The actual report is here (I think? It might be a preliminary report?)
It seems the primary message is "CO2 reduction won’t even stop climate change ... we have not fixed the primary root cause – the destruction of nature by toxic chemicals, and substances such as plastic."
> Pollution from the Congo, Gambia and Amazon from municipal waste, agricultural
run-off and deforestation has caused an explosion in the growth of pelagic Sargassum
seaweed. It is estimated that, each year, 20 million tonnes of this weed are growing
in the Atlantic Ocean - that’s more
weed than plastic by weight.
> The smell of the ocean comes from coccolithophores, and they are in the air we
breathe, our water and our food, but if their numbers are depleted, they will most
likely be replaced by toxic dinoflagellates. Already we are seeing HABS, hazardous
algae blooms around the world which are killing people living next to the ocean. This
is coupled with increased levels of ciguatera disease caused by dinoflagellate
contaminated fish. Health authorities are now recommended that any fish from
tropical water over 3kg in size should not be consumed
This is absolute garbage. Saying the plankton are gone is incredibly unlikely and requires extraordinary evidence. We can see plankton from space https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/globalmaps/data/MY1DMM... and what we see in no way correlates with “the plankton is all gone”.
But lets not discredit the findings. Even if it's 90% in 2045, and if 1% of plankton dies every year (https://www.goesfoundation.com/), it means we've lost so far 70% of plankton since 1940.
It still seems like a reason to be worried, and not to say "it's absolute garbage => everything's ok, no reason to be concerned".
The article reports that 90% of plankton is gone, not "the plankton are gone". Additionally, it seems that this is a correction of an earlier estimate according to which 50% of the plankton should be gone by now:
>> The landmark research blames chemical pollution from plastics, farm fertilisers and pharmaceuticals in the water. Previously, it was thought the amount of plankton had halved since the 1940s, but the evidence gathered by the Scots suggest 90% has now vanished.
Even if this correction is an overestimate, and the old estimate was right, the quantities of plankton halving since 1940 is still a disturbingly high amount of reduction. As to seeing plankton from space that doesn't really say anything unless we know what proportion of the plankton that exists is visible from space. For instance, it might not be possible to estimate total plankton quantities just from looking at a picture with a particular "bloom" concentrated in an area.
I'm surprised about these numbers also but I don't know how I could easily trash the research reported, just because I've seen pictures of plankton. I think that's just making an overgeneralisation.
But it’s not - that was a global map, this is a local selection of an extreme event. Even if the papers thesis is correct, that average plankton counts are collapsing, there’s no reason to believe you won’t continue to see variances and even extremes.
The writing and language used aside they’ve found something worth trying to verify. They collected a bunch of samples from a lot of places and expected to find a lot more life than they did. This is concerning because it could mean some dire situation reflecting on the health of the entire earth. Seems like reasonable research that spurs further research, but I think if their observations are consistent with future research this would be a pretty serious situation.
I didn't say it did, but if you can see blooms from space still, that suggests that they are not "all but gone." They may be significantly reduced, but nowhere near "gone."
If the scientists had made falsifiable predictions about WHEN they expected the population to drop, or the RATE of decline, then we would have something to discuss scientifically.
Instead we get extreme rhetoric that is likely an exageration, that helps convince noone.
I think you're underestimating the size of the Atlantic Ocean. Both things can be happening at the same time.
> If the scientists had made falsifiable predictions about WHEN they expected the population to drop, or the RATE of decline, then we would have something to discuss scientifically.
On this we agree.
> Instead we get extreme rhetoric that is likely an exageration, that helps convince noone.
