The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment

1300 scientists from 95 nations are hard to argue with, though unfortunately all too easy to ignore:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4391835.stm

Guy

It's pretty sad but something that, al least to me, is so obvious that it's pretty hard to ignore.

Thanks for the link, Guy.

The MA has cost some $20m to put together. It was funded by the Global Environment Facility, the United Nations Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the World Bank and others.

$20mil? I think this could of gone a long way into "new fuel" research rather than being thrown into the wind to do studies and research on what it seems a lot of people have been screaming about for a long time now.
Seems that the priorities are not in the best order here.



No scientific proof or facts here.....Just one mans opinion - my own.

Campbell wrote:

The MA has cost some $20m to put together. It was funded by the Global Environment Facility, the United Nations Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the World Bank and others.

$20mil? I think this could of gone a long way into "new fuel" research rather than being thrown into the wind to do studies and research on what it seems a lot of people have been screaming about for a long time now.
Seems that the priorities are not in the best order here.

20 million dollars is next to nothing if there is a will to achieve something. Funding for this kind of research can be arranged instantly if there is a consensus supported by political will for it.

My opinion is that these kind of reports are useful. The problem is that the conclusions from the reports are widely ignored because they bring up some annoying facts, that are hard disprove with scientific and empirically proven arguments. There are more facts that support the findings than disproving them ... :roll:

Campbell wrote: $20mil? I think this could of gone a long way into "new fuel" research rather than being thrown into the wind to do studies and research on what it seems a lot of people have been screaming about for a long time now.
Seems that the priorities are not in the best order here.

No scientific proof or facts here.....Just one mans opinion - my own.

Hey Jason,

Part of the problem is developing the awareness in enough people to justify, in their mind, spending $20 million on developing alternative energy sources. You're right, a 'lot of people have been screaming about this for a long time', and typically received this kind of comment in return:

"From what Ive seen, most of these "impact studies" are done from tree huggin enviromentalists who put the concerns of every thing before the human. I think the studies are slanted and reflect what they "think" is best to promote their insane way of life....To heck with the human population, save something that can be replanted! IT"S BS."

Remember that?

Unfortunately too many people only value money and science. So it takes a lot of scientists spending a lot of money to declare what a lot of people have been screaming about for a long time for a whole bunch of other people to accept the claims as valid.

I just wrote a blog on my website about this news item this evening. I won't copy the text below, because Greg'll get mad at me. Anyway, I think it works better with my accompanying image. See my Blog Page.

Cheers

Carl

Why keep spending money to try to get people to understand what your talking about, when you could start looking into and doing studies and research to actually make a change!? You will get more people behind you for support by showing them "a better mouse trap" rather then by spending millions to try to show them how bad the old one is. Stop spending $$ to explain the problem, and start spending $$ to correct it.

Hey Jason,

That's a good point, of course. but how does one go a Govt and request millions, in fact billions, of dollars to develop 'better mouse traps' without first offering some empirical evidence to those people showing 'how bad the old one is'? Secondly, the report does offer ideas for solutions, and points to what we need to begin to do in order to live more sustainably (I hate that word, it's so cold, devoid of life). Part of that solution involves policy-making, which means convincing Govt bureaucrats and Corporate bureaucrats and technocrats of the need for change. BP, for example, are now the largest developer of solar panel energy, and this is largely because of studies they funded showing the onset of Peak Oil.

For example, in the thread on drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, EJ said

"This country has virtually undone all of the environmental progress of the 20th century in a short 5 years."

and you replied:

"Negative!
Environmental rules/laws/issues brought on by the environmentalists are still continuously choking this great nation to a slow death."

That's a common, though misled, viewpoint. Environmentalists have worked for years trying to show people the need for conservation, through both scientific data as well as more esoterical offerings, as well as offering solutions to potential problems. People in general have become resistant to change. They see it as threatening, and do not embrace it. In order to make some real progress in the area, they need some convincing. Studies such as this are vital in that regard. I just looked at another forum of outdoors and nature lovers and it amazes me that there are still people with this kind of pasion for the natural world who disbelieve global warming, who dismiss the findings of a study like this simply because it goes against their political ideals or their religious ideals, or they simply don't want to accept the need for change. So even with a $20 million study showing how real the situation is, how the impending problems can be SO catastrophic, people will still simply sit back and dismiss it. And these are people who already have a real passion for nature. When you factor in financial interests, religious and political leanings, other cultural factors, such as poverty, health, etc, etc, you start to see how hard it can be to convince the general population we have a valid reason for concern. I tell you what: You go to Richard Haskayne, or any of the others on the Board of Directors for Weyerhauser and tell them you want some cash to research more sustainable forestry practices. Write to messers Crandalll, Hunt and Howell, etc from Haliburton and tell them you demand a research grant for new fuels, and offer that you think it's a good idea as the reason. Call the Directors of Union Carbide and say you'd like some money to look into new chemical productions and processes because you think the current methods they're using aren't a good idea. It simply doesn't work this way.

This all, of course, really misses the point. This is diversionary debate that does little to reconcile the situation. The concerns of the report (and others like it) are important, well researched, and a vital catalyst for change.

Cheers

Carl

Hey Jason,

I agree, in part, with your sentiment. Research papers are, in effect, meaningless to those life forms who don't read them .. that is, the bulk of life on this planet. But studies that can show people how destructive and simply unsustainable our current modern lifestyle is, are important to show a community of people who have learned to value data and money as the means by which to measure the world (as if it needs to be measured) that we need to change.

