6 ms·

Although humanity sucks for centuries, we could make the argument, that the 20th century was the century where there was more done for the environment than in t

Although humanity sucks for centuries, we could make the argument, that the 20th century was the century where there was more done for the environment than in the last millennia. Many species that were considered displaced or even extinct have returned to their natural habitat and reclaimed their native land. Science and education showed us the right way forward, making cities way cleaner than ever before. I do not know how about you but I am glad that streets are not littered with human and animal waste and air is not filled with methane and pollutants from coal combustion. Sure, there were plenty of mistakes made (uhm..uhm...atom bomb testing), but we live in the best era in the last 100000s years. Only thing that I see as very unfortunate nowadays is that the environment become a politicised issue (in a sense that facts are neglected by both sides of the debate and are replaced by empty rhetoric and disinformation that is used for political gains and moral high-ground. The fact that there is even a separation into different environmental camps is the most ridiculous event in human history since that time a pirate became a pope!) edit: repeated words

akvadrako 6y ago
Also there is more forest than before.
- wombatmobile 6y ago
  Where? Could you quantify that in hectares or acres?
  - BiteCode_dev 6y ago
    In France at least. Our forests have been growing faster than we cut them for a few decades.
  - didgeoridoo 6y ago
    The trend is upward over the last 40 years (about 7% more global forest cover now than in 1982[0]) but I don’t think the data exist to extrapolate further back to, say, the beginning of the 20th century. [0]: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-global-forest-loss-years-offset.html https://phys.org/news/2018-08-global-forest-loss-years-offse... Edit: oh god 1982 was almost 40 years ago not 30. Tempus fugit.
    - wombatmobile 6y ago
      That comes as a surprise to me. Thanks for linking to the article.
    - mymythisisthis 6y ago
      Wood was the main form of fuel, until very recently. The forests that have grown back are not as healthy as the old growth. In the NE of America, the oaks and transitional maples have greatly diminished. Faster growing, and invasive species have taken their place. Less diversity in the wildlife, as the new trees don't provide the same amount of shelter. The importance of grasslands are overlooked. The prairies in NA have been turned into a monoculture nightmare. Grasses grow fast and are great at capturing carbon, providing food, and habitat for animals.
7952 6y ago
But the environment is deeply political! A seemingly simple decision can be fraught with unintended consequences across different groups of people. Just allowing or banning a pesticide could have impact on human health, insect population, birds, pollinators, the livelihood of farmers, and rural economies. Politics is the system we have invented to deal with this complexity, and we should accept that people will have conflicting views in the same way as any other issue. I think people have tried to artificially de-politicize the environment into something technocratic. But there is no scientific formula that can justify destroying a coal miners livelihood in favor of renewables. That is justified because fighting climate change and air pollution is the right thing to do. That is a moral and a political choice.
- hot_fuzzybear 6y ago
  "a politicised issue (in a sense that facts are neglected by both sides of the debate and are replaced by empty rhetoric and disinformation that is used for political gains and moral high-ground...)" Perhaps I was not clear enough, which is quite typical for me, BUT I agree with you 100%! It is important to question and debate this issue through a political system. What I mean is that the current political culture in various countries has turned this process into a joke and I am not sure if we can even have a civil debate on this topic ever again. Hell, most conversations I have regarding pesticides end up in name calling and ridiculous oversimplifications of reality. I actually gave up on having these discussions altogether. That is my point, I hope I am more clear this time as I do not wish to cause any confusion. Edit: tone...I unintentionally sounded passive-aggressive

akvadrako 6y ago

Also there is more forest than before.

wombatmobile 6y ago
Where? Could you quantify that in hectares or acres?
- BiteCode_dev 6y ago
  In France at least. Our forests have been growing faster than we cut them for a few decades.
- didgeoridoo 6y ago
  The trend is upward over the last 40 years (about 7% more global forest cover now than in 1982[0]) but I don’t think the data exist to extrapolate further back to, say, the beginning of the 20th century. [0]: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-global-forest-loss-years-offset.html https://phys.org/news/2018-08-global-forest-loss-years-offse... Edit: oh god 1982 was almost 40 years ago not 30. Tempus fugit.
  - wombatmobile 6y ago
    That comes as a surprise to me. Thanks for linking to the article.
  - mymythisisthis 6y ago
    Wood was the main form of fuel, until very recently. The forests that have grown back are not as healthy as the old growth. In the NE of America, the oaks and transitional maples have greatly diminished. Faster growing, and invasive species have taken their place. Less diversity in the wildlife, as the new trees don't provide the same amount of shelter. The importance of grasslands are overlooked. The prairies in NA have been turned into a monoculture nightmare. Grasses grow fast and are great at capturing carbon, providing food, and habitat for animals.

7952 6y ago

But the environment is deeply political! A seemingly simple decision can be fraught with unintended consequences across different groups of people. Just allowing or banning a pesticide could have impact on human health, insect population, birds, pollinators, the livelihood of farmers, and rural economies. Politics is the system we have invented to deal with this complexity, and we should accept that people will have conflicting views in the same way as any other issue. I think people have tried to artificially de-politicize the environment into something technocratic. But there is no scientific formula that can justify destroying a coal miners livelihood in favor of renewables. That is justified because fighting climate change and air pollution is the right thing to do. That is a moral and a political choice.

hot_fuzzybear 6y ago
"a politicised issue (in a sense that facts are neglected by both sides of the debate and are replaced by empty rhetoric and disinformation that is used for political gains and moral high-ground...)" Perhaps I was not clear enough, which is quite typical for me, BUT I agree with you 100%! It is important to question and debate this issue through a political system. What I mean is that the current political culture in various countries has turned this process into a joke and I am not sure if we can even have a civil debate on this topic ever again. Hell, most conversations I have regarding pesticides end up in name calling and ridiculous oversimplifications of reality. I actually gave up on having these discussions altogether. That is my point, I hope I am more clear this time as I do not wish to cause any confusion. Edit: tone...I unintentionally sounded passive-aggressive