7 Environmental Problems That Are Much Worse Than We Thought

[TV-VCR 15]

7 Environmental Problems That Are Worse Than We Thought

November 3, 2008 · Print This Article

With as much attention as the environment has been getting lately, you’d think that we’d be further along in our fight to preserve the world’s species, resources and the beautiful diversity of nature. Unfortunately, things aren’t nearly that rosy. In fact, many of the environmental problems that have received the most public attention are even worse than we thought – from destruction in the rain forest to melting glaciers in the Arctic. We’ve got a lot of work to do.

7. Mammal Extinction

Image via National Wildlife Federation

One in four mammals is threatened with extinction. That’s 25%, a huge number that will totally change the ecology of every corner of the earth. We could see thousands of species die out in our lifetime, and the rate of habitat loss and hunting in crucial areas like Southeast Asia, Central Africa and Central and South America is growing so rapidly, these animals barely have a chance.

If you think the extinction of an animal like the beautiful Iberian Lynx is no big deal, and wouldn’t have that much of an effect on the planet, think again. Not only would we be losing – mostly due to our own disregard for our surroundings – so much of the awe-inspiring diversity of nature, mass extinctions like this would cause a serious imbalance in the world’s food chain. When a predator disappears, the prey will multiply. When prey dies out, the predator will see its ranks decrease as well. Many people fail to realize just how interconnected all species on this planet really are.

6. The Ocean Dead Zones

Image via NASA

In oceans around the world, there are eerie areas that are devoid of nearly all life. These ‘dead zones’ are characterized by a lack of oxygen, and they’re caused by excess nitrogen from farm fertilizers, emissions from vehicles and factories, and sewage. The number of dead zones has been growing fast - since the 1960’s, the number of dead zones has doubled every 10 years. They range in size from under a square mile to 45,000 square miles, and the most infamous one of all is in the Gulf of Mexico, a product of toxic sludge that flows down the Mississippi from farms in the Midwest. These ‘hypoxic’ zones now cover an area roughly the size of Oregon.

Spanish researches recently found that many species die off at oxygen levels well above the current definition of ‘uninhabitable’, suggesting that the extent of dead zones in coastal areas that support fishing is much worse than previously thought. Robert Diaz, a Virginia Institute of Marine Science biologist, said “Everything is pointing towards a more desperate situation in all aquatic systems, freshwater and marine. That’s pretty clear. People should be worried, all over the world.”

As if that weren’t bad enough, global warming will likely aggravate the problem. A rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will change rainfall patterns, which could create an increase in runoff from rivers into the seas in many areas.

5. Collapsing Fish Stock

Image via Pew Environment Group

Millions of people across the world depend upon fish as a major staple in their diet. As such, commercial fishermen have been pulling such a huge quantity of fish from the oceans that we’re heading toward a global collapse of all species currently fished – possibly as soon as the year 2048. Like large-scale mammal extinction, the collapse of fish species would have a major impact on the world’s ecosystems.

It’s not too late – yet – if overfishing and other threats to fish populations are reduced as soon as possible. Marine systems are still biologically diverse, but catastrophic loss of fish species is close at hand. 29 percent of species have been fished so heavily or have been so affected by pollution that they’re down to 10 percent of their previous population levels. If we continue the way we are fishing today, there will be a 100 percent collapse by mid-century, so we’ve got to turn this around fast.

4. Destruction of the Rain Forest

Image via Encyclopedia Britannica

‘Saving the rain forest’ has been at the forefront of the environmental movement for decades, yet here we are facing huge losses in the Amazon all the same. You might have thought that, with all the attention the rain forest has gotten, it wouldn’t need so much saving anymore – but unfortunately, global warming and deforestation mean that half of the Amazon rain forest will likely be destroyed or severely damaged by 2030.

The World Wildlife Fund concluded this summer that agriculture, drought, fire, logging and livestock ranching will cause major damage to 55 percent of the Amazon rain forest in the next 22 years. Another 4 percent will see damage due to reduced rainfall, courtesy of global warming. These factors will destroy up to 80 percent of the rain forest’s wildlife. Losing 60 percent of the rain forest would accelerate global warming and affect rainfall in places as far away as India. Massive destruction to the rain forest would have a domino effect on the rest of the world.

