5 ms·

>while there may once have been a chance to stop the spread of $ARTICLE_TOPIC — around the year $CURRENT_DATE_MINUS_FIFTEEN_YEARS — that opportunity has since p

>while there may once have been a chance to stop the spread of $ARTICLE_TOPIC — around the year $CURRENT_DATE_MINUS_FIFTEEN_YEARS — that opportunity has since passed. Forces didn’t mobilize fast enough or spend enough money FTA, with minor edits; I think we'll see a lot more language like this in the coming ten years. The consequence, which absolutely no one would be against ("what do you mean, there's 90% fewer oak trees?!"), always seems to logically follow the general disinterest in preventing the problem ("what do you mean, the _forestry service_ needs a 800% budget increase?!"). OTOH, it's generally clear what we should have done, in hindsight, but there's all kinds of stuff like this running around. The ever-eastward spread of the Asian long-horned beetle; what ocean acidification is going to do to corals and anything else that uses calcium carbonate to build its shell; etc

Aelinsaar 10y ago
I think if we're being honest, we should have been seeing those article for the last ten years.
ars 10y ago
> I think we'll see a lot more language like this in the coming ten years. ?? Why? What's special about the coming ten years? FWIW I've always seen this kind of language, it's not in the slightest new. You could go to most any point in history and find similar things. The problem is you can only tell what needs [needed] the money in hindsight. In 2002 did you know we needed the money for this? Did anyone?
- beatpanda 10y ago
  Climate change is putting stress on ecosystems that causes them to change more rapidly than they have in the past. You could go back in history and find similar things, but you'd be hard pressed to go back in history and find as many things happening at the same time.
  - ars 10y ago
    > Climate change is putting stress on ecosystems that causes them to change more rapidly than they have in the past. Is it? You keep reading this story and that story about how this crop failed, or changed or whatever, and they always blame climate change. Then you check and see - oh yah, that also happened in this year and that year. Climate change is becoming like dark energy - blame absolutely everything you don't understand on it. Climate change is a very slow, very subtle process that is difficult to even see unless you look very closely. It's not responsible for every single thing that happens differently this year compared to last year.
    - beatpanda 10y ago
      And that attitude is why society isn't going to adjust in enough time to avoid a whole bunch of extinction and ecosystem collapse.
      - ars 10y ago
        Wait, so you want to blame absolutely everything on climate change, so that people get super scared and do something about it? That doesn't seem dishonest to you? For example the story in this article has exactly zero to do with climate change - but I assume you would be happy to blame it on climate change anyway? > to avoid a whole bunch of extinction and ecosystem collapse Really? Who is predicting that? Only in the worst case scenarios will that happen, and the data is not trending that way. You are so caught up in your desire to fearmonger-for-change that you have gone a full circle: Now you are trying to prevent a catastrophe you yourself invented. And that attitude is why society's belief in the reliability of science has never been lower. Tell the truth. Don't lie to get change.
      - noir_lord 10y ago
        We'll adjust just fine, we'll wreck the natural ecosystem doing it but in fairness we already did that anyway, UN reckons we have 38% of the earths land mass under some form of agriculture. Wild Earth is going away, Garden Earth is coming, the first planet we terraform as a species will be Earth. Note: I'm not saying this is a good thing but we will survive as a species and I wouldn't bet against us thriving.
skywhopper 10y ago
The comparison to massive die-outs in coral reefs is not very apt, because those often represent the destruction of entire ecosystems and of great natural beauty that is mostly irreplaceable. Whereas, while certain species of oaks being wiped out is sad and disrupts other parts of the ecosystem, it also doesn't represent total devestation. Other oaks survive, dozens of other tree species will thrive in the niche left behind by these trees. And as we've only recently come to grips with the ecological benefits of forest fires, I expect we'll also eventually learn that not all invasive species represent irreversible ecological disaster, and that they actually play an important role in encouraging the spread of new variants that we didn't realize were going to be beautiful and useful to us. In other words, Life... uh... finds a way.
ascotan 10y ago
It looks like in 2002 California enacted a task force to control the spread of the disease. see "Sudden Oak Death Management Act of 2002". However, this was subject to appropriations in the California state budget. The author is implying the act was hampered by not having the budget to do the work (apparently $60 million a year according the article).
- justratsinacoat 10y ago
  >The author is implying the act was hampered by not having the budget to do the work (apparently $60 million a year according the article) There's always someone desperately trying to get The Powers That Be to notice.

