Hockey sticks usually end up being S-shaped curves. The author is just doom-screaming because we're currently in the rapid change phases of lots of them but hasn't shown on any of the graphs the point where disaster will occur. What's the critical rate of extinctions that would end global economic growth before most of the world has western quality of life? He has no clue! So his worries are just emotional and based on misleading graphs.
One of the graphs (forest cover) is extrapolated into the future and shown to be zero. He could instead have shown in plateauing if he wanted to tell a different story.
I'm not sure how S-shaped curves help when it comes to the collapse of all ecosystems is concerned... are we supposed to innovate our way out of rapidly dwindling biodiversity on the planet?
insects and pollinators
birds and large game animals
forests and rainforests
kelp forests dying
coral reefs dying
overfishing
plastic pollution
greenhouse gas pollution
acidification of oceans
1/3 of all arable land underwent desertification
The real question is, why AREN'T we concerned more? Is there some sort of magic hope in innovation, are we just super optimists? No, it's simply that we failed at collective action to such an extent that even thinking about a viable solution is so hopeless that most of us don't even bother. The one place where we were able to curb pollution was CFCs in the Toronto Protocol. That's it.
You're just doing what the TFA did, which is notice some trends and assume they'll continue until the point of some sort of "disaster". But you don't have a clue, just been exposed to too much hype.
To be specific - how much biodiversity do we need to avoid disaster such a global economic collapse? I don't know how to measure that but you surely do or you'd have no justification for your stated opinions.
Because the people profitting from the direct causes of many of these issues, fossil fuels and industrial meat, started a culture war with the people who were concerned about them.
Anyone who popped their head up to address any of these problems was attacked and undermined by very well funded adversaries.
Any crank that argued against them even being a problem got promoted.
We struggled to get them to stop poisoning humans with lead and cigarettes and poverty for the same reasons.
For me, it's that it wil balance out in the end. We might have to suffer, but it will balance out. My hope is that most of us won't have to suffer that much before it balances out.
Also, I do feel good about the direction we're going in. California, where I live, is banning the sale of new combustion engine cars by 2035. 2035 will probably have some very hot weeks here, but that we're getting laws like this is a good sign.
It seems we need to be simultaneously extremely patient and extremely urgent about fixing problems like this. Constant sensationalism isn't the path, unless your work specifically is as a consciousness-raiser, perhaps. Others need to have an awareness of the problem but it does worse than nothing to be constantly panicked.
That is overly optimisic though, the Paris agreement was a minimal effort, California and all other governments are on track to fail miserably at following even that. Which means we are talking about a lot more than a "few hot weeks".
> the Paris agreement was a minimal effort, California and all other governments are on track to fail miserably at following even that.
Could you clarify what you mean by "on track"?
According to the Guardian[0], "California Governor Jerry Brown [issued] an executive order calling for the entire California economy to become carbon-neutral by 2045" and "In order to stay below the Paris climate threshold of 2°C global warming above pre-industrial temperatures, humanity must become carbon-neutral by around 2060 or 2070."
Are you saying that California looks like it will miss its target by 25 years?
One of the graphs (forest cover) is extrapolated into the future and shown to be zero. He could instead have shown in plateauing if he wanted to tell a different story.