The WWF says that the ‘point of no return’, from which recovery will be impossible, is only 15 to 25 years away.

3. Polar Sea Ice Loss

Image via National Snow and Ice Data Center

Polar sea ice is melting at an unprecedented rate, and it’s not showing any signs of slowing down. It’s perhaps the most dramatic, startling visual evidence of global warming, and it’s got scientists rushing to figure out just how big of an effect the melting is going to have on the rest of the world.

British researchers said last week that the thickness of sea ice in the Arctic decreased dramatically last winter for the first time since records began in the early 1990s. The research showed a significant loss in thickness on the northern ice cap after the record loss of ice during the summer of 2007.

Scientific American warns that “human fingerprints have been detected” on both the Arctic and Antarctic regions. Antarctica had previously appeared to be the only continent on the planet where humanity’s impact on climate change hadn’t been observed. The collapse of the Larsen B and Wilkins ice shelves in the Antarctic Peninsula shows just how fast the region is warming.

2. CO2 Levels in the Atmosphere

Image via Visible Earth

The aforementioned polar sea ice loss is yet another sinister sign of carbon dioxide levels building up in the atmosphere – the main force behind global warming. Greenhouse gas emissions caused by our modern way of life – vehicles, power plants, factories, giant livestock farms – will bring devastating climate change within decades if they stay at today’s levels.

Average temperatures could increase by as much as 12 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century if emissions continue to rise, a figure that would easily make the world virtually uninhabitable for humans. A global temperature rise of just 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit would cause a catastrophic domino effect, bringing weather extremes that would result in food and water shortages and destructive floods.

The most recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change represents “the final nail in the coffin” of climate change denial, representing the most authoritative picture to date that global warming is caused by human activity. According to the panel, we must make a swift and significant switch to clean, efficient and renewable energy technologies in order to prevent the worst-case scenario.

1. Population Explosion

Image via Wikimedia Commons

Whether we like to admit it or not, our very own rapidly multiplying presence on this planet is the biggest environmental problem there is, and it’s getting bigger by the minute. We voraciously consume resources, pollute the air and water, tear down natural habitats, introduce species into areas where they don’t belong and destroy ecosystems to the point of causing millions of species to become endangered and, all too often, go extinct.

It took nearly all of human history – from the first days of man on earth until the early 1800’s – to reach a global population of 1 billion. In just 200 years, we’ve managed to reach 6.5 billion. That means the population has grown more since 1950 than in the previous four million years. We’re adding roughly 74 million people to the planet every year, a scary figure that will probably continue to increase. All of those mouths will need to be fed. All of those bodies will need clean water and a place to sleep. All of the new communities created to house those people will continue to encroach upon the natural world.

All seven environmental problems detailed above are very serious, and we’ve got to start treating them that way. We may not have easy solutions, but the fact is, we simply can’t continue living our lives as if everything is peachy. These problems aren’t going to magically solve themselves. We should have begun acting generations ago, but we can’t go back in time, and that means we have to step up our efforts. If we want to keep this planet a healthy place for humans to live – for our grandchildren to enjoy – it’s time to buckle down and do everything in our power to reverse the damage we’ve done.

-Earthfirst.com

quote>

[Easy Bakes 253]

I agree with thier placing of over population in the #1 slot.

[TV-VCR 15]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes I agree with thier placing of over population in the #1 slot.

quote>

Tell me about it!

A safeguard does exist. When some of these critical elements bottom out it would certainly hurt the human population. Although (and it's a bit odd for me to speak of this as a good thing), I think what needs to happen is for a new virus/parasite/etc. to appear that would kill off a majority of the human population (but not drive it into extinction). We're breeding like... rabbits.

[Easy Bakes 253]

The ocean dies off were also excelerated by comercial fish and shrimp farms.which  have huge amounts of waste from the concetrations of feed and fishy/shrimpy waste products going right into the surrounding water.

[hamsterTK 93]

A safeguard does exist. When some of these critical elements bottom out it would certainly hurt the human population. Although (and it's a bit odd for me to speak of this as a good thing), I think what needs to happen is for a new virus/parasite/etc. to appear that would kill off a majority of the human population (but not drive it into extinction). We're breeding like... rabbits.quote>

mmm...yah...

