Suchergebnisse

"Built on a strong foundation in restoration ecology, this unique handbook provides practitioners, academics, and managers with vital tools needed to plan for ecosystem conservation, to restore degraded ecosystems, to make cost-effective restoration decisions, and to understand important legal issues. Rehabilitation of Damaged Ecosystems, Second Edition boasts three completely new chapters and five major chapter revisions. Coastal wetlands restoration, watershed rehabilitation and management, mined land reclamation, revegetation of disturbed ecosystems, and river and stream restoration are only a few of the critical topics explored in this timely reference handbook. This Second Edition provides valuable, reliable data as well as practical methods and techniques for the ongoing fight to protect natural resources and restore damaged ecosystems."--Provided by publisher.

In the United States today, scientific evidence and discovery are being overshadowed by the anti-science rhetoric of current legislation sponsored by big business. Scientific evidence can reduce risks and uncertainty, but by assaulting the source of this evidence, science, society is choosing to accept the uncertainty that comes as a consequence. As a result of this new antiscience ideology, the eight interactive global crisis 1) human economy, 2) climate change, 3) exponential human population growth, 4) ecological overshoot, 5) biotic impoverishment and the reduction of biodiversity, 6) renewable resource depletion, 7) energy allocation, and 8) environmental refugees continue to worsen as time goes on. Only science can provide the essential evidence to solve these complex crises.

Scientific evidence on climate change, including global warming, is more abundant than ever, but politicians and citizens are rejecting or attacking scientists for the evidence they have found. Science is reality based on a preponderance of evidence, and reality is often hard to accept. The biggest threat to human security is not terrorists or nuclear weapons, but the results of what would happen if humankind continues to ignore the warning signs of the biosphere.

In early 2009, humankind was afflicted with a global financial meltdown that, in the United States, has resulted in loss of employment for persons who had thought their jobs were secure. Many individuals who already retired or are approaching retirement found that a plunging stock market had made a more secure retirement plan much less secure. A number of corporations and other institutions had such poor management that the US government had to provide "bailout funds," which have helped corporations and instiutions avoid bankruptcy. Some failing financial institutions that received "bailout funds" because they were "too big to allow them to fail" (since failure would disrupt the global economic system) gave huge bonuses to their top officers, which angered US taxpayers and politicians. However, no moral outrage was voiced when "toxic paper" mortgages were given to citizens who could not afford the house they were buying. Nor was the ethical outrage widespread when anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions continued rapid increases, endangering both present and future generations. How did humankind get in these unenvialble situations? Would a better grounding in ethics have prevented these and other tragic situations?

In the latter part of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, rapid climate change and damage to the biosphere have increased the risks to Homo sapiens. So much harm has already been done to the biosphere and the climate system that it will require humankind to adapt to the existing and new conditions in order to survive. In order for this information to reach and impact the public, scientists, politicians, and the news media need to work together to communicate their ideas to the public. The major problem is increasing literacy about the eight, interactive, global crises (human economy, climate change, exponential human population growth, ecological overshoot, biotic impoverishment and the reduction of biodiversity, renewable resource depletion, energy allocation, and environmental migrants) so that humans can take informed action. Unless immediate action is taken to reduce the probability of the eight crises becoming catastrophes, the crises will worsen.

Recent publications have indicated that a 2 C increase of global average temperature, once thought acceptable, may involve serious risks (Greg, 2004). A global mean tempurature increase of 4 C would be hotter than any time in the last 30 million years, and this increase could be realized as early as 2060-2070 (Leahy, 2009). The prospects of plans for major, immediate reduction of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions at the climate onference at Copenhagen in December 2009 do not seem likely. A climate bill in the US Congress probably will be weakened by numerous amendments, and China and India are not eager to implement major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Even if the Copenhagen Conference recommends major reductions, they are likely to be fiercely resisted because of present economic conditions. Neither politicians nor citizens seem prepared to make the "sacrifices" needed for rapid reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

Eight global crises- human economy, climate change, exponential human population growth, ecological overshoot, biotic impovershment and the reduction of biodiversity, renewable resource depletion, energy allocation, and environmental refugees- affect each other and affect and are affected by the biosphere. Some, perhaps all, are close to tipping points that, if tipped, will result in irreversible change. And yet, no sense of urgency is apparent. If any one of the eight interactive crises passed a tipping point, it will probably act as a threat multiplier for the remaining crises. Both politicians and the average citzen believe that priorities can be established for these interactive crises, but such an option is not viable for a highly interactive system. Polls indicate that most people place economic growth as the higest priority for human society, even through the highest status should be given to the master biospheric life suppot systme to which all other systems are subordinate.

Tipping points may be passed when all appears well, and the changes that follow are likely to be swift and irreversible. A frequent analogy to passing tipping points is of passengers in an automobile driving rapidly through a dense fog toward a cliff an unknown distance away. Tipping elements are now beginning to receive some long overdue attention. This interest is essential because tipping points surely exist, een though people are unaware of them. Tipping points and tipping elements have received practically no political attention. However, the natural laws of physics, chemistry, and biology have been in operation for billions of years and ignorance of exceeding them affords no protection from them. Of course, much more research is needed. However, while research is proceeding, two major steps can be taken now: (1) a science information system for the news media, the general public, and politicians should be put into operation at once, (2) a science internet site operated by such organizations as the National Academy of Sciences should be established so that the general public can obtain the information personally whenever it chooses.

