committed crimes against humanity and the Earth. He has had the best chance to save the biosphere that anyone in history or prehistory has ever had, and has utterly failed, by choice. He has chosen to throw in (keep, rather) his lot with those who continue to block any real action, and deserves, with the whole of the Rove-Cheney administration, the Kochs and the CEOs of Exxon, Monsanto, the US Chamber of Commerce, and the rest of the usual suspects, the worst possible condemnation and punishment possible.
I don’t know what that punishment could possibly be. If I believed in the death penalty at all I would say a trial in US courts where they still consider that would be the thing, rather than the world court, where they don’t. But the more evil they become the more sure I am that violence is no solution, so I don’t know what would be appropriate. Banishment? Forcing them to walk from storm to flood to fire to drought to refugee camp, carrying all their possessions like those they’ve relegated to destruction and to thus expose them to the sight, sound, feel and smell of the results of their own works? Crowding them all into the space station, to watch and listen to honest news (Pacifica radio?) as global civilization and ecosystem after ecosystem collapses because of their actions?
You don’t have to apologize for the tangent. Tangents are the inevitable result of real discussions about population, I’ve learned. Of course my questions about population haven’t been answered and no one has even come close to showing that population solutions alone would come anywhere near avoiding catastrophe. But I’ve come to expect that. It happens every single time. All we get are vague and empty proposals and irrelevant and/or completely unrealistic numbers. Those who pay attention are left with the knowledge that we have to first last and foremost address the consumption of the rich, and while it would certainly help to reduce population growth, that is far far smaller and less important solution. If someone can use numbers to show otherwise or has questions I’ll be happy to continue; otherwise I guess I’m finished here. The PIPPs have once again reinforced the meme and image of masses of poor dark people as the problem and thus delayed action on the real solutions. We can still take charge and change things, however; it only requires that we give up hope, hopelessness, misdiagnosing and our privileged lives, and do it.
Here is both science and solutions from many quarters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=uNCrcTy0NFQ
Radical new platform...but calls it right I think. Would love to hear what anyone here thinks.
Can start and minute 5...
Please take the time to see it through! This is important.
J4zonian - re Population & Numbers !
The following information is from Lester Brown's book "Plan B 4.0", available as a free pdf file at:
www.earthploicy.org
------------
I will paraphrase Lester's words, Chapter 8, "Feeding eight billion people well" (p. 233-234)
Question: How many people can the world support?
"...at the U.S. level of 800 kilograms of grain per person annually for food and feed, the 2-billion ton annual world harvest of grain would support 2.5 billion people.
At the Italian level ..of close to 400 kilograms..5 billion..
At the India level..of 200 kilograms.. 10 billion
Among the United States, Italy and India, life expectancy is highest in Italy...
Perhaps a tentative and sustainable goal might then be a population of five billion subsisting on a Mediterranean-type diet that includes meat, cheese and seafood, but all in moderation...
------------------
My own opinion - this is a good approximation to reality. A vegan diet is not as healthy as the mixed Mediterranean diet outlined in very rough form above, and is in addition, natural.
Manysummits
=======
Vegan Italian cuisine, that's the ticket! I've been refining my spinach-leek lasagne recipe for the better part of a year. What with substituting tofu for ricotta and doing without eggs, it has yet to turn out perfectly, but it keeps getting better.
A vegan diet is healthier for the body, for the conscience, and for the planet. Keep in mind that meat ain't what it used to be, what with all the dope fed to livestock in CAFOs. But judging from your numbers, the Mediterranean diet has about half the meat of the typical American diet, anyway.
I like the picture of 5 billion Italians. What a fun world that would be!
Weston Price wrote a book ca 1936: "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration", following seven or eight years of fieldwork with his wife (full-time), looking at indigenous groups, examining their teeth (he was a dentist), in an attempt to find 'controls', to compare with the US population. There is still a "Price-Pottinger" foundation dedicated to his findings (on the web).
Linus Pauling found Price's discoveries illuminating - a foundation document of field investigation and then - conclusions.
No indigenous group was ever found that was vegan.
The details discussed in "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" went way beyond 'teeth'. I won't bore you with details - this is also a non-trivial subject, involving Price's observations and conclusions, and those of modern anthropology and archaeology - the history, as it were, of mankind.
When I say a mixed diet is healthiest and most natural, I mean it.
Proverbially, 'Man does not live by bread alone.'
Our mental architecture is part of us, our feelings and instincts, our endocrine system, etc...