No there is a safeguard, it's called affluence and liberal values, that you don't need to have kids and that you don't want them and you feel it's okay to prevent having them. Most developed post-industrial societies have low or negative growth rates because of this. This is a huge blessing because people in developed countries also use the most resources.

Something the world really needs though is an effective MALE oral contraceptive.

[Yeah_Right 2]

wow thats an eye opener!

ummm, more people = more food = less fish = more farming = more ocean dead zone = more manufacturing (maybe) = more C02 = less polar ice loss

= iron man will save the dayz.

[Shadow Assassin 336]

The aforementioned polar sea ice loss is yet another sinister sign of carbon dioxide levels building up in the atmosphere - the main force behind global warming.quote>

Well, the fact they got a small but significant fact wrong suggests that this article isn't entirely credible. CO2 is not exactly the main force behind global warming - far from it, in fact. That dubious honour goes to methane and other gases that have a similar chemical composition. And you'd be interested to hear, that some scientists have found that it's not gases causing global warming, but the sun's activity that governs such temperature falls and rises.

See here:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

A global temperature rise of just 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit would cause a catastrophic domino effect, bringing weather extremes that would result in food and water shortages and destructive floods.quote>

Bit extreme aren't they? The earth has always adapted to changes to the environment... and I highly doubt 7.2F would create such effects - I mean, we've had bigger temperature variations in the past... and the earth's done just fine, hasn't it?

The addition of unexpected variables (such as toxic waste, etc)... is another matter entirely, though... and should be taken care of immediately to ensure that the earth's ecosystem can cope with this temperature change as it always has done.

Polar sea ice is melting at an unprecedented rate, and it's not showing any signs of slowing down. It's perhaps the most dramatic, startling visual evidence of global warming, and it's got scientists rushing to figure out just how big of an effect the melting is going to have on the rest of the world.quote>

And... guess what? Polar ice actually increased slightly in size last summer. We had a pretty cold summer, though. I highly doubt the melting of the Arctic ice cap would cause too much of a problem, since most of that ice mass (around 90%, I believe) is floating, and therefore displaces the same volume of water that it has in its ice mass... so not much of a change there. But the more concerning thing is actually what effect the ice melting would have on the composition of seawater/freshwater - which can affect ecosystems - but it's happened in the past.

The Antarctic ice mass is increasing every year, though.

I'm sorry, but I have to call BS on that article - it may bring up some valid points, but come on, links to the Guardian? Particularly since it doesn't give sources and citations for its claims?

[coolotter88 2]

if there are too many people and too few resources, there will definitely be genocide because people are afraid and they'll elect a crazy person (or not so crazy, just practical).

[fukuda 351]

Well, the fact they got a small but significant fact wrong suggests that this article isn't entirely credible. CO2 is not exactly the main force behind global warming - far from it, in fact. That dubious honour goes to methane and other gases that have a similar chemical composition. And you'd be interested to hear, that some scientists have found that it's not gases causing global warming, but the sun's activity that governs such temperature falls and rises.quote>

The main forces behind global warming (and then cooling) are called precession and eccentricity. We're not at the top of the interglacial period yet.

It's really difficult to differentiate the part of the global warming that is caused naturally of the human-made part. Usually studies about the human impact are rushed and heavily biased, mostly used by sensationalist articles...

Bit extreme aren't they? The earth has always adapted to changes to the environment... and I highly doubt 7.2F would create such effects - I mean, we've had bigger temperature variations in the past... and the earth's done just fine, hasn't it? quote>

Yes, life and ecosystems will survive this change and way more violent ones. There's a problem though, life as we know it today probably won't make it, and the species we rely on for our own survival may disappear, and that's not good news.

And... guess what? Polar ice actually increased slightly in size last summer. We had a pretty cold summer, though. I highly doubt the melting of the Arctic ice cap would cause too much of a problem, since most of that ice mass (around 90%, I believe) is floating, and therefore displaces the same volume of water that it has in its ice mass... so not much of a change there. But the more concerning thing is actually what effect the ice melting would have on the composition of seawater/freshwater - which can affect ecosystems - but it's happened in the past.