Is it really? We're in the middle of a mass extinction caused by our activities:
The Holocene extinction, otherwise referred to as the sixth mass extinction or Anthropocene extinction,[3][4] is an ongoing extinction event of species during the present Holocene epoch (with the more recent time sometimes called Anthropocene) as a result of human activity.[5][6][7][8] The included extinctions span numerous families of bacteria, fungi, plants[9][10][11] and animals, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates. With widespread degradation of highly biodiverse habitats such as coral reefs and rainforests, as well as other areas, the vast majority of these extinctions are thought to be undocumented, as the species are undiscovered at the time of their extinction, or no one has yet discovered their extinction. The current rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background extinction rates.[15]
This has been going on for a very long time and there's clear signs the rate of environmental destruction is accelerating. At some point we will lose the fish and cetaceans. There is no doubt about that. To say that this time has finally come is not such an extraordinary claim.
Anyway I'm sure that scientists have been warning about this (the destruction of the oceans' ability to sustain life) for decades and nothing has been done. It makes sense that, either those scientists were wrong in their warnings, or fish and marine mammals will die out, sooner or later. So what makes it extraordinary?
I mean, that's why people say destroying the environment is not a good idea, right?
It follows pretty directly from the absence of plankton, eh?
I don't doubt that there are people out there monitoring plankton levels from satellite images, and they could probably clear things up on where we actually stand in re: ocean life and trends thereof. But not a few randos on reddit, eh?
I have to say, this is really concerning. I assumed it was bad, but this sounds really REALLY bad.
How would we even go about attempting to coordinate a response to this? Strongarming polluting countries into enforcing compliance? Massive economic uplift projects / infrastructure investments for waste treatment and new materials? Ban of products, trying to catch the job loss somehow? I'm at my wit's end.
There is nothing we as individuals can do about it.
Global industry pollution should have been internationally controlled decades ago if we would have had any chance of ducking this.
Many has screamed about this for years, recently Greta.
2 years of covid pandemic gave the earth some breathing-room but seems in hindsight only to have slowed down the end date by about 6 months, according to recent graphs.
Defeatism won't help us. In fact, it's a new strategy of oil/plastic/meat/dairy producers, to stop people from changing status quo.
We as individuals can do plenty. We can change our eating and spending habits (cocacola & burger anyone?), we can demand change, we can stop buying stuff, we can protest, we can educate, we can plant trees and forests, we can stop people spreading defeatism etc.
So do something. Just don't spread this attitude, please.
> In fact, it's a new strategy of oil/plastic/meat/dairy producers, to stop people from changing status quo.
I would have thought exactly the opposite: that these groups would adopt the strategy of portraying these types of issues as being primarily about “individual responsibility” knowing that the only way to actually change things is collective action.
Remind me, how far did boycotting Coca Cola get us?
Policy makers duped consumers into sorting plastic waste and even go as far as put a plastic tax on consumers, while the majority of plastic waste comes from the industry, and is burned as fuel and greenwashed by being called "recycled energy".
Policy makers and the industry successfully shifted the blame on the population and people are even ashamed of having a vacation these years, because other duped individuals keep harassing them in the name of capitalism.
You seem to have no understanding of the severity of things.
Coca-cola is the single one biggest plastic polluter, together with fishing industry.
I did my research, and I boycott everything I know it hurts the planet. Do you?
> Policy makers duped consumers ...
Not policy makers, but plastic producers bought politicans and public opinion. See the movie "Plastic wars", i did.
> You seem to have no understanding of the severity of things.
I do. I certainly do. I thought about it for a long time. I simply believe that you cannot both gluttonize and be angry at the world to be doing nothing. The change have to start somewhere.
Unless you have a private jet your spending habits can’t possibly make a difference.
The only way to make a real change would be to correct the incentives. This can be done via legislation & policy but an individual can’t do it alone. I suppose an individual could change the incentives for one or two companies (e.g. violence against a decision maker) but it wouldn’t change the economics of doing business.
Collective change in spending habits can have the power. We're seeing it with rise of veganism & meat/dairy, those producers are very concerned (pushing against naming plant-based foods milk/burgers etc.).
I agree that legislation & policy & subsidies are critical. But this change won't come without support of the public.
It seems to me, that if you want to change something, you have to change yourself first. We can't just wait for somebody to change it. It won't ever happen this way. People have to know & do, then politicians cannot pretend not to know/care and then the change will happen.