Aelinsaar 10y ago

I think if we're being honest, we should have been seeing those article for the last ten years.

ars 10y ago

> I think we'll see a lot more language like this in the coming ten years. ?? Why? What's special about the coming ten years? FWIW I've always seen this kind of language, it's not in the slightest new. You could go to most any point in history and find similar things. The problem is you can only tell what needs [needed] the money in hindsight. In 2002 did you know we needed the money for this? Did anyone?

beatpanda 10y ago
Climate change is putting stress on ecosystems that causes them to change more rapidly than they have in the past. You could go back in history and find similar things, but you'd be hard pressed to go back in history and find as many things happening at the same time.
- ars 10y ago
  > Climate change is putting stress on ecosystems that causes them to change more rapidly than they have in the past. Is it? You keep reading this story and that story about how this crop failed, or changed or whatever, and they always blame climate change. Then you check and see - oh yah, that also happened in this year and that year. Climate change is becoming like dark energy - blame absolutely everything you don't understand on it. Climate change is a very slow, very subtle process that is difficult to even see unless you look very closely. It's not responsible for every single thing that happens differently this year compared to last year.
  - beatpanda 10y ago
    And that attitude is why society isn't going to adjust in enough time to avoid a whole bunch of extinction and ecosystem collapse.
    - ars 10y ago
      Wait, so you want to blame absolutely everything on climate change, so that people get super scared and do something about it? That doesn't seem dishonest to you? For example the story in this article has exactly zero to do with climate change - but I assume you would be happy to blame it on climate change anyway? > to avoid a whole bunch of extinction and ecosystem collapse Really? Who is predicting that? Only in the worst case scenarios will that happen, and the data is not trending that way. You are so caught up in your desire to fearmonger-for-change that you have gone a full circle: Now you are trying to prevent a catastrophe you yourself invented. And that attitude is why society's belief in the reliability of science has never been lower. Tell the truth. Don't lie to get change.
    - noir_lord 10y ago
      We'll adjust just fine, we'll wreck the natural ecosystem doing it but in fairness we already did that anyway, UN reckons we have 38% of the earths land mass under some form of agriculture. Wild Earth is going away, Garden Earth is coming, the first planet we terraform as a species will be Earth. Note: I'm not saying this is a good thing but we will survive as a species and I wouldn't bet against us thriving.

skywhopper 10y ago

The comparison to massive die-outs in coral reefs is not very apt, because those often represent the destruction of entire ecosystems and of great natural beauty that is mostly irreplaceable. Whereas, while certain species of oaks being wiped out is sad and disrupts other parts of the ecosystem, it also doesn't represent total devestation. Other oaks survive, dozens of other tree species will thrive in the niche left behind by these trees. And as we've only recently come to grips with the ecological benefits of forest fires, I expect we'll also eventually learn that not all invasive species represent irreversible ecological disaster, and that they actually play an important role in encouraging the spread of new variants that we didn't realize were going to be beautiful and useful to us. In other words, Life... uh... finds a way.

ascotan 10y ago

It looks like in 2002 California enacted a task force to control the spread of the disease. see "Sudden Oak Death Management Act of 2002". However, this was subject to appropriations in the California state budget. The author is implying the act was hampered by not having the budget to do the work (apparently $60 million a year according the article).

justratsinacoat 10y ago
>The author is implying the act was hampered by not having the budget to do the work (apparently $60 million a year according the article) There's always someone desperately trying to get The Powers That Be to notice.