Threat of mass extinction looms as million species face decline

They want both

Plus a living wage for everyone except factory workers competing with china

 

What number would you give it?

Imagine what it would take to achieve such a number.

 

It would be a very great number and depend on our technological advancement over what period of time

 

Ok, how much money would it take to save all these species?

Throw out a number.

 

Just more doom and gloom from the High Priests of Algoria.

 

Exsactly...

It depends on rate of growth and technology

If times were better, population would be increasing faster.

 

Can you prove that?

Ironic how non conservative concerns are characterized as whining, and conservative concerns are not.... i remember when deficits were an existential concern... when the low labor participation rate was a scandal... when 60 bills were passed to kill obamacare....

 

Al Gore is awesome.

Without him we wouldn't have this Internet thing that broke the DNC media monopoly.

Al Gore

 

Sure, climate has changed for billions of years without human activity, it hasn't stopped yet, and whiny liberals trying to take credit for it doesn't make it so. You folks have been predicting global warming for over 30 years now, and there is no appreciable increase that justifies what has been and is being said today...

 

The fact that climate has changed for billions of years for other reasons does not prove whether or not humans are now impacting the climate. People have got lung cancer before cigarettes... that does not prove that cigarettes CANNOT cause cancer

Predictions of temperature increases have been approximately as predicted. the problem is and always has been what will happen in the long term as temperature increases continue and possibly accelerate. The predictions that have not come to pass are the predictions of skeptics that the earth is entering a cooling cycle

 

Some say government is the solution, but socialism isn't exactly green. How do we get the government to stop subsidizing pollution? Here in CA, we have been paying a clean air tax. So far, it is nothing more than a tax.

The reason increasing taxes is all they can come up with is that the polluters are extremely powerful and no president will bite the hand that elects them. Its a complicated issue, but lets start with pesticides/herbicides. How do we create a demand for organic produce? What if the tax burden was drastically reduced for organic farms and it became less expensive than products sprayed with poison?

 

The climate is bigger than us, we are not doing anything to it. The two largest factors are the sun and the magnetosphere, after that you start looking at scope and scale of things like the atmosphere itself, ocean activity (surface to floor) and a myriad of other factors, none of them involving humanity. In the past there existed far more extreme climates (ice ages to tropical planet) that lasted millions of years, and you folks are whining about one of the most moderate climate periods in global history, and on top of that claiming that humans are somehow messing it up. Wow...

 

So you have ID a problem, what is your solution?

 

Oh bunk, the earth is entering a decades long cooling period. It's mostly about sun spot activity. Earth's climate has always been changing.

The temperature on Mars has risen too, is that our fault too?

 

There is absolutely an appreciable increase today. That is objectively a true fact. And the reasons for those increases have not suddenly stopped.

And the "climate previously changed before humans" excuse is built on a really poor fallacy. You assume that something can not be the cause of an event if there is an example in the past when that event was not caused by something. Just because humans were not the cause of climate change a billion years ago does not mean that it is impossible for humans to be the cause of the current climate change.

 

but it will be easy to predict that many of the same responses from deniers will be used to dismiss the findings from this study.

 

Most of the reasons have to do with overpopulation in Third World countries.

That's where most of the biodiversity is, and where it is disappearing.

 

"We have 10 to 15 years in which we can reverse this," Possingham said. "We don't have to stop people from eating, or using electricity, or breeding — we just have to be cleverer about how we use the land we live on."

Halting habitat destruction is the only solution to the extinction problem, he said. And humans could do that by changing the way we allocate land to different uses, like farming, urban development, and energy production.

 

The reasons for global warming? No.

 

Do you support development in Third World countries?
You'll see three times more CO2 emissions than there are today.

Anyway, we're not talking about global warming here, we're talking about extinction and habitat loss.

Or will you do anything to shift all the blame onto developed countries?

 

Just to let everyone know, almost all of this habitat loss and extinction is going on in other countries.

A lot of it in China, Indonesia, and Brazil.

 

Compared to what?

The climate is always changing, nobody disputes that. Claiming humans are doing and you can fix for the low low cost of global wealth redistribution is something else entirely...

 

Related threads about how China treats the environment:

China's rivers disappearing

Construction of Chinese military bases pave over coral reefs in South Sea

Americans outsourcing their pollution to China

 

*sigh*

This is a troll post. Not going to respond.

 

No it's not, I'm trying to divert the discussion to the real issue.

Yes, there is a global issue. But you're not going to solve it by passing more environmental laws in your own country.

It's a Third World issue.