One million species face extinction, U.N. panel says. And humans will suffer as a result

Up to 1 million plant and animal species are on the verge of extinction, with devastating implications for human survival, according to a United Nations report released Monday.

Moe Flannery of the California Academy of Sciences inspected
a dead grey whale in Tiburon, Calif., last month – one of seven
whales that have washed up on the shores of the San Francisco
Bay and along the coast in recent weeks. 

The report’s findings underscore the conclusions of numerous scientific studies that say human activity is wreaking havoc on the wild kingdom, threatening the existence of everything from giant whales to small flowers and insects that are almost impossible to see with the naked eye.

But the global report by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services goes a step further than previous studies by linking the loss of species to humans and analyzing its effect on food and water security, farming and economies.

Read the story from The Washington Post by Darryl Fears - “One million species face extinction, U.N. panel says. And humans will suffer as a result.”

The world goes hungry as it continues to be starved of answers

T

he United Nations announced in May that while globally there are 200 million fewer hungry people than there were 25 years ago, twice as many African countries are now suffering food crises.

Moreover, Pacific islanders’ access to sanitation facilities is declining, and just over half of that population has potable water. When it comes to the world’s food and water, the question remains of power and agency—who gets to control the resources on which human survival depends.

Former U.N. special rapporteur Olivier De Schutter challenges the agency’s claim on hunger, stating that numbers, if anything, have remained steady and explains why local responses, not solely international actions, will defeat hunger. Charles Fishman, author of The Big Thirst, asserts that slaking a parched planet requires collective pragmatism, even cooperation among adversaries. Climate change demands that humankind be nourished more sustainably; figuring out whose responsibility this is won’t be easy. But it is crucial.

Read the story - “Starving for Answers.”

Trench fighting about climate change itself is over, but the battle about response continues

by Robert McLean

T

rench fighting about the existence, the reality of climate change is over however, we are still in the trenches fighting about how we respond to this ever-worsening dilemma.

Any worthwhile attempt to avoid catastrophic climate change/global warming (or “climate ruin” as one pundit has suggested) hinges on an at least 80 per cent cut in the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Suggestions put forward to date, as honourable in intent as they are worthy of applause, are really little more than nibbling at the edges.

That 80 per cent cut, as dramatic as it might seem, is really just the beginning for the global aim should be zero emissions leading to the negative position before the end of this century.

It is argued that within five days of America entering World War Two, the country’s auto industry had swapped from producing consumer goods to military hardware.

That is a clear indication that with a sense of purpose and will we are able to engage with, undertake and make massive and significant changes to core human pursuits – any practical and worthwhile response to climate change will only be of any consequence if similar to what happened in the lead up to WWII.

Corporations effectively rule the world today – elected governments are theoretically in charge, but it is the corporations through their countless think-tanks and armies of lobbyists who actually pull the strings.

Arrival at an 80 per cent reduction of global GHG emissions will demand a war-like response, but being such a distant memory and so something about which most are unfamiliar, that it is impracticable and largely unachievable.

Like it or not, we are locked into what will be a struggle for human survival (that sounds dramatic, but until we are prepared to say it, from our leaders down will anything of any consequence happen) then we will continue to muddle along until we arrive at a catastrophic bifurcation in our lifestyles demanding action.

The tragedy is that as of today we (humans) have the capacity to make significant and meaningful changes to how we live and what we prioritize and in blindly charging forward, the time when we will need those resources is becoming inevitably closer and so we should be applying those reserves now and not expending them to such an extent that they will be rare, expensive and so hard, in not impossible to apply.

Writing on what is a wonderful autumn day, something being experienced by many of my Goulburn Valley counterparts it is difficult, if not impossible to suggest to people that rather dire times are ahead when a changing climate system is going to disrupt everything with which we are familiar.

Meanwhile, The Guardian reports that failure by the world leaders in Paris this year to reach a deal to cut carbon emissions would be catastrophic.

Its story - “Extreme weather and rising seas are already global threats. This will only intensify” – discusses the importance of the Paris meeting and the general nonchalant approach most people have to that crucial moment.