The Antarctic ice mass is increasing every year, though. quote>

Ice melting and sublimating in the oceanic ice sheet causes higher precipitation on the continental ice sheet, which is the one we should actually worry about...

Another thing, water displaces more volume in solid state than in liquid state, thus the initial volume displaced by ice in the ocean (archimedes is watching us ) is bigger than the final volume displaced by the molten ice, draw your own conclusions

[Geronimo 4]

Yeah, polar ice HAS increased compared to last year, but last year was record low since they started satelite measurement in -79. The september low was 34% below long time average (1979-2008). Not a big win what so ever...

[saltandsauce 0]

this reminds me of a book called natures end, where a depopulationist movement takes the world by storm and calls for the "volentary suicide of 2/3s orf the human population".

the solution is making the developed world poorer

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: hamsterTK

Something the world really needs though is an effective MALE oral contraceptive.quote>

Unlikely to happen.

Drug companies have tried time and again to produce an effective one, and they have succeeded time and again... but the problem is that any drug they come up with to effectively block sperm production also very effectively blocks the ability to maintain an erection, rendering it useless in practice.

The problem here is that the biochemistry of it makes it impossible to seperate the two. In females, you have a large mix of different sex hormones for different things, making it possible to reliably control things by controlling levels of each, achieving desired effects without undesired ones. But with males, testosterone is testosterone is testosterone. You can't really subdue one aspect of masculinity without subduing them all, nor can you enhance one aspect without enhancing them all.

Originally posted by: fukuda

Another thing, water displaces more volume in solid state than in liquid state, thus the initial volume displaced by ice in the ocean (archimedes is watching us ) is bigger than the final volume displaced by the molten ice, draw your own conclusions quote>

Displacement and buoyancy depend on the relative density of the solid and the fluid. The buoyant force is equal to the unit weight of the fluid times the volume of fluid displaced. Equilibrium is reached when this force equals the wight of the floating object. So, we can say:

γ_wV = W

or:

γ_wV = γ_iV_i

Let's say we have 1 m³ of ice.

Plugging in known values for density of ice and water:

9.8 kN/m³ × V = 9.1 kN/m³ × 1 m³

We can then see that V = 0.931 m³

The specific gravity of ice is 0.931 (this is not a coincidence). Doing a simple mass balance:

γ₁V₁ = γ₂V₂

or:

0.931 × 1 m³ = 1 × V₂

and thus:

V₂ = 0.931 m³

So when it melts, that 1 m³ of ice will turn into 0.931 m³ of water - the same exact volume of water it was displacing while floating. No more, no less.

I draw no conclusion besides "you're wrong, and I just proved it mathematically."

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: Duke87

So when it melts, that 1 m3 of ice will turn into 0.931 m3 of water - the same exact volume of water it was displacing while floating. No more, no less.

I draw no conclusion besides "you're wrong, and I just proved it mathematically."quote>

Well ok

1m3 and 0.931m3 are not equal, it means a small difference in a single cube meter, but it is a difference when we're talking about huge masses of ice

Anyway, the point of it was that it returns a number close to the unit, so you would need continental ice melting to have an impact on sea level

[projectadam 0]

Originally posted by: fukuda

Originally posted by: Duke87

So when it melts, that 1 m3 of ice will turn into 0.931 m3 of water - the same exact volume of water it was displacing while floating. No more, no less.

I draw no conclusion besides "you're wrong, and I just proved it mathematically."quote>

Well ok

1m3 and 0.931m3 are not equal, it means a small difference in a single cube meter, but it is a difference when we're talking about huge masses of ice

Anyway, the point of it was that it returns a number close to the unit, so you would need continental ice melting to have an impact on sea levelquote>

 

I might be wrong on this fukuda but Duke87 was not saying that 1m3 and 0.931m3 are equal, Duke87 was saying that the amount of ice frozen to the same amount in a liquid form displaces the same volume over the whole.

[fukuda 351]

They displace approximatively the same volume, yes.

[hamsterTK 93]

I was thinking along the lines of someone finding a way to alter/interfere with sperm development so that the sperm cannot fertilize an egg, but in a way that's reversible.