The people scolding the masses for using plastic bags at the grocery store are still riding in private jets. For media events and fancy dinners. Jaunting around the world in planes fueled by dinosaur juice, financed by human suffering. But this is nothing new. Dinosaur juice just means that no humans are having to row inside the plane. That and physics, but if it weren’t for the physics, Amazon warehouses would look like damn good employment compared to the flying contraptions of the elites.
We have been fucked for a long time. Generations upon generations. The environment is a symptom. This is a systemic issue.
Nothing can be done? Well, you’re dumping a meme on the internet claiming that all is lost. That’s doing something. Harmful. Could spend the same effort to point the finger at those most to blame. Yes, one finger. One finger can open many eyes. Shoot, maybe you hate my idea, find it frivolous, and thought of a better one. Fantastic! I don’t care. Maybe I’m an idiot, but I won’t be offended if you do something more productive. That’s the point. Do anything but roll over.
What if people decided it was about more than the environment of Earth? Do you want this species shitting on Mars next? Earth may burn in a fire but the disease can still spread. We only have one Mars, too. And plans are already being made on how to carve it up.
Or what if the powers that be found eco-friendly ways to drain the livelihood of the rest of humanity, should we celebrate that the planet is saved? At least hell could be lush and vibrant?
Again, the environment is just a symptom. As is your attitude. The real problem is not being addressed. So neither are the symptoms.
“Look at this internet warrior typing angry things.”
Sure, why not. The plankton isn’t dead yet so I might as well.
The seeming inevitability of power dichotomies and the abuse that tends to follow.
Different levels of power is unavoidable. It is part of existence. Those differences may balance out when dealing with two individuals, or groups, but typically there is a more powerful and a less powerful.
And typically the more powerful group takes advantage of the situation. That’s long been advantageous but the advantage has also long become a hindrance on real progress. A parasitic replacement for it.
It doesn’t take humans for this to arise, but humans have spent millennia institutionalizing it in numerous forms.
“How to stop being animals” is too flippant, and not terribly accurate.
Regardless, our society and history is so permeated with this concept / construct, and with attempts to enshrine it as unshakeable truth of being, that “doing something different” is incredibly difficult. For many reasons.
It is so pervasive that it is borderline… fractal? The power structures showing institutionalized abuse are parts of power structures that… abuse of power differences all the way down.
More angles for explaining why than you can shake a stick at. Not a lot of broad “why not,” it is usually focused on some localized example.
Thanks for the description. Sounds like you mean power hierarchies, which as you say are inevitable.
From that point of view the best 'solution' would be to spread power as wide as possible. I think in reality the reason power hierarchies are useful is because spreading power too wide leads to Ochlocracy.
In the same way democracy is good or bad depending on the level of rationality, morality in your population; but for modern society I would say it's mostly bad (e.g. if you let the average man on the street 'solve' climate change he would lay the foundation for a dystopia)
“From that point of view the best 'solution' would be to spread power as wide as possible”
Not necessarily. Because how? And to your point, because on that I think we agree, what would a well intentioned individual do with no guardrails, let alone one with bad intent?
I am under no delusion that the solution would be to simply spread out power. For one, my simple mind can’t imagine how that would actually work, without getting corrupted, in current year.
No, I’m more concerned about how humanity can form any sort of societal structure, power structure, without having one of those two above people (meaning all of us, at times) royally fuck it up.
But that’s what thousands of years of human history seem to indicate. We are doing something wrong as a species, if not at least something horribly inefficient, vulnerable to abuse, and likely to cause harm.
I’m not looking for an answer, I certainly don’t have one. I still don’t fully understand the problem. But it seems lower level than the distribution of power. I’d almost say more primal, or animal, but that feels like it cheapens it.
Individuals, collectively, can absolutely have an impact. The problem is still that not enough people actually care or are paying attention. If we had anywhere near the entire population demanding changes, we’d get changes!
I'm guessing you mean point of no return, which I've tried to find, to no avail. The closest I've found in the IPCC reports is vague predictions of local ecosystem collapse at 6C warming, predicted next century.
