By Berl Falbaum
Daily -- yes, daily -- there is a news story about an environment calamity somewhere in the world which gives us the evidence that the Earth is on its last legs, and no one seems to be paying attention.
So, let’s start with a couple of basics questions: Can the Earth be saved? Can we avoid what many experts consider the inevitable: That by 2100, only some 77 years away -- and maybe sooner -- life on the planet will be endangered and beyond repair?
For the last decade, I have written extensively on the environment, including one book, and my answer always has been, “No.”
Admittedly, I am a layperson and not a scientist or scholar on the subject. I have based my conclusion on research on existing research. And the science is very clear: We are doomed.
For this column, I want to focus on what could and should be done because my critics always point to the measures being taken to save the planet. The problem: The so-called solutions are totally inadequate and, worse, they give false hope, and divert attention from what is required.
Recycling, solar and wind energy, electric cars, etc., while commendable efforts, hardly begin to solve the problem. Moreover, many of these “solutions” cause environmental problems on their own.
What we need are drastic and dramatic actions that will change the way we live on Earth and it would require international cooperation and unity. As the National Resources Defense Council stated that to give the Earth a chance -- just a chance -- at survival: “…Every government at every level -- national, state, city, town -- every business sector, every private enterprise, every individual must be in alignment.”
We do such a good job now at international cooperation. What’s the saying: “That will happen when pigs fly.”
Let’s just consider a few policies that might make a difference. They may not provide the ultimate lifeline, but they do suggest the massiveness on what needs to be done. For brevity, I cite just one simple reason why these measures are essential.
--We need to adopt an international “birth control” program. The world population presently is 7.9 billion and projections are we will reach 9 to 10 billion in a couple of decades or so. The Earth cannot sustain such growth.
--No new residential or commercial developments would be approved anywhere in the world. Not only do new projects require more energy and water, but they destroy more wildlife habitat which is essential for survival. In addition to the species already killed off, one million plants and animals are at risk of extinction.
-- Auto manufacturers would be required to build cars that get around 200 miles to the gallon. Why is “everyone” driving SUVs?
-- Travel by air would be cut half, if not more. There are approximately 100,000 flights daily in the world which annually emit more than one billion tonnes of greenhouse gases. (A tonne totals 2,204.6 pounds). Overall, we emitted 6 billion tons of greenhouse gases in 1950; in 2020, we emitted 34 billion tons.
-- Fishing quotas would be reduced by 50 percent. Overfishing is a huge problem with many species threatened with extinction.
-- Meat consumption would be reduced, if not eliminated, since cattle are responsible for emissions of methane gas -- more deadly than CO2 -- that contribute about 14 percent of toxic emissions.
-- All production of plastics (there are many types) would be banned. By 2050, projections are that we will have more plastics than fish in the oceans (as measured in pounds). Try this: The next time you are in a supermarket, look down any aisle. Almost all products -- the average supermarket stocks about 40,000 items -- have some plastic component.
-- Dumping garbage, plastics, sewage and other materials into waterways would be prosecuted as a felony. Eight hundred million people – 1 in 10 -- do not have access to clean water.
-- Logging, particularly in rainforests, would be cutback sharply, if not halted altogether. Rainforests are essential; they absorb CO2 gases. Haiti has lost more than 90 percent of its rainforests.
But this would be just a beginning. Anyone out there envision the adoption of any of these suggestions? Even one? Most important, we need all of these and many more dealing with air pollution, soil contamination, disposal of garbage and nuclear waste, etc.
Obviously, I understand the complexity and economic impact of the above recommendations. I cite them only to demonstrate the massiveness of what needs to be done.
Not only would the challenges facing us require extraordinary political will and an international cooperative effort that’s hard to even imagine, but we would need a commitment of hundreds -- that’s hundreds -- of trillion of dollars.
We have had 27 international environmental summits and after each one the picture only darkened.
Unfortunately, there is no light at the end of this tunnel.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/subscriptions
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