Cheers

Carl

I tell you what: You go to Richard Haskayne, or any of the others on the Board of Directors for Weyerhauser and tell them you want some cash to research more sustainable forestry practices. Write to messers Crandalll, Hunt and Howell, etc from Haliburton and tell them you demand a research grant for new fuels, and offer that you think it's a good idea as the reason. Call the Directors of Union Carbide and say you'd like some money to look into new chemical productions and processes because you think the current methods they're using aren't a good idea. It simply doesn't work this way.

I dont think these people need to offer, loan, or grant any money for research that could potentionaly put them out of business in this nation of free enterprise. And I know for sure I don't need to go asking them for it either.

This all, of course, really misses the point. This is diversionary debate that does little to reconcile the situation. The concerns of the report (and others like it) are important, well researched, and a vital catalyst for change.

When does the change happen? When they are tired of talking about it?
Lead by example, and they will get more support of the people they are trying to convience of the problems they are speaking of.
I understand what your saying, Carl. But people are too busy with their lifes right now and most have little to no time to put into any effort to try and make changes, it's just to hard for individuals right now. Untill someone comes up with a plan/solution/idea that will improve our world that doesnt require any investment, has no impact on the time they get to spend with their family after working hours and does not seem like a crazy idea, people will more than likely ignore what these scientists have to say. Spend the money to improve right now, not to keep telling us we all are doomed if we dont change our ways.....We have heard it already. Show us change and lead by example, and the majority will follow this example.

Campbell wrote: SNIP
Spend the money to improve right now, not to keep telling us we all are doomed if we dont change our ways.....We have heard it already. Show us change and lead by example, and the majority will follow this example.

You mean like change as in the Kyoto agreement? The majority did follow the example ... I notice Ol´shrubby did´nt however ...

G

Campbell wrote: I dont think these people need to offer, loan, or grant any money for research that could potentionaly put them out of business in this nation of free enterprise. And I know for sure I don't need to go asking them for it either.

Hey Jason,

That's precisely my point. You don't 'need' to. But if you wanted to come up with a better mouse trap, you need to get your funds from somewhere. And the reality, of course, is sustainable ways of living don't put people out of business. More jobs are lost to technology advances, to resource depletion through over-production and through economic 'down-sizing' than through turning to alternative, healthier methods of existence.

When does the change happen? When they are tired of talking about it?
Lead by example, and they will get more support of the people they are trying to convience of the problems they are speaking of.

I don't know when the changes happen. I suspect they may not happen soon enough. They certainly didn't happen soon enough for the eastern puma, or the passenger pigeon, or the Great Auks, or the tasmanian Tiger, or the Irigquois, or the Xhosa, or the Mohicans. As for leading by example, most people who choose to do so are portrayed as freaks', tree-huggers, weirdos, greenies, ad infinitum. They tend to not garner support of the masses, but just the opposite.

I understand what your saying, Carl. But people are too busy with their lifes right now and most have little to no time to put into any effort to try and make changes, it's just to hard for individuals right now. Untill someone comes up with a plan/solution/idea that will improve our world that doesnt require any investment, has no impact on the time they get to spend with their family after working hours and does not seem like a crazy idea, people will more than likely ignore what these scientists have to say. Spend the money to improve right now, not to keep telling us we all are doomed if we dont change our ways.....We have heard it already. Show us change and lead by example, and the majority will follow this example.

history would disagree with you. Most who resist the system do not fair well. On one hand you say it's too hard for individuals right now, next you suggest we should lead by example. Which is it? Too hard, or possible? And I disagree that 'people are too busy with their lifes right now and most have little to no time to put into any effort to try and make changes'. Most are too busy with their life STYLES .. those are two extremely different things. It's not a function of not having time, it's a matter of not wanting to give up their Wal Mart, their cheap Niké sneakers, their iPods and their D2X cameras. They don't want to get rid of their suburban or their Ford Explosion or their fast food and their air conditioning.

There's probably little point to continuing this, so I'll respectfully leave it now, unless you have some other idea that relates to it to discuss. But maybe this is the answer to your question about 'when does the change happen?':

"Only when the last tree has died and the last river has been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realize we cannot eat money." -- Cree proverb.'

Cheers

Carl

Cynic alert...
I disagree with you both Jason and Carl. These are the people who actually are doing the research into alternative energy sources, sustainable forestry etc. because they want CONTROL over the new technologies. You really don't get to be the biggest companies around by being entirely stupid do you?

Hey John,

You really don't want me to answer the question in your last comment:

You really don't get to be the biggest companies around by being entirely stupid do you?

Don't EVEN get me started on companies .. Greg'll have me banned from NSN.

Are you saying that the people who funded this report are the ones wanting to CONTROL the newer technologies, or the folks who did the reasearch and made the final analyses are the ones aiming to control this?

On the whole, I don't disagree with your post - but I don't think the findings they report are too far from reality either.

Cheers

Carl

I just think it's important to remember that some of the research that gets done gets done on the back of the companies that we see as the problem. Jason asked why they would give a grant to put themselves out of business, I say they give the grants to keep themselves in businss. They aren't looking to save the world with their research, just trying to save their market position over the long haul.

It's not like a hyer-fuel efficient car engine exists but the oil companies bought all the rights to the technology to keep it off the market... ... but it makes you wonder.