Assuming it is as bad as the article claims, then sadly I think we all know how this will go. Because it would require massive effort and inconvenience many, especially the wealthy, the reality of the situation will be denied and any attempts at remedy will be fought. We saw this all play out with climate change already.
We have to change ourselves, fast, and then the change will come automatically.
Stop traveling everywhere by car/plane, stop buying meat/dairy, stop buying plastic (check your shopping basket), reject consumerism, educate others to do the same, organize, then bring off legislative change.
The wealthy are just the minor obstacle. The masses of people not willing to change their habits may be bigger problem.
That's what I'm saying though: those masses of people don't want to self-sacrifice any more than the wealthy do, and are therefore likely to believe whatever excuse they can grab onto so they don't have to, and the wealthy will push the excuses.
We saw this same exact scenario with climate change. Big Oil knew it was a problem decades ago and did everything they could to deny it and push narratives to the public that allowed them to deny it too. People tend to choose to believe what they want to believe and the only way around that is to beat them over the head with the truth, but as long as doing so doesn't serve the interests of the wealthy and powerful it won't be done.
Yeah so this really took the shine off of my morning too, BUT apparently it's a crappy study without good backing for its claims. Some guy on reddit remarked that the plankton are still clearly visible from space in huge amounts. THAT SAID, we don't need to wait around for this headline except for real before we take action, and countries really need to get their stuff in gear.
There's no good reason for plastic to be leaving waterways and entering the ocean, and farmers need to be strongly pushed and supported to look at ways to farm without leaching fertilizer.
And yes, all your ideas are good ones. We need to try a bunch of these things.
"Some guy on reddit"? That's enough to ignore the warning of a research team that spent "two years collecting water samples from the Atlantic" (per the article above)? Sorry but I don't think so.
For example: how much of the plankton in the Atlanic is visible from space? 1%? 100%? Does "some guy on reddit" have any clue whether it's possible to estimate the quantity of plankton just from satellite images? I honestly don't.
You try to discredit a serious article about a subject you should be well aware is 100% true by now even if you were in fact living under a rock.-- by siding with random anon redditor that had a take more suitable for your world view.
It is not surprising the least why we are in this rut.
Yes, a lot of people (including myself) like to be skeptical of extreme claims.
Environmentalists making sensational claims from single studies tends to be counterproductive because if they are found to be wrong, they are used as ammo by climate skeptics. If they are right, then they will be backed up by other studies; so it is better to wait until certain before publishing things like "all but gone."
The article says the researcerhs spent "two years collecting water samples from the Atlantic". Assuming they didn't completely mess up their sampling or simply fabricated their data, that should be enough time to wait, I think.
It's not about how long it takes to get one result, but how many other studies agree with that result. I'm not saying they're wrong, I'm just saying their extreme rhetoric isn't useful at convincing people who aren't already agreeing with them.
Phytoplankton bloom with 700000 cells per liter density is visible to the naked eye.
This gives the colour (red, green, or brown) on the sea surface. This means that the
satellite maps showing visible blooms may directly repudiate the article. Or not...
Not my field of expertise.
It seems the primary message is "CO2 reduction won’t even stop climate change ... we have not fixed the primary root cause – the destruction of nature by toxic chemicals, and substances such as plastic."
https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4099018
> Pollution from the Congo, Gambia and Amazon from municipal waste, agricultural run-off and deforestation has caused an explosion in the growth of pelagic Sargassum seaweed. It is estimated that, each year, 20 million tonnes of this weed are growing in the Atlantic Ocean - that’s more weed than plastic by weight.
> The smell of the ocean comes from coccolithophores, and they are in the air we breathe, our water and our food, but if their numbers are depleted, they will most likely be replaced by toxic dinoflagellates. Already we are seeing HABS, hazardous algae blooms around the world which are killing people living next to the ocean. This is coupled with increased levels of ciguatera disease caused by dinoflagellate contaminated fish. Health authorities are now recommended that any fish from tropical water over 3kg in size should not be consumed