tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post115221823462601168..comments2023-11-03T02:18:41.733-07:00Comments on WattHead - Energy News and Commentary: Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Threaten Marine Organisms and EcosystemsJesse Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00297127385884430247noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-1152293370882209852006-07-07T10:29:00.000-07:002006-07-07T10:29:00.000-07:00Species extinction is a bit like the debate on abo...Species extinction is a bit like the debate on abortion. If you think that embryos are nothing but a small bunch of cells, then your assessment of the rights and wrongs of abortion will differ than if your thinking is that's a human being that's being killed.<BR/><BR/>Now I do take the moral view that species as such are not worthy of being saved. I do like dolphins, coral reefs, I want money spent on conservation, but if some deep sea worm or arctic moss or tropical dung beetle dies out I am not overly bothered.<BR/><BR/>And I do think that it'll be primarily species that are small in every respect (from stature to their range) that will go extinct (and I am not sure what the numbers are even for those, is it 2% or 50% by 2100?). Dolphins or polar bears we'll feed directly if all else fails and create special sanctuaries for them.<BR/><BR/>The "small" species I think have a pretty high turnover anyway (ie quick speciation and extinction). <BR/><BR/>For major species, I don't think that species extinction today and over the 21st century will be comparable to those of past major extinctions. I think we'll make sure that nearly all major mammals and large birds will survive the 21st century.<BR/><BR/>I do hugely care about developing countries, and think that expenditure on education and health care, and investment in infrastructure, is what they need above all, and that we'll help them much more efficiently that way than by incrementally doing more on climate change. <BR/><BR/>I accept that most damage from climate change will likely be in tropical countries. That's what most economic and impact modelling says (ie countries like Canada or Russia ought to benefit, and if they don't, they'll suffer a lot less than Ecuador or Nigeria).Heikohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06839810379331430109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-1152289459557308112006-07-07T09:24:00.000-07:002006-07-07T09:24:00.000-07:00I'm less worried about ocean productivity than I a...I'm less worried about ocean productivity than I am about being responsible for the mass extinction of dozens of ocean species (and terrestrial species as well) due to anthropogenic climate change. <BR/><BR/>Sure, we humans are wily creatures and will likely adapt with out too much trouble ... on a species level, of course; hundreds of millions will no doubt suffer, often in the most underdeveloped portions of the world where people are, of course, least responsible for the greenhouse gases causing their suffering. This is a clear case of gross environmental injustice, and we in the developed world have to own up to our responsibilities for this effect of climate change. That means attempting to mitigate climate change's most sever effects by both stabalizing and reducing greenhouse gas emissions and also working proactively as well as reactively to aid those suffering from climate change-induced droughts, famines, floods, sea level enchroachment, desertification, etc...<BR/><BR/>And yes, the Earth will adapt, as it has in the past, and will go on living healthy - with or without us - ... eventually ... with new species filling the niches left open by the countless species whose extinction we will have caused. But unlike in the past, when volcanic eruptions or meteors or ice ages have caused similar mass extinctions, this time, it's on us. We're to blame for the massive loss of biodiversity that will take centuries or more to recover to the level it was at before we started tampering - and in my mind, that changes things considerably.<BR/><BR/>So yes, we can quote the wise George Carlin and say, 'the Earth will be fine, we're the one's that need saving' ... but saying '<I>the Earth</I> will be fine' ignores the countless <I>inhabitants</I> of this Earth, both human and otherwise, that will suffer and die in the meantime.Jesse Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00297127385884430247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-1152263175342611842006-07-07T02:06:00.000-07:002006-07-07T02:06:00.000-07:00After looking at the report I must say that I am n...After looking at the report I must say that I am no more worried about the issue than before, and that's not much.<BR/><BR/>As far as I am concerned, all that matters is whether the ocean is productive and "pretty". Neither matter is seriously threatened. At best the evidence indicates that calcifying ecosystems may change substantially in some places.<BR/><BR/>Also, ocean productivity isn't that big a deal, because in truth most of the ocean is about as productive as Antarctica or the Sahara. This is so, as micro-nutrients are missing in the open ocean. There's plenty of water and sunshine there, but with the nutrients sunk to the (more or less completely dark) ocean floor, hardly anything grows there.<BR/><BR/>The oceans are only productive in a few places where nutrients upwell with cold water. Even though the oceans make up some 3/4 of the world's surface a fish take of 100 million tonnes per year is already straining fish populations, while we can produce 2 billion tonnes of grain on a tiny fraction (I think less than 5%) of the world's land.Heikohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06839810379331430109noreply@blogger.com