Frankly, microplastics issue can be dealt with later. We don't know whether and what effects they have on organisms; we're just worried about suddenly finding them everywhere. The effects might turn out to exist and be damaging, but if they were catastrophic, we'd most likely notice it by now. Mitigation efforts are warranted, but IMO should be deprioritized.
Topsoil depletion, groundwater depletion and global warming all contribute towards the same ultimate problem: less of hospitable/habitable places on the planet -> less food, water and living space -> lots of suffering and increasing economic tensions -> war -> collapse of technological civilization. Multiple problems contribute to the same bad outcome, and mitigating them should be a #1 global priority right now.
Point is: with technology - which requires a working economy - we can mitigate most inconveniences to life. We can deal with slightly broken ecosystem, and we could eventually repair it (if only as costs-saving measure). But if that economy - and I can't believe I'm saying this, that the economy is most important; but I guess this is how growing up looks like - if that economy breaks down, due to hardships of living ending up in war, we all lose. Our civilization at this point in development is extremely fragile, and advanced technology has a half-life measured in weeks. So it's most important to solve first the problems threatening our very ability to solve problems.
Note that from this point of view, you arrive at some measure of environmentalism. Solving climate change is much more important than random animal or plant species. But preservation of species is very important too, for reasons like ecosystem stability (we wouldn't want to stress nature too much or have a linchpin species go extinct, and make the planet less habitable in the process), drug research, food supply stability, and ultimately also aesthetic reasons.
So: climate change >> mass extinction >> occasional extinction. Microplastics I'd tentatively put between mass and occasional extinction, but proper placement depends on the outcome of further research.
Like, I get that's a biological instinct, but at some point it has to be not worth it to save ourselves. If we're making value judgments for everything else, it's simply wrong to ignore ourselves.
You don't do it, your government does, through law, regulation, and policy. You just need to vote for the ones who will implement those and protest those that refuse.
- An asteroid could wipe out all life on Earth. - The supervolcano known as Yellowstone might erupt. Again. - Supernova gamma ray burst might hit the planet, sterilising it (and us). - A massive and catastrophic solar flare hitting Earth. - If Carl Sagan is correct, and extra-terrestrial intelligent life does exist, and they turn out to be belligerant, Earth could be attacked. - A global pandemic caused by some super-disease suddenly emerging.
And this is 100% going to happen: our own life-giving star, Sol, WILL destroy the planet in a few billion years time.
Also 100% going to happen; you will die at some point between now and the next 70 or less years, depending on your age, genetics, health, propensity for dangerous sports or activites, whether you look out for fast moving vehicles whilst crossing the road, whether or not an aircraft falls on you.
And so on.
Of course, we humans should try and keep Spaceship Earth in good running condition. Finding ways of reducing waste and keeping our environment clean and healthy is of utmost importance.
As for Global Warming?
This is where I trigger potential downvotes - please don't do this just because I might disagree with you, it's just not cricket old bean.
I am yet to be convinced that human beings are the main cause of Global Warming. This has, despite any protestations to the contrary, not been proven. Global Warming theory is still just a theory, and just to head this one off at the pass, no, pointing out that "gravity is also just a theory" is a fallacious argument.
I am yet to be convinced human beings are responsible for a changing global climate. Global Climate Change is a thing, yes, and that climate has been changing since the formation of planet Earth 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years ago. I don't think humans can possibly affect this planet in terms of /global/ Climate Change in any measurable magnitude. There are forces which affect and cause /global/ Climate Change which are vastly more powerful than us mere humans.
Humans can affect their local climate for sure - a city has a different local climate compared to an equivalent area of wildland. All that tarmac and concrete does have an effect locally. But to suggest that the human race - which inhabits a small percentage of the landcover of a planet of which two thirds of its surface is water - is the main cause of Climate Change, reeks of hubris and agenda.
The best thing we humans can do is to put things into perspective, deal with a dynamic, ever-changing global climate which is out of our control, try our best to keep the place tidy - we do need more effort on that front - do what we humans are great at doing which is coming up with great and new technologies (I'm looking at you, fusion power to be a workable thing within my lifetime!), and make the most of our individual limited time on this Earth by following your aspirations and fulfilling your potential.
So unless you are disputing that a large worldwide increase in greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere affects climate, your position that humans can't affect global climate is untenable.
Global warming is like having cancer. You go to the doctor( or scientist), you check if you have cancer (or global warming), he tells you yes you indeed have cancer and only 5 years of life left (a few decades with global warming) and if you get treated right away they might even prevent the cancer from spreading and you will have a good chance of growing old and dying in your 80s. Except you are stingy and don't want to pay the (very cheap) bill. 3 years later you are bedridden and the bill has quadrupled.
Also if you think climate change wasn't accelerated by humans then please take a look at this nice chart. https://xkcd.com/1732/
> - An asteroid could wipe out all life on Earth. - The supervolcano known as Yellowstone might erupt. Again. - Supernova gamma ray burst might hit the planet, sterilising it (and us). - A massive and catastrophic solar flare hitting Earth. - If Carl Sagan is correct, and extra-terrestrial intelligent life does exist, and they turn out to be belligerant, Earth could be attacked. - A global pandemic caused by some super-disease suddenly emerging.
True, all of these things are out of our control and also not currently happening. Climate change is and we can also do something about it.
> And this is 100% going to happen: our own life-giving star, Sol, WILL destroy the planet in a few billion years time.