This was done effectively using a chemical extracted from cottonseed called Gossypol, the only problem was that for some of the test subjects it was permanent

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: projectadam

Originally posted by: fukuda

Well ok

1m3 and 0.931m3 are not equal, it means a small difference in a single cube meter, but it is a difference when we're talking about huge masses of ice

Anyway, the point of it was that it returns a number close to the unit, so you would need continental ice melting to have an impact on sea levelquote>

 

I might be wrong on this fukuda but Duke87 was not saying that 1m3 and 0.931m3 are equal, Duke87 was saying that the amount of ice frozen to the same amount in a liquid form displaces the same volume over the whole.

quote>

Point being that 1 m³ of ice displaces 0.931 m³ of water. If it melts, it turns into 0.931 m³ of water and thus displaces  0.931 m³ of existing water.

True, then it's not displacing that 0.069 m³ of air, but that contributes to slightly thinning the atmosphere (negligibly, mind you), not towards any rise or fall of sea level.

On the other hand, continental ice (ice that's on land, not on water) isn't displacing any water, so every m³ of it that melts translates to 0.931 m³ of surface water (not necessarily ocean, but that's where most of it will go) that wasn't there before. Which causes sea level to start to rise.

[patriots_1228 51]

well, earth has its own protection from our over population. quite simply, food runs out, billions starve to death, the rest remain. Thats why i try to convince my parents to buy out the grocery store, so when the world crashes and food becomes currency, we can sell twinkies for mansions and ferraris.

[TV-VCR 15]

Originally posted by: patriots_1228 well, earth has its own protection from our over population. quite simply, food runs out, billions starve to death, the rest remain. Thats why i try to convince my parents to buy out the grocery store, so when the world crashes and food becomes currency, we can sell twinkies for mansions and ferraris.quote>

Too early. It's not likely a global famine would occur until maybe 2040-2060.

[Hahayoudied 3]

Heck, we still have bozos who wants to kill earth for money, and that isn't good.

Lets see the cause and effects if nothing is fixed...

1. Human population grows rapidly and bozos wanting to kill earth to be rich.

2. More resources get used.

3. Pollution level increases, resources level falls, and other environment damages occurs.

4. Massive climate changes occurs, causing more environment damages, increased of resource using, and a small decline of humans.

5. Repeat.

Eventually, this happens:

 

1. Almost all of the resources have been used up and massive pollution.

2. Econmeny crashes and sharp increases of deaths caused by pollution.

3. Living nightmare storms occurs, which futher cause more damages for the econmeny and environment, deaths, and etc.

4. Eventually, the money becomes worthless, and it is back to the Stone Age, except you have massive modern pollution and most of the plants and animals dead.

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: Hahayoudied and massive pollutions.quote>

cough* pollution *cough

Pollutions are what happens sometimes to human males at night

[jj88 24]

Pollutions are what happens sometimes to human males at night quote>

LOL

Anyway, hopefully people will be sensible enough to sort out the problems before we get to the everybody killing each other to survive stage...

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: fukuda

Originally posted by: Hahayoudied and massive pollutions.quote>

cough* pollution *cough

Pollutions are what happens sometimes to human males at night quote>

Yeah, that was a stretch.

He said "pollutions", not "emissions".

And hey, if he said "massive emissions", the pun would have already been sprung. That's funny in and of itself without comment, on a somewhat juvenile level.

[hamsterTK 93]

d'oh. I was looking at that going "huh" and then I realized he botched it

but yeah, to keep in the spirit...your mom

eh hem...anyways I was thinking about this the other day and I have to wonder if overpopulation will strike more on a local level first, hitting developing countries hardest on a famine level, while developed less populous societies might get hit by the aftereffects of terrorism, economic crisis, etc. I think though the ultimate solution is to get people to have fewer children by making birth control and contraceptives more available, and making it culturally acceptable to be a single date. Openness we take for granted as Americans/Europeans/Asians/Etc don't fly in many societies.

[Easy Bakes 253]

It been a long time since we had massive # of people die with in a few years, from plauges and other such events, WW2 would be the last one ,120 Million is a low estimate of that number.

And the 1911 Flu outbreak the one before that.

[coolotter88 2]

I can imagine a dystopian future where the UN convenes to decide which group of people is culturally least significant to the world to be wiped out.

We have to instate 2 children per couple.