Live data from Hacker News

Whatever happened to the bee apocalypse?

backreaction.blogspot.com

11–20 of 184 posts

Re: Whatever happened to the bee apocalypse?

#11
post #5
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SSC did a blog post about the various environmental panics of the 1990s. Some were real, some weren't; some were solved, some weren't[0]. [0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/01/01/what-happened-to-90s-e...

These historical successes are encouraging, but it is very important not to extrapolate any of them to anthropogenic climate change. The processes underlying every single one of the examples in the SSC article operate on time scales of years or decades. CO2 causes effects over centuries and persists for millennia. It is a completely different beast.

The atmospheric chemistry one was Ozone which turned out to be real, and was solved through regulation.

Re: Whatever happened to the bee apocalypse?

#13
This article buries its lede, which is about how honey bees get all the attention but are at less risk than wild bees:

> And that brings us to the actual problem. The honey bee (Apis mellifera) is only one of about 20 thousand different bee species. The non-honey bees are usually referred to as wild bees, and each location has its native species. According to an estimate from researchers at Cornell University in 2006, wild bees contribute to the pollination of 85 percent of crops in agriculture."

> [...]

> But last year the magazine Cell published the results of a study with a global estimate for the situation of wild bees. The authors looked at the numbers of bee species that were collected or observed over time using data publicly available at the Global Biodiversity Information Facility. They found that even though the number of records has been increasing, the number of different species in the records has been sharply decreasing in the past decades.

> The decline rates differ between the continents, but the species numbers are dropping steeply everywhere except for Oceania. The researchers say there’s a number of factors in play here, such as the expansion of monocultures, loss of native habitat, pesticides, climate change, and bee trade that also trades around pathogens.

> So the problems that wild bees face are similar to those of honey bees, but they have an additional problem which is… honeybees. Honey bees compete with wild bees for food and habitat and they also pass on viruses. Now, a big honey bee colony can deal with viruses by throwing out the infected bees. But this doesn’t work for wild bees because they don’t live in large colonies. And worse, when honey bees and wild bees fight for food they seem to both lose out.

Re: Whatever happened to the bee apocalypse?

#14
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These historical successes are encouraging, but it is very important not to extrapolate any of them to anthropogenic climate change. The processes underlying every single one of the examples in the SSC article operate on time scales of years or decades. CO2 causes effects over centuries and persists for millennia. It is a completely different beast.

The atmospheric chemistry one was Ozone which turned out to be real, and was solved through regulation.

Yes, but you've missed the point: the problem with ozone was depletion in the upper atmosphere by CFCs. But CFCs do not persist for millennia and ozone is continually produced by natural processes. So if you stop emitting CFCs the problem naturally fixes itself in a short period of time (a few decades).

But even if we reduced CO2 emissions to zero tomorrow that would not solve the problem because we are already at 150% of pre-industrial CO2, and CO2 persists for thousands of years. We've taken carbon that was sequestered by natural processes over a period of hundreds of millions of years and released it back into the atmosphere in a period of a few hundred years. That genie will not go quietly or quickly back into its bottle.

Re: Whatever happened to the bee apocalypse?

#15
> However, the numbers may sound more alarming than they really are because honey bees are efficiently bred and managed by humans.

Could that be part of the problem, they mention diversity loss in habitat, how about diversity of honeybee genetics. At the same time, HoneyBees are basically barnyard animals, we don't monitor the collapse of pig populations as they head to the slaughterhouse. I understand its not quite an apt analogy because that is the known causative agent and nobody is trying to slaughter their HoneyBees. All the same, they are not natural, I wonder if the public realizes that.

Re: Whatever happened to the bee apocalypse?

#17
post #12

Horizontal well fracking was perfected/took-off in 2006 https://ballotpedia.org/File:EIA_fracked_wells_2015.png Wells are burnt off for months, the more wells the more burnoff. People get sick up to 60 miles away from the burnoff, I wonder how that affects wildlife.

If fracking was related, we'd see a dramatically higher die-off around the permian basin and more or less no die-off whatsoever in the north-west and north-east. This isn't quite what we see: https://fractracker.org and https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/new-map-highlights...

Now, as for fracking and air pollution, I am not an expert, but I did have a very interesting set of discussions with a fracking engineer who made a good argument that fracking shale in particular has dramatically decreased air pollution from oil extraction. Here is an article about it https://www.energyindepth.org/report-data-indicate-that-mass... (should be noted that this website is run by the oil industry, so take this line of argument with some salt).

Re: Whatever happened to the bee apocalypse?

#18

Tangentially related, I wonder if anyone has done a meta-analysis about media reported calamities, like Zika, the bee population dying off, etc., and doing a follow up. Then comparing it to what the media reported initially. Was this accurate, blown out of proportion, understated, or simply sensational reporting?

It might be hard to tell whether a foretold disaster never materializes because a) it was sensationalized or b) because the attention spurred action (which is good!).
Post reply on HN