Ehh sure, this and the above paragraph are prime examples of what-aboutism. This is generally not useful for solving problems.
> I am yet to be convinced human beings are responsible for a changing global climate. Global Climate Change is a thing, yes, and that climate has been changing since the formation of planet Earth 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years ago.
Yes the climate has been changing. It generally did not change at the rate we're seeing now. It might not be manmade but that would make timing (right after the industrial revolution, coal power plants, plastic, etc that all happened at a __very__ large scale recently) a huge coincidence.
I don't think humans can possibly affect this planet in terms of /global/ Climate Change in any measurable magnitude. There are forces which affect and cause /global/ Climate Change which are vastly more powerful than us mere humans.
Maybe it helps to think about it like that; Humans aren't changing the climate - you're right. But corporations are doing it to satisfy human demand. While corporations are run by us they exhibit vastly different behavior as well as operating at a completely different scale than us.
> Humans can affect their local climate for sure - a city has a different local climate compared to an equivalent area of wildland. All that tarmac and concrete does have an effect locally. But to suggest that the human race - which inhabits a small percentage of the landcover of a planet of which two thirds of its surface is water - is the main cause of Climate Change, reeks of hubris and agenda.
We use most of that land cover for agriculture and changing it by deforestation etc. The water parts of earth are.. Well I don't really see your point there. 1/3 is a looot of area to affect, surely enough to change the climate by a tiny bit (2 deg) which then causes runaway effects. It throws the system off balance.
> The best thing we humans can do is to put things into perspective, deal with a dynamic, ever-changing global climate which is out of our control, try our best to keep the place tidy - we do need more effort on that front - do what we humans are great at doing which is coming up with great and new technologies (I'm looking at you, fusion power to be a workable thing within my lifetime!), and make the most of our individual limited time on this Earth by following your aspirations and fulfilling your potential.
I think you're right here. In the end it doesn't after what causes climate change anyway - it is happening and it is killing us so we need to do something about it. Thing is, if we don't know the cause for these extreme rates this will be hard. Humans seem like a very likely cause here and the specific sources (e.g. coal, flying) are conveniently in our control. So even if you're still not sure, acting as if we're the cause is a good action plan, don't you think?
While the "it is happening" part has good amount of supporting data and is almost certainly true, the killing us part is much more questionable, most predictions agree that if we do nothing it will cause <10% gdp loss in 2100 compared to the scenario where it did not happen. So we need to make sure that whatever we do to prevent climate change doesn't cause more economic loss than climate change itself, and mostly invest in developing new technology and helping poor countries to become richer.
Maybe we keep SA and the northern bits like Tunisia etc.
Global GDP probably declines less than 10%, right?
You can't reduce everything to money in these terms.
What about that Africa is the leader in pollution into the oceans . It's amazing how much disinformation is out there regarding plastic and the source.
Please can you support this with a cite, because I think you've misunderstood what you've read.
Plastic in the ocean comes from roughly 3 sources.
1) Microfibres in clothing. It's likely that the West dumps significantly more of these into the environment because of greater numbers of plastic clothing and increased amounts of washing of those clothes.
2) industrial equipment, mostly lost fishing nets. I haven't seen anything that says these nets are disproportionately from African boats.
3) plastics from sewage systems, and plastics washed from land into rivers and thus into the ocean.
It's this last one that I think you're talking about. But it's important to realise that 1) many of these rivers aren't in Africa, but in Asia and 2) most of that plastic was exported from the West to Asia.
2) Fishing nets are a common issue, but make a low percentage of micro plastic waste to reach the ocean. (Though they are a significant percentage of all plastic in the ocean.)
3) This is the main issue, but anti littering laws and sewage treatment make a huge difference in output. This means South America, Indonesia, and yes Africa are disproportionately causing micro plastic pollution.
https://wwtonline.co.uk/features/microplastics-plastics-plas...
> Domestic and commercial wastewater is certainly a major route for microplastics entering the environment – but by no means the exclusive one. When comparing the samples upstream of the wastewater treatment plants with those downstream, the Leeds study found that all of the plants were linked to an increase in microplastics in the rivers – on average up to three times higher, but in one instance by a factor of 69.
The large volume means that even reducing 95% of all microplastic will still be releasing large numbers of microplastic. And because it's a waste water treatment plant these microplastics are going to be heavily contaminated with bioavailable pollutants -- these are higher risk microplastics.
We currently don't know how well wastewater treatment plants remove microplastics. We do know that some of them will be releasing hundreds of microplastics per cubic metre.
> even reducing 95% of all microplastic
Yea, no scale matters. Micro plastics where only detected on the world’s oceans in 2004, they are an issue but far from the most critical one facing the world’s oceans.
> We currently don’t know how well wastewater treatment
Sure, but this is still a massive issue with the study. If they are say 50% vs 99.9% effective that’s a big deal.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/07/26/asia-africa-cause-90-pl...
I'd like to read more about that, have you got a link? Full disclosure: I hate paper straws, they turn into mush too fast and kids can't deal with them at all.
I'm not disagreeing there is a problem but our solutions are pretty bad.
- plastic waste, they found micro plastic in artic snow, WTF
- topsoil depletion, we are going to be so many more people, we’ll need food, at the same time we lose fertile land continuously
- groundwater depletion, many dry countries export water in the form of food. What happens when there is nothing left?
Global warming? Yes that too...