The discourse between scientists and politicians and news media must be improved in order to communicate complex environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity loss, ecological overshoot, or exponential population growth to the general public. The media trying to balance, or give both sides of the argument equal time, while the evidence may be massively one-sided could cause misunderstandings between scientists and the general pubic. This practice could be considered a form of bias because it distorts the information available. In order to resolve the misunderstanding and distrust between the two camps, the news media, politicians, and the public need to improve their understanding of scientific processes and scientists must better communicate how science works to the general public and its representatives.

Some people alive in 1940 may remember a portion of the famous speech given on 13 May 1940 by Sir Winston Churchill to the British public. The speech was given during the dark days of World War II for the British when all appeared to be on the verge of being lost. Still, with a firm resolve and a realistic picture of the task before them, the British people responded to Churchill s plea with resolution and prevailed. Similarly, the climate crisis of the 21st century is global; time for remedial action is short; personal sacrifices may be appalling; and success is not assured. However, the alternative to taking action is equally horrendous _ letting billions of people starve and die and virtually eliminate the prospects of a quality life for posterity. The key lines of Churchill s speech are: _I say to the House as I said to ministers who have joined this government, I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many months of struggle and suffering (full speech at http://famousquotes.me.uk/speeches/Winston_Churchill/2.htm). Churchill asked the people to war with all their might and with all their strength _ in short, total commitment.

All life on Earth depends on the biospheric life support system to provide both natural capital, or resources, and ecosystem services. Why, then, is the human economy, a subset of the biosphere, given the highest priority by both politicians and the general public? If humans do not make the biosphere s health the top priority, the effects of global warming will change the biosphere into a vastly different, unlivable system.

In 1959, the British scientist C. P. Snow gave the prestigious Rede lecture with the thesis of a breakdown of communication between the "two cultures" of modern society- the sciences and the humanities-which was a major hindrance to solving the world's problems (Wikipedia). In the 21st century, a more serious breakdown has occurred between the two cultures of politicians and scientists, especially concerning the five critical, global problems:(1) climate, (2) acidification of the oceans, (3) overpopulaition, (4) ecological overshoot, (5) damage, possiblu irreversible, to the biospheric life support system. All these global problems require a holistic approach and will only be solved by exemplary collaboration among the world's nations, using a "top-down" global-system perspective. Special interest views are importatnt, but should not dominate. However, in the United States, and most other countries, special interest groups and lobbyists do dominate. The global system, Earth, has no well financed, politically powerful lobby. The result is that two, global, ecological tipping points have been passed and the damage is irresversible in timeframes of interest to humans. Can this alienation between scientists and politicians be resolved? It must be quickly resolved if civilization is to be saved.

The United States, which has been the poster child for car culture, has been warned of the unparalleled prospect of trillion-dollar deficits for years to come. Most state governments face severe reduction in tax monies, which will mean fewer funds for road and bridge repair, as well as reductions in other services. Personal debt is very high and home values have declined sharply, reducing the _nest egg of many families for retirement. In addition, the stock market decline has had deleterious effects on retirement funds. The car culture was built on cheap fuel, financing of car purchases, and a convenient national system of mostly free roads connecting nearly all parts of the United States. Personal transportation with cars has been the norm. Petroleum prices are down dramatically at the end of 2008, but people are driving less to pay off personal debt or because they have lost their jobs. Electric cars seemed promising until problems with coal-generated electricity became more generally known. In short, the car culture has passed a tipping point and alternative public transportation is not adequate for probable future needs. One characteristic of passing a tipping point is that return to the pre-tipping point conditions is very unlikely.

The spelling of the words _eco-logy and _eco-nomics in the title is intended to emphasize that both words originated from the Greek word oikos, which means household, house, or family. Despite their common origin, never have two disciplines diverged so dramatically. Economic growth, aided by economic globalization, has markedly diminished natural capital, from which all other forms of capital are derived. Economic growth (without protecting the biospheric life support system) seems to be the primary goal of human society. In reality, the human economy is a subset of the biospheric life support system, which regenerates the resources that are the raw materials of the economic system. Yet political leaders continually state that the biospheric life support system cannot be protected if the possibility of doing so would adversely affect economic growth. However, growth of material goods and population cannot continue indefinitely without severe consequences. At present, many ecologists delay discussing biotic impoverishments with economists, fearing that such candor will _turn them off. The contextual framework of economists and ecologists is far from congruent, although the survival of human society, and even of the human species, depends on it.

Overpopulation is the _elephant in the living room _ the issue everyone sees but no one will address. Exponential population growth on a finite planet is neither sustainable nor desirable; however, politicians refuse to discuss population control with constituents. They may believe that economic growth is linked to perpetual population growth or they fear alienating their audience. However, the fact is Earth s human population has more than doubled within the last 86 years and some projections place the population size at 15 billion by 2100. The Earth s resources are being used at a far faster rate than they can be regenerated, so something must be done.