Use it or lose it applies to these traits as well as muscle mass. To feel truly alive you must risk life and limb - and to make good decisions, you must have all systems "green".
In a way, what could be more obvious than that we have not been living like this, i.e., in a full and healthy way, throughout civilized history?
Evidence rules - we are on the cusp of collapse - possibly extinction.
Man is an Ice Age Hunter, for better or worse. Freeman Dyson advised that 'sanity was learning to live in harmony with nature's laws', and I agree.
First step - find out who you are. Very difficult - embedded in civilization.
Manysummits
=======
First step - find out who you are. Very difficult - embedded in civilization.
Very true. And the second is to find out "wha's like us".
Many individuals are never able to get beyond the obvious: shape, sex, skin color, nationality. The American tribes' names for themselves all work out to "the people". To them, members of other tribes were something else.
It's a big advance to begin to see even members of other species as being individuals whose lives are meaningful to themselves, who use tools and language, who experience sophisticated emotions and have relationships that sometimes even cross species boundaries, and whom we should therefore maybe not regard as lunch.
"to see even members of other species as being individuals whose lives are meaningful to themselves"
I've always had pets around since I was a child. But there came a time in my life, not really a moment but an unconscious transition, when they were no longer pets, and became companions. From that point onward, concern about cruelty became a strong motivator of my vegan practice. The lifetime of misery suffered by victims of commercial meat operations is unconscionable.
But our obligation to future inhabitants has to do with our personal carbon footprint. The most consequential individual choice anyone can make, to get by on less energy, is the choice to do without meat (according to a thoroughly documented Worldwatch study). I've never encountered anyone concerned about cruelty to animals who was not a vegetarian. It would be hypocritical for an animal-rights activist to eat meat. The same goes for people concerned about global warming.
It would be hypocritical for an animal-rights activist to eat meat. The same goes for people concerned about global warming.
Well said. I agree with that 100%, but the sad fact is, even though many people would claim they are fond of animals or that they don't particularly look forward to global catastrophe, they still won't do anything much if it means they have to make some kind of sacrifice to their own comfortable lifestyle. And that just goes for the relatively few that actually care at all.
Many,
As I mentioned in previous posts there are a number of assumptions hidden behind those carrying capacity numbers. Carrying capacity may apply more or less directly and simply to lynxes and snowshoe hares but humans are clearly not the same. One hidden assumption is about equality, one is that we will grow that diet using only the technology (in the broadest sense) used in each of those countries now. That is, the "US level" not only assumes a (falsely average) diet, it assumes growing it with feedlots, pesticides, phosphate rock and natural gas nitrogen, etc etc. as we do now. It assumes a certain productivity of land using conventional chemical ag and the same crops we're growing now... etc. If we change that inequality, or that productivity, we change the carrying capacity.
Suppose we use permaculture to decrease the need for fertilizers and pesticides by using more diverse communities of plants, animals etc. in a way that each meets the needs of the others. As do the traditional Native American 3 sisters: corn provides a stalk for the beans to grow up, beans fix nitrogen for the nitrogen-sucking corn, squash shades the ground (reducing weeds and increasing water retention) and attracts pollinating insects who attract other insects who form a complex community of checks and balances which make plagues of crop-consuming insects and diseases far less likely. We can build much more complex communities than that, supplying many more needs (food, medicine, nitrogen, minerals, dye, fiber, mulch, food and homes for wildlife (worms, insects, birds, and all the other irreplaceable beings) soil structure....and on and on.
We can use perennials instead of annuals, decreasing tilling and increasing carbon sequestration, (some perennial grasses have 9 foot roots, e.g. that partially die back, leaving all that organic matter deep in the ground, when the top of the plant gets appropriately grazed (right animal in right concentration at right time...). We can grow food forests, with productive plants not just at one level like a uniform corn crop (uni-corn?) but on up to 7 levels! Canopy trees, smaller trees, shrubs, herbs, ground covers, vines, roots-and-tubers. Wendell Berry pointed out that when we took animals off farms we turned one solution into 2 problems--the need for chemical fertilizers and the vast pileup and runoff of manure from feedlots and broiler houses...
By reintroducing ducks to snails we reduce both crop "pests" and the need to grow, formulate, manufacture, transport, weigh exactly and charge for protein which ends up as duck and egg. By reintroducing sheep to a cooperative system of suburban yard farms we provide milk, cheese, butter, cream, wool, meat (if you're into that sort of thing) free hand-beauty product, and eliminate fossil-fueled lawn mowers. We can increase yields per acre, in other words, while saving energy and reducing costs (although raising labor costs, IOW, providing jobs, and at a relatively low capital cost at that). There go your assumptions about how many people on what diet the Earth can support.
