https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/human...extinction-of-most-marine-plants-and-animals/ Our empty oceans: Scots team’s research finds Atlantic plankton all but wiped out in catastrophic loss of life By Mark Howarth July 17, 2022, 2:06 pm Scientists have discovered a catastrophic loss of life in our oceans, we can reveal. An Edinburgh-based research team fears plankton, the tiny organisms that sustain life in our seas, has all but been wiped out after spending two years collecting water samples from the Atlantic. The landmark research blames chemical pollution from plastics, farm fertilisers and pharmaceuticals in the water. Previously, it was thought the amount of plankton had halved since the 1940s, but the evidence gathered by the Scots suggest 90% has now vanished. The scientists warn there are only a few years left before the consequences become catastrophically clear when fish, whales and dolphins become extinct, with grave implications for the planet. In the report, the researchers from the Global Oceanic Environmental Survey Foundation (Goes) state: “An environmental catastrophe is unfolding. We believe humanity could adapt to global warming and extreme weather changes. It is our view that humanity will not survive the extinction of most marine plants and animals.” Scientists warn the loss of life-sustaining plankton, above, will risk extinction of life in the world’s oceans (Pic: Shutterstock / Choksawatdikorn) The findings have prompted calls for urgent action on a number of fronts as observers warn the promises of Cop26 to ease the climate crisis have, so far, amounted to little. Fiona Nicholls, an oceans campaigner for Greenpeace UK, said: “Our oceans can be our allies in fighting climate change, but there is simply no time to waste.” Goes – based at Edinburgh University’s Roslin Innovation Centre in Midlothian – has been collecting samples from the Atlantic and the Caribbean from its yacht, Copepod. Setting out from Scotland, it sailed along French and Portuguese coasts before crossing the Atlantic. The yacht is currently moored in Cartagena, Colombia, before setting sail for Panama this week. In addition to their own samples, the Goes researchers have provided monitoring equipment to other sailing boat crews so that they can perform the same trawls and report back with their results. The team, led by marine biologist and former Scottish Government adviser Dr Howard Dryden, has compiled and analysed information from 13 vessels and more than 500 data points. Now they have alerted the scientific community to their findings and are appealing for the troubling implications to be understood and acted upon before it is too late. Plankton is made up of the billions of marine creatures and plants that drift in the currents of oceans and seas. The category covers a huge variety of species, many of them microscopic. However, they are fundamental to life on Earth as they form the bottom rung of the food chain. Plankton is consumed by the krill which are fed on by the fish that, in turn, provide nutrition for terrestrial animals including billions of humans. Numerous types also perform a vital role in regulating climate change by helping oceans absorb carbon dioxide and giving off the chemical dimethyl sulphide, which assists in creating clouds. But plankton needs the right conditions to thrive, including water that is slightly alkaline. However, the oceans are slowly turning more acidic. An overload of CO2, along with a deluge of lethal manmade chemicals in cosmetics, plastics, sunscreen, drugs and fertilisers, is inundating the marine environment. This brew is proving toxic to underwater life and once the water reaches a tipping point of acidity, vast amounts of plankton will simply dissolve. Every year, 18 million tons of heavy oil fuel is spilt into the seas by the shipping industry and breaks up into tiny particles that are toxic to plankton. Citing previous studies, Goes researchers had been expecting to discover 20 such microscopic specks per litre of Atlantic water – but actually counted between 100 and 1,000. They expected to find up to five visible pieces of plankton in every 10 litres of water – but found an average of less than one. The discovery suggests that plankton faces complete wipe-out sooner than was expected. The Goes report concludes: “If we destroy plankton, the planet will become more humid, accelerate climate change, and with no clouds it will also become arid and wind velocities will be extreme. “Yes, of course, we need to continue to reduce CO2 emissions but even if we were carbon-neutral, it will not stop ocean acidification – it will not stop the loss of all the seals, whales, marine birds, fish and food supply for two billion people. “CO2 reduction won’t even stop climate change; indeed, we will have catastrophic climate change because we have not fixed the primary root cause – the destruction of nature by toxic chemicals and substances such as plastic. “We have two choices. We can choose to wake up, understand and address the real issue or choose the game-over button for humanity come 2050.” From