Updated: 5/3/05; 5:20:07 PM.
AirJair's Radio Weblog
        

Wednesday, April 6, 2005

From Bob's blog

Over 1300 scientists from 95 countries agree: two-thirds of Earth's resources in trouble

Wednesday, 30 March 2005

Those pesky realitymongers are at it again:

A report backed by 1,360 scientists from 95 countries - some of them world leaders in their fields - today warns that the almost two-thirds of the natural machinery that supports life on Earth is being degraded by human pressure...

áBecause of human demand for food, fresh water, timber, fibre and fuel, more land has been claimed for agriculture in the last 60 years than in the 18th and 19th centuries combined...

áWater withdrawals from lakes and rivers has doubled in the last 40 years. Humans now use between 40% and 50% of all available freshwater running off the land.

áAt least a quarter of all fish stocks are overharvested. In some areas, the catch is now less than a hundredth of that before industrial fishing.

áSince 1980, about 35% of mangroves have been lost, 20% of the world's coral reefs have been destroyed and another 20% badly degraded.

áDeforestation and other changes could increase the risks of malaria and cholera, and open the way for new and so far unknown disease to emerge...

An estimated 90% of the total weight of the ocean's large predators - tuna, swordfish and sharks - has disappeared in recent years. An estimated 12% of bird species, 25% of mammals and more than 30% of all amphibians are threatened with extinction within the next century...

Funny, I haven't seen the TV anchors mentioning this at all.Ê

Looking at the CNN website right now: ooh, there's a new appeal in the Schiavo case, a Boy Scout leader enjoys boys wearing knickers, Hilary Swank has legal trouble, Jerry Falwell is sick, 300,000 people are dead without context in Sudan, Moby has a new album, and there's a special report on how Katherine Harris' political career is going.

You'd think CNN would at least mention the likely self-inflicted demise of civilization.

Get it folks?!?

You know what really pisses me off? It's the fact that I actually have to be aware of this shit. Those who are blissfully ignorant nay-sayers are going to end up like the German aristocrats who were partying in Berlin, thinking they'd won the war, when the allied bombs started crashing through the walls.
11:51:09 PM    comment []


This site looks really promising. Great advice and links. Hacks for your life.
8:29:32 PM    comment []

one of the reasons I opposed the original Gulf War was that it was obvious that the US would be tying itself to future wars over a dwindling, not to mention polluting resource. What the US SHOULD have done, of course, was, listen to me. The nation should have embarked on a hardcore renewable energy, nrg efficiency campaign. It would have helped the economy, created jobs, made the world a more secure and healthy place. Which brings me to what Jim Kunstler has to say:

Here's the real deal: China is the last industrialized nation of the cheap energy age. Its factory production is keyed to the continuation of regular supplies of cheap oil. It has little oil of its own. In order to continue to pretend it can keep "growing" -- if that's what you call its current state of pathogenic hypertrophy -- it will have to do two things. 1.) embark on a military adventure to establish hegemony over oil producing regions, and 2.) replace the prime customer for the avalanche of cheap "consumer" goods that its factories churn out.

We'll take these questions in reverse order. China may have to find someone else to sell to because its American customers, the WalMart and Target shoppers, are sliding into bankruptcy after a decade-long credit card orgy. Will the Europeans throw away their own manufacturing capacity to make way for a Chinese tsunami of cheap hair dryers and blue jeans? Don't bet on it. Will South America and Africa replace the American market? Forget it. Will China simply shift marketing to its own citizens? That brings us back to the oil question.

?An industrial economy is not a perpetual motion machine. It has to run on something -- in this case, oil, natural gas, and coal. If China expects to expand to meet the expectations of Davos, it will have to go adventuring for oil, in effect establish hegemonic relations with the countries that have the stuff. China is already scurrying around the globe signing contracts with nations such as Venezuela and Canada for future oil delivery -- which, by the way, will come at the expense of the oil-hungry United States. China is currying favor with the nations of Middle East by doing civil engineering projects there. China's army could walk into the oil producing nations of Central Asia. China can reach down to Indonesia with its expanding navy. In all these ventures, China will bump up against an increasingly desperate US, determined to preserve a way of life that, in the words of Veep Dick Cheney, is "non-negotiable."

Meanwhile, China's coal supply is mostly low-grade "soft" coal, exactly the stuff that will shove the world's climate into phase change if it has to be used to replace missing oil. China hopes to get natural gas from its neighbor, Russia. Good luck on that. The Russians just planned a major natural gas line that will bypass China to north and go to Japan. The Russians need to be dominated by China like they need a hole in the head.

Conclusion: in the next twenty years, China is certain to contest militarily for the world's remaining oil with what has been the prime customer for its manufacturing output. That would be America.

While the US is fraught with multiple economic difficulties -- energy dependence, loss of productive activity, debt meltdown, an ongoing expensive war -- China has problems that are even more fundamentally ominous -- a population much more advanced in ecological overshoot, severe environmental destruction, and a water crisis that is manifesting, among other ways, in steeply falling grain harvests (on top of energy and resource dependence, unregulated banking, and the prospect of huge industrial overcapacity in the face of bankrupt customers).

So it makes me wonder... A war in South East Asia between China and say... Indonesia? With a large debt, alienated friends, and limited options, is the US hooped? Will it wage war again and again as it's back gets pushed to the wall? Of course there are quite a few caveats to these types of scenarios, however, the Chinese seem consistent to me, and I agree with the assessment that China's foreign policy is simple; Get oil, keep Taiwan.
5:52:34 PM    comment []


© Copyright 2005 Airjair.
 
April 2005
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Mar   May


Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website.

Subscribe to "AirJair's Radio Weblog" in Radio UserLand.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.