Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>Lister pointed out that, since 1969, pesticide use has fallen more than 80 percent in Puerto Rico The article does make this claim, but it doesn't appear to back it up in any way. Additionally, nothing is said about the type of pesticide. If I use a pesticide that is 10x stronger by weight than what was available in 1969 and possibly doesn't need to be applied as often, then we're not comparing apples to apples. Ad…
You should read the linked studies before posting, they answer all these questions.
Study shows massive insect loss
191–200 of 213 posts
Re: Study shows massive insect loss
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
TFA is about a roughly 80% drop in biomass in a pristine, protected tropical rainforest, in a country where pesticide use has dropped 80 percent.
How about delayed effects? I can't read the article, but does the article mention what the natural decay rate of these pesticides is?
The report also makes the claim: "Most pesticides have half-lives measured in days, not decades (60)"
Reference 60 links to [1].
Nowhere on that page does it make any claims about 'most' pesticides, nor does the study attempt to link any type of pesticide to that the ones reported there.
Clearly, the impact of pesticides was dismissed without any real effort to verify the impact of pesticides.
Re: Study shows massive insect loss
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had two daughters before I came to the conclusion that this is the most likely path for humanity at this point. There is a possibility of a global awakening that might prevent this tragic loss of megafauna. But I'm already a vegan and don't drive much; can't think of more to do, and while I'm not too bad at dealing with this, it can be quite depressing.
That's barely the tip of the iceberg of what to do. Public transportation or bicycling, avoiding one-time non-consumable items (one-time plates, forks, cups, cup-lids, straws, etc. are an absolute no-go—which means boycutting starbucks and similar if necessary), recycling, rallying against use of polluting materials (less polypropylene and soft plastic packaging in super-markets, for example), less materialistic impo…
> Just over 70 percent of the soybeans grown in the United States are used for animal feed, with poultry being the number one livestock sector consuming soybeans, followed by hogs, dairy, beef and aquaculture. The second largest market for U.S. soybeans is for production of foods for human consumption, like salad oil or frying oil, which uses about 15 percent of U.S. soybeans. A distant third market for soybeans is biodiesel, using only about 5 percent of the U.S. soybean crop. In 2013, soybean exports reached record highs, exporting 43 million metric tons to overseas markets. China remains the largest export market for U.S. soybeans.
https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexisten...
You'll find this same thing over and over again when discussing clearing land for crop growth. The vast majority of it is to support meat production. Going vegan is probably the number one thing you can do to fight climate change and pollution in general, as an individual. Especially since switching would eliminate vast amounts of farming, and the associated chemicals and water loss. edit: and deforestation.
It is not a small thing, not at all, and to diminish it is to deny the massive sea of change that is required to actually fight climate change with 7B people on the planet.
Sure, there is a lot of cultural blowback against veganism, but I think it is manufactured via marketing, just like the anemic belief in climate change in the United States.
Re: Study shows massive insect loss
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's barely the tip of the iceberg of what to do. Public transportation or bicycling, avoiding one-time non-consumable items (one-time plates, forks, cups, cup-lids, straws, etc. are an absolute no-go—which means boycutting starbucks and similar if necessary), recycling, rallying against use of polluting materials (less polypropylene and soft plastic packaging in super-markets, for example), less materialistic impo…
A note about diet: There are some recent studies suggesting that globally, on average, the most environmentally friendly diets have some animal product component because of their ability to make use of landmass that we wouldn't be able to make use of directly. E.g., cattle can eat plants that grow in areas we can't grow human-friendly crops on. I can't find citations to these studies offhand unfortunately. (this is a…
Re: Study shows massive insect loss
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same way we explored the earth. Every one won't move at once. These are gradual things that unfold over decades to centuries.
We can definitely colonize space. And we can make space travel vastly cheaper. But I'm extremely doubtful we would ever reach a point where moving everyone off of earth is easier than fixing whatever is broken with earth. Or that it would even get within a factor of 10.
Re: Study shows massive insect loss
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course burning my front lawn would never be allowed and I understand the reasons for that but ever since humans arrived (15,000 years or so ago) California grasslands would burn quite often. The "native" ecosystem was adapted to it and I think it would be fun to see what a few years of buring would do to the biological diversity of my little bit of grassland.
California has been burning for far longer than people have been here. Human presence did, of course, alter things, but natural ignitions due to lightning strikes shaped the ecology for millennia before we showed up. https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/Fi...
We don't get the same kind of bad lightning storms that occur in the Rockies where the monsoons bring up thunderstorms from the south during otherwise dry summers. Maybe in the San Bernardino mountains near LA get a few of these summer lightening storms.
It would be interesting to read about pre-human fire occurrence rates in the grasslands of California but, as this study states, preserved evidence of grass fires more than 15,000 years ago are rare.
Re: Study shows massive insect loss
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm willing to bet that the necessary genes already exist in the population, since the bugs already handle daily temperature swings that are much larger than the increases from climate change. Given that, a few dozen generations is plenty. And insect generations are for the most part quite short.
Then why are the insects all dying? If this is true, the populations should be rebounding. They aren't.
Re: Study shows massive insect loss
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's barely the tip of the iceberg of what to do. Public transportation or bicycling, avoiding one-time non-consumable items (one-time plates, forks, cups, cup-lids, straws, etc. are an absolute no-go—which means boycutting starbucks and similar if necessary), recycling, rallying against use of polluting materials (less polypropylene and soft plastic packaging in super-markets, for example), less materialistic impo…
Something like 75% of all non-meat food grown in the US is fed to animals for later eating. When you complain about soy destroying forests, you are complaining about meat consumption: > Just over 70 percent of the soybeans grown in the United States are used for animal feed, with poultry being the number one livestock sector consuming soybeans, followed by hogs, dairy, beef and aquaculture. The second largest market…
In US agriculture, we have some estimates for the ratio of output calories to the input calories [1] that are astounding. For every 100 kcal of feed stock, we get ~19 kcal back from chicken, ~7 kcal from beef, and a whopping 1 kcal from shrimp.
Essentially, every 1000 kcal of beef takes 14,000 kcal of corn/soy/alfa-alfa and 1000 kcal of shrimp takes 100,000 kcal of whatever it is shrimp eat.
[1] From the book Diet, Energy, and Global Warming by Eshel and Martin
Re: Study shows massive insect loss
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
The dinosaurs evolved in a climate with 6 times the CO2 we have, after long term volcanic activity. It will take a lot more than climate change to knock out all life. Maybe a gamma ray burster a few light years a way could do it, or a massive collision that melts the crust. Not much else, though. Life as a whole is extremely reilient.
Unfortunate fact is that humans are not as resilient. Even with all our technology we'd have problems.
Re: Study shows massive insect loss
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm already a vegan and don't drive much Since 71% of pollution is coming from 100 companies[1] I don't think that you can stop global warming by being vegan or driving less. Blaming us single individuals is easy, but we a are not directly responsible for this. The most we can do is stop buying stuff from these polluting companies. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...
So I went back to the original PDF, https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1... , to look at the list. I see lots of companies that sell oil there. Or coal. Or things. But none that really emit pollution as a side effect. Someone like 3M could pollute less by changing the way it produces each packet of yellow stickers. The pollution is a side effect, it's something the company can change by intern…
The act of polluting is identical with the act of consuming.