his ongoing mission in Colombia, Dryden – who addressed the Cop26 climate summit in Glasgow last year – told The Sunday Post: “Based on our observations, plankton numbers have already crashed and are now at the levels that I predicted would not happen for another quarter of a century. “Given that plankton is the life-support system for the planet and humanity cannot survive without it, the result is disturbing. It will be gone in around 25 years. Our results confirmed a 90% reduction in primary productivity in the Atlantic. Effectively, the Atlantic Ocean is now pretty much dead. “We surveyed the Caribbean from St Lucia to Grenada. Now the only fish available in restaurants there is imported farmed Atlantic salmon. “It had been reported that 50% of the coral was gone; our observations were that the coral is 100% gone in many locations and 90% gone in all locations.” A humpback whale dives in the Atlantic Ocean off Iceland (Pic: Shutterstock / Rui Duarte) Dryden says the first step for survival is for us all to truly understand the peril our species is in – and then do our bit in saving nature so it can save us. And everyone – from families, farmers and financiers to scientists and supermarkets, ministers and multinationals – has a part to play. He explained: “We cannot stop climate change by simply reducing CO2 emissions. However, we can clean up our pollution to give us clean air and clear rivers and bring life back to the oceans. We could potentially live with climate change, but we will not survive the destruction of nature. If we can bring back nature, though, we also solve climate change.” He said that during the pandemic, because of the lack of tourism, ecosystems had started to recover. Fish have returned and coral reefs have recovered. Dryden added: “People cause pollution, and in most of the world there is no effluent treatment. Covid has shown us that if we eliminate pollution then ecosystems have high capacity to spring back.” Calum Duncan, head of Scottish conservation at the Marine Conservation Society, said: “There are multiple drivers for ocean decline, including climate change, pollution, overfishing and unsustainable development. “We need to tackle the climate and nature emergencies together by transforming both our land and sea use toward a truly sustainable and circular model. “That includes turning off the tap on all damaging pollutants, both atmospheric and waterborne, and suitably protecting all of our ocean. However, with less than 1% of our seas under high levels of protection, we have a long way to go.” Earlier this month, at the UN Ocean Conference in Portugal, 150 nations signed a declaration emphasising the importance of conserving the seas. But campaigners say concrete action is now needed at next month’s IGC5 summit in New York, at which negotiators will try to hammer out the wording of a treaty to protect global waters. Nicholls warned: “If a treaty is not finalised next month, it will be almost impossible to reverse the damage to the world’s oceans.” Scientist: Scotland has already polluted most of our coast and killed most of our fish More...
Overshoot: too many mouths chasing too little land. https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ers-fight-back-against-huge-cuts-to-livestock ‘Emotion and pain’ as Dutch farmers fight back against huge cuts to livestock Farmers express fury at government drive to tackle nitrogen pollution through a major reduction in numbers of pigs, cattle and chickens in the Netherlands The Dutch flag flies upside down as farmers mount a blockade earlier this month at a Lidl distribution centre in Almere, Netherlands. Photograph: Hollandse Hoogte/Rex/Shutterstock Along roads and bridges in the Netherlands, people are hanging the Dutch flag upside down. It is a sign of solidarity with the Dutch farming sector, which will also be upturned by a radical 30% reduction in livestock numbers, a move being made to meet environmental targets. In recent weeks, farmers have blocked off food distribution centres with hundreds of tractors, blockaded major roads and turned up outside regional assemblies and ministers’ homes to protest. One late-night protest ended with a police officer accused of firing a gun at a 16-year-old farmer’s son. It comes as authorities in the Netherlands have released details of the cuts in ammonia, nitrogen oxides and nitrous oxide needed to protect more than 150 nature reserves in the country. And it is the farming sector that is going to bear the brunt of emissions cuts. “This is not a democracy any more: it’s a dictatorship,” says Jeroen van Maanen, a farmer with 130 cows in Zeewolde, central Netherlands, who has joined the protests. Manure, when mixed with urine, releases ammonia, a nitrogen compound. If it enters lakes and streams via farm runoff, excessive nitrogen can damage sensitive natural habitats. The country has the seventh biggest livestock population in the EU but is comparatively small in size. This gives it Europe’s highest livestock density, with insufficient land to make good use of the waste from more than 100 million cattle, chickens and pigs. If