Does this mean I want a world of 193 gajillion people? Of course not, it means I realize we are going to overshoot an ideal number of humans for a while and wouldn't it be nice to be able to feed them all instead of assuming, even welcoming, massive die-offs, wars, diseases and starvation and thirst, or embrace tyranny and oppression in the name of necessary population reduction?
Combine all that with this: in Roy Rappaport's study of the Tsembaga, New Guinea forest horticulturalists, he shows a remarkable, efficient*, self-regulating system of food production, religion, diplomacy, fun (feast days necessitated by conflict over land resources--what better excuse for a party?!), healthy diet and I don't know what-all. Because of our individual and collective psychological problems, our religion decreases our sustainability; our agriculture is a war on the Earth, our diplomacy is a tool of war on other countries, We have a lot to learn from "primitive" people with such sophisticated systems that we still don't understand them. Permaculture is a small beginning; if we live long enough we can create something amazing out of it.
5 billion sounds real nice. (I'd go lower, ideally, but let's leave that for now.) HOW you gonna get there? Not with birth control, not in 20 years, which is how long we have to avoid huge reductions in Earth's carrying capacity. Population growth has slowed tremendously since the 60s. It continues to slow. Within a couple of decades most countries in the world will be at about ZPG. With some moderate effort we could speed that tremendously and achieve global near-ZPG in a couple of decades. Reducing actual population after that is another story—something that needs to be done at a measured pace to avoid societal upheaval. It’s the work of centuries.
In any case we can feed as many as we will ever have, better than we feed the worst off now, by changing 1. inequality and 2. agriculture. (Part of that is because reducing inequality reduces population growth. )
* more food calories out than work and other energy in—the exact opposite of our incredibly inefficient agriculture system we are constantly told is efficient because the vast majority of former farm laborers are hanging out on city street corners with no work.
J4zonian
I'm depending a lot on Lester Brown for those numbers as to the carrying capacity of the Earth. I think Lester is realistic in that he assumes agribusiness will continue until we get around to permaculture and perennial crops - to best practice farming in general, a la Al Gore, who writes well on this subject in all his books, particularly "Our Choice."
I have read Wes Jackson's stuff - and I am reading Wendell Berry's - "What Matters?" - a collection of his essays up to 2010.
But I am not a farmer, nor do I have a farming background.
I think it is worthwhile to look at numbers like Lester Brown's, because it get's us in the ballpark at least, and most importantly perhaps, gives us a place to start the discussion in more concrete terms.
I'd like to share something I wrote this morning at the coffee shop before going to work installing soffits on a big house, which is a bit like climbing, and is at least a little dangerous - out in the fresh air and weather??
I'm a big fan of dialectical argument - of seeing both sides - presenting and arguing from both sides - because that's the way the world that I know is - not black and white, but overlapping colors - and it is possible to have two thoughts in one's head at the same time - and not be cognitively dissonant - if I may have a bit of fun with a new term in too common usage.
Since we're now talking about what to do in "The Long Emergency", and how to extricate ourselves - or at least survive, I offer the following - which is really all about the environment we all inhabit - and might even stir new ideas into being?
=================================
Perhaps there is a kind of hidden genius in our move to the great cities of the world [1], to our wholesale adoption of Freeman Dyson's "high civilization" - with all its "glories and discontents." [2]
As Carl Sagan himself pointed out: "We were wanderers from the beginning." [3]
The crush and pace of high civilization has brought us to that point, so aptly described in one description of chaos theory that I read and liked - wherein - 'if a system with an enormous amount of energy flowing through it is pushed far enough out of equilibrium - it will invent new ways to spend the energy.'
I am fully aware of the threats to life on Earth now here - entirely due to mankind's presence.
Yet we are often so politically correct in our musings - we forget who we are - and we have never known why we are here - and often forget why we are who we are.
In short - I am uncomfortable thinking that our future belongs to, or should be, as Jefferson thought, and Wendell Berry seems to think, a collection of small farms, diverse and busy in community and spirit, happily chugging along, perhaps vegan in tone, producing food for ourselves long century after long century - supposedly happy and content - and very self-satisfied - and to what conceivable purpose!
