Anthropocene

Age of Man (National Geographic):

So it's disconcerting to learn that many stratigraphers have come to believe that we are such an event—that human beings have so altered the planet in just the past century or two that we've ushered in a new epoch: the Anthropocene. Standing in the smirr, I ask Zalasiewicz what he thinks this epoch will look like to the geologists of the distant future, whoever or whatever they may be. Will the transition be a moderate one, like dozens of others that appear in the record, or will it show up as a sharp band in which very bad things happened—like the mass extinction at the end of the Ordovician?

That, Zalasiewicz says, is what we are in the process of determining.

The Anthropocene: a new epoch of geological time? (Royal Society A):

This issue examines the nature, scale and status of the Anthropocene as a potential new geological Epoch. Key themes addressed are the effects of human influence on climate, landscape, the oceans, and biodiversity, and how these are producing a distinctive geological record, that will be preserved into the far future. The phenomenon of ongoing, human-driven environmental change may be compared with the great environmental perturbations of the geological past.

How hard are we pushing the land? (PhysOrg / NASA):

We may be becoming an ever more technologically advanced society, but we remain as dependent as ever -- if not more and more so -- on the natural world that surrounds us.

That is one takeaway from new NASA research that has found humans are using an increasing amount of the Earth's total land plant production each year for food, fiber, building and packaging materials and biofuels.

This remains a young data record, as one of the first global measurements tied to satellite data was published in 2004. That baseline-setting measurement was for the year 1995, when humans needed 20 percent of all plant growth for our various products. But the early returns are in, and despite uncertainties in the measurement, the signal is headed in a clear direction: up. From 1995 to 2005, global annual plant consumption rose from 20 percent to 25 percent of all plant production in those years.

As the human population continues to grow and more societies develop modern economies, this rate of consumption is increasing both as a whole and on a per capita basis globally, a NASA research group led by Marc Imhoff at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., has found.

Blind date with disaster (Guardian / David Suzuki 2008)

[I]n 1992, a remarkable document called World Scientists' Warning to Humanity was signed by more than 1,500 senior scientists, including more than half of all Nobel prizewinners alive at that time.

Here is some of what the document said: "Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future we wish for human society . . . and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about."

The document goes on to list the critical areas of the atmosphere, water resources, oceans, soil, forests, species extinction, and overpopulation. Then the words grow even more urgent: "No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished. . .

A great change in our stewardship of the Earth and life on it is required if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated."

This is a frightening document; eminent scientists do not often sign such a strongly worded missive. But if the Scientists' Warning is frightening, the response of the media in North America was terrifying - there was no response. None of the major television networks bothered to report it, and both the New York Times and Washington Post dismissed it as "not newsworthy".

Og til slutt en på norsk:
Tror historiens sjette masseutryddelse er på vei (NRK)

Linker, onsdag 21te juli 2010

Veldig interessant debatt mellom James K. "Jamie" Galbraith og Paul Krugman. En god oppsummering (iflg ingen ringere enn Scott Fullwiler) er Paul Debates Jamie and MMT (letsgetitdone/Corrente). Det hele ser ut til å ha startet med Galbraith’s statement to the Commission on Deficit Reduction som er... skal vi si hvasst? Skåldende? Han avslutter med:

10. The Best Place in History (for this Commission) Would be No Place At All.

Most people assume that “bipartisan commissions” are designed to fail: they are given thorny (or even impossible) issues and told to make recommendations which Congress is free to ignore or reject. In many cases — yours is no exception — the goal is to defer recognition of the difficulties for as long as possible.

You are plainly not equipped by disposition or resources to take on the true cause of deficits now and in the future: the financial crisis. Recommendations based on CBO’s unrealistic budget and economic outlooks are destined to collapse in failure. Specifically, if cuts are proposed and enacted in Social Security and Medicare, they will hurt millions, weaken the economy, and the deficits will not decline. It’s a lose-lose proposition, with no gainers except a few predatory funds, insurance companies and such who would profit, for some time, from a chaotic private marketplace.

Thus the interesting twist in your situation is that the Republic would be better served by advancing no proposals at all.

Thank you again for the opportunity to present this statement.

Krugman svarer: I Would Do Anything For Stimulus, But I Won’t Do That (Wonkish) og videre More On Deficit Limits.

Flere linker i kommentarene til Full employment apparently equals 12.2 per cent labour wastage (Mitchell).

------

Interessant paper om energikilders arealkrav:

Energy Sprawl or Energy Efficiency: Climate Policy Impacts on Natural Habitat for the United States of America (McDonald et al/PLoS ONE; lesbar nettversjon, pdf nedlastbar (anbefales da nettversjonen er lite lesevennlig))

Climate change is now acknowledged as a potential threat to biodiversity and human well-being, and many countries are seeking to reduce their emissions by shifting from fossil fuels to other energy sources. One potential side effect with this switch is the increase in area required by some renewable energy production techniques [1]–[5]. Energy production techniques vary in the spatial extent in which production activities occur, which we refer to as their energy sprawl [2], [3], defined as the product of the total quantity of energy produced annually (e.g., TW hr/yr) and the land-use intensity of production (e.g. km2of habitat per TW hr/yr). While many studies have quantified the likely effect of climate change on the Earth's biodiversity due to climate-driven habitat loss, concluding that a large proportion of species could be driven extinct [6]–[8], relatively few studies have evaluated the habitat impact of future energy sprawl. It is important to understand the potential habitat effects of energy sprawl, especially in reference to the loss of specific habitat types, since habitats vary markedly in the species and ecosystem processes they support.

[...]

The land-use intensity of different energy production techniques (i.e., the inverse of power density [16], [17]), as measured in km2 of impacted land in 2030 per terawatt-hour per year, varies over three orders of magnitude (Fig. 3). Nuclear power (1.9–2.8 km2/TW hr/yr), coal (2.5–17.0 km2/TW hr/yr) and geothermal (1.0–13.9 km2/TW hr/yr) are the most compact by this metric. Conversely, biofuels (e.g., for corn ethanol 320–375 km2/TW hr/yr) and biomass burning of energy crops for electricity (433–654 km2/TW hr/yr) take the most space per unit power. Most renewable energy production techniques, like wind and solar power, have intermediate values of this metric.

Den grafen avstedkommer umiddelbart tre Åj! - bobler over hodet mitt: 1) hvor likt fotavtrykket til vind og sol er fotavtrykket til olje og gass; 2) alle former for biomasse har et horribelt enormt fotavtrykk; og 3) hvor lite fotavtrykket til kjernekraft er.

(PS: også interessant at vannkraft breier seg så mye og kull så lite)
(ED: korrektur)