you come for us and our families, you come at a farmer’s soul Jeroen van Maanen, farmer Van Maanen says farmers are being unfairly targeted: “If you come for us and our families, you come at a farmer’s soul,” he says. “We’ve proposed all kinds of solutions but we are ignored. And finally, they come up with a plan for a reduction in livestock. No other sector has reduced nitrogen in the last 30 years [as much as] we have. This is why there’s a lot of emotion and pain.” The latest government coalition has not, so far, been dissuaded by the protests from its drive to tackle the country’s environmental problems. After a landmark court ruling in 2019, it needs to reduce nitrogen emissions in order to allow building projects to go-ahead in the country. There is no choice, says Rudi Buis, spokesperson for the agriculture ministry. “Even if you stop with the policy tomorrow, the problem doesn’t go away. If you want to build a house or a road, a lawyer will say: first reduce nitrogen and then you get a licence. We have to do something. It’s not a luxury. It has to happen.” This is why, he says, the farming sector was addressed first in parliamentary briefings which asked provincial governments to come up with detailed plans for reductions within a year. Farmers are furious that they have been singled out, says Jan Brok, vice-chair of BoerBurgerBeweging (BBB), a rural political party which has made huge gains in the polls. “All farmers in the Netherlands do something that releases nitrogen, but there is an unfairness: currently it’s only the farmers who have to reduce emissions but not the rest of industry,” he says. “We know exactly what allowance each farmer has and what they produce, while a lot of industrial companies don’t need permission – but they emit nitrogen.” According to documents released on Wednesday as a result of MP questions, finance ministry calculations suggest more than half of livestock farmers will have to stop or slim down. The government plans, reports the Financieele Dagblad, will affect five times more farmers than is strictly necessary. The LTO farming union has refused to interact with a new government negotiator, Johan Remkes, saying the timeline is impossible and too focused on agriculture. “A country-level reduction of 50% in 2030 is simply unfeasible, and will have disastrous effects on not just agriculture but the economic, social and cultural viability of rural Netherlands,” said LTO spokesman Wytse Sonnema. Many farmers do accept the need for change but fear the effect on their livelihoods. “A lot of people in the cities don’t see the link between what they eat every day and what we as farmers do,” says Alex Datema, an organic dairy farmer with 110 milk cows in Groningen. Thousands of farmers at The Hague, Netherlands, 19 February 2020, during a protest against the livestock reduction plan. Photograph: Peter de Jong/AP Natasja Oerlemans, head of the food team at WWF Netherlands, stresses that while the charity is keen for farmers to have a good income and positive social role, this does not mean a high livestock density. “This is the only country in the world where manure is regarded as a waste product instead of a valuable source of nutrients and soil health,” she says. “We export 70%, keep all the rubbish, and the gains are all for private companies. It’s a system that’s not sustainable and can’t go on. We [the Netherlands] can be considered as a wake-up call for what happens with very intensive farming systems that don’t take into account the environmental conditions they have to operate in.”
I vaguely remember reading about animals slaughtered because feed was down. Last year maybe. Alberta and Saskatchewan had grain harvests down 37% because of drought. There's a big to-do about fertilizer restrictions, but I have not looked into yet. I suspect it's to reduce demand for methane (some call it natural gas).
Yeah, that's what I was referring to - the restrictions on fertilizer that has the farming community up in arms.
That's The Predicament. If we keep using fossil fuels, we're dead, but if we stop using them... we're dead. But in Canada, losing weight because food is scarce might be better than freezing to death this winter. For awhile.
This could have been done right not-so-long ago. Might still be time, if we wanted to not be political and instead just tried to solve the problem. Fat chance, I know. A combination of nuclear and renewables before cutting off fossil fuels would have been the right way to go.
Trying to remember this... iirc energy analysts back in the 1970s said we should begin the transition to renewables, I include nuclear (so long as uranium is available), no later than 20 years before peak oil is reached, so we'd have the time, materials, and the cost would not be prohibitive. Peak conventional oil came in and around 2005.
I assume when you state "peak conventional oil" you're excluding fracking, sands and other like technologies - and also ignoring the significant nat gas boom in the US. I believe there is still time to do it if we had some real leaders and not a bunch of substitute teachers in charge.