The artists bring us back to reality - and among these artists I would include Carl Sagan and Freeman Dyson.
But for sheer power of expression, I will quote from my collection of sayings, in an attempt to convey what I mean, and to show that I am not alone in these contrarian? dialectical beliefs and arguments.
-------------------
"For two thousand years or more man has been subjected to a systematic effort to transform him into an ascetic animal - He remains a pleasure-seeking animal.
Parental discipline, religious denunciation of bodily pleasure, and philosophic exultation of the life of reason have all left man overtly docile - but secretly in his unconscious unconvinced." (Norman O. Brown)
-----------
"Prudence," as Dr. Johnson says, "quenches" that ardour of enterprise by which everything is done that can claim praise or admiration, and represses that generous temerity which often fails and often succeeds." (in one of Bill Tilman's mountain stories)
-----------
Lastly - from Herman Melville's "Moby Dick"
"Long exile from Christendom and civilization inevitably restores a man to that condition in which God placed him, i.e., what is called savagery. Your true whale hunter is as much a savage as an Iroquois. I myself am a savage, owing no allegiance but to the King of the Cannibals; and ready at any moment to rebel against him."
============================
Until we get to know ourselves as well as Herman Melville's main character - until we viscerally make contact with the wild natural world again - we will live in fantasy and delusion of all kinds -
Manysummits
========
[1] "Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Healthier and Happier", by Edward Glaeser
[2] "Warm-Blooded Plants and Freeze-Dried Fish: When emigration from Earth to a planet or a comet becomes cheap enough for ordinary people to afford, people will emigrate", by Freeman J. Dyson, Atlantic Monthly, November 1997.
[3] "Pale Blue Dot", Carl Sagan
Glad there is no longer any worries about the Arctic methane releasing, it's a very depressing subject.
Love veggie Lasanga and Greek cusiane, ever been to the Greek Isles? Fantastic veggie food... The French have some wonderful veggie recipes also. Great Brtian? __ Don't go there.
When we lived in Japan and Taiwan, most of the people ate rice, vegetables and some fish., lots of seaweed too...Then if you aren't all veggie, lots of snakes and monkey meat in Taiwan., whale meat in Japan. Love their oriental crackers and dried peas and squid for snacks.
I make a large pot of vegetable soup once a week.. Here is one of my recipes. Peel and dice five large potatoes and carrots, wash and cook until tender. Saute in olive oil a large diced white and a large diced yellow oinion with one cups of diced red and greeen bell peppers and one cup of diced celery or bok choy.
When tender add a half cup of white zinfidel and simmer for five more minutes.
In a blender put half of the cooked potatoes & carrots and a quart of soy cream, can of creamof mushroom soup and a quarter pound of diced butter, Blend until smooth... You may have to do two seperate blends for all of it,, depending on the sizeof your blender.
Put the bleded veggies and the rest of the cooked veggies in a crock pot and add another quart of warmed soy milk, heat on low heat.... Add salt, pepper to taste an 8th cup each of worchester sauce an soy sauce, one bay leaf and one diced garlic clove and a quarter cup of fresh chopped parsley.
Makes 8 large servings.... Sorry about the butter, but margarine just don't do it.
One may also add half of a cooked diced chicken meat and or, two cups of chopped cooked ham, or spam, or a pint of drained clams or a pound of chopped steamed fish.. Don't like whale meat though, to much like a human... Hogs make good pets too so have a little problem there also.
What other (off topic) issue can we discuss? __ How about antique cars? We have a 1949 Buick roadmaster convertable... Red leather upholstery and twin spot and fog lights... It's jet black with a white top.
Beautiful car, very comftorablel and a very smooth ride, gets 20 mpg too... Has a rear seat speaker and the front seat is electric... Zoommm.. Lots more fun than the Arcitc methane crap.
Why worry about the methane? Listen to what Rush Lowbrow or Refkin says... No problem and stop eating meat for God's sake.. The cows are all sacred too... How about aardvarks, ever had any bar-b qued?
Guess we'd bettr get back to the condom argumet... How may times can a condom be used?
Wayne !
We're all just awaiting confirmation of those 'heart attack dots', and in the meantime, discussing the real issue, which is what to do now.
Has everyone in the US lost their sense of humor?
Mike
======
Let's all sing dirges, dress in sackcloth, and dab ashes on our foreheads. Someone here is much more serious about the health of planet Earth than the rest of us. Oh, please forgive our thoughtless frivolity, wise one.