I don't think anyone is "blaming" foreigners, though they do constitute >99% of the population of the planet, so I think they have something to do with Climate Change (as does the UK) !
Maps of excessive population growth, pollution, environmental destruction, species extinctions, water shortages, etc point to certain parts of the world more than others, and some nations (eg, China) cause much more than their share of the problems
The solution has to have a major political element, and at the moment I cannot see how that will happen in the forecast timescale
I completely agree about wealth inequalities. It's terrible, and increasing. Ironically, though, if the wealth of the ultra-rich were somehow redistributed, there would be even more demand for energy. I can't see how wealth inequality will reduce in the forecast timescale, either
In time, Climate Change will stabilise; the big question is what will happen in the meantime
Chris Porter said
Sat Jul 6 11:21 AM, 2019
I'd agree with most of what has been said, but think we need a more strident political approach. The focus should be on the huge inequalities in global wealth, and by extension ownership of and access to all kinds of resources, rather than population per se. Levels of consumption and all the environmental destruction that goes with it, are tied more closely to a relatively small wealthy strata of the earth's population than to the less affluent majority that can often be the undeserving focus for advocates of limiting population numbers.
The biggest danger is continuing an ideology that prioritises economic growth (in which ecological impacts are regarded by economists as 'externalities'!) and, importantly, the accumulation of wealth in fewer and fewer hands. This ensures that powerful vested interests (in politics, media, PR, science, industry, academia) actively work against attempts to protect the planet and develop truly sustainable ways of living. I'm not saying a large population isn't a problem to be discussed, but we need to be bold enough to confront the prevailing ideological dogma that makes some people unwilling to question a few billionaires owning the earth's resources, but quite ready to talk about limiting how many children the world's poor have.
Blaming India, China and other developing countries is very easy but misguided - purposely so from those who want us washing our hands of the problem and blaming foreigners. For one, we have to acknowledge the developmental benefits that countries such as the UK have already reaped through destroying the environment: https://www.cgdev.org/media/who-caused-climate-change-historically.
Our current economic and political orthodoxy actually forces less developed countries to follow similarly destructive 'modernising' paths, partly through prescribed economic restructuring to service debts, and also through systems of punishment (sanctions/isolation/funded fomentation of civil unrest/military intervention) for those that don't want to hand over their natural and labour resources to transnational corporations.
Then we have to recognise that we live in a globalising world in which thinking purely along national lines doesn't get us very far (apart from enabling people to say "it's their fault over there, so what's the point?"), and we have to admit that the large amount of damaging production processes now taking place in the likes of India and China are happening in order to service a global society of consumers - mostly in the so-called developed world but also increasingly the growing (consuming) middle classes of China, India etc: https://www.pnas.org/content/107/12/5687/tab-figures-data.
Sorry for waffling on, but while population numbers and rapidly developing nations are a crucial element of how humans are damaging the planet, they can only be tackled meaningfully and sustainably by confronting the key driver that actively demands poverty and inequality as a necessary platform for itself to survive - capitalism.
-- Edited by Chris Porter on Saturday 6th of July 2019 11:24:43 AM
Mike Passant said
Tue Jul 2 4:50 PM, 2019
02/07/2019
I started this thread some ten years ago with a little story concerning the extinction of a small bird on a small island in New Zealand.
Since then we have gone backwards on all fronts; - carbon emissions (worldwide) will continue to increase by 2050, rainforest destruction is actually being deliberately accelerated by a greedy stupid president of Brazil voted into power by an ignorant population, and short term thinking will ensure populations will not be reduced significantly in time to change things for the better.
I am in my 78th year (and personally glad of it). I have had an amazing life of adventures beyond my wildest dreams, birding and travelling on every continent, skiing, climbing, enjoying sport and always learning more. - Not bad for a council house kid from Radcliffe born in WW2 of divorced parents. As John Rayner says - we have been a very fortunate generation.
I have absolutely nothing more ever to say on this thread, but take this last opportunity to thank all contributors.
With very best wishes,
Mike P.
John Watson said
Sun Jun 30 10:54 AM, 2019
So, if the population were somehow to freeze at today's value of 7.7 billion, then Climate Change would go away ? No.
It's a triple whammy: - increasing population - increasing access by more of the population to technology that requires energy - increasing energy usage by that technology
In the timescale required to prevent Climate Change, none of these trends is going to ease enough to make a huge difference - though it's certainly worth trying
The current CO2 concentration in the air that you & I are breathing right now has increased from 270 ppm (pre-industrial) to 415 ppm - that's a 54% increase. By 2050 it will reach 500 ppm
If China stops building & sponsoring coal-fired power stations today, if Canada/Russia/US/ME stop extracting petroleum today (etc), that figure will continue to increase, albeit more slowly
The CO2 levels need to be brought down, and currently there is no prospect of that happening. Not even close.
Ian Campbell said
Fri Jun 28 4:17 PM, 2019
I think BOTH issues need addressing, alas I feel neither will be. Ian
Paul Beachcroft said
Thu Jun 27 3:58 PM, 2019
I seem to recall reading somewhere very recently, that the entire worlds population could fit into an area of land no bigger than the size of Texas. Which seems to suggest that, in itself, population is not the major contributor to the worlds problems but it is in fact what that population does that is the real issue that needs addressing.
Craig Higson said
Thu Jun 27 1:19 PM, 2019
Mike Passant said
Thu Jun 27 9:02 AM, 2019
At the start of the 20th century the worlds human population was about 1.3 billion. The UN projects that based on current data in 2050 there will be 9.6 billion of us, and at the end of the present century there will be about 12 billion; a ninefold increase in 200 years. - Is this a world which we wish to bequeath to todays children?
We stand at the dawn of the age of AI. Also for the first time on the evolutionary timescale there is now a creature (we ourselves of course) capable of shaping its own further evolution by means of advanced technology. One might suppose therefore that by use of the internet we can disseminate information to the largest ever audience instantly. We need to put aside antiquated belief systems, and undue reliance on supernatural baggage which serve only to perpetuate complacency and ignorance (and to be brutally honest have in large measure contributed to todays problems).
However one might phrase the obvious solution, it is basically to have fewer children and to reduce the human population drastically by 2050, by which means the ancillary solutions will be all the more effective. Every child born should as a matter of right be able to look forward to a better life than that of its parents, - who could argue against that? Logic dictates that to achieve this we need to work now towards fewer children- better prospects.
Cheers,
Mike P.
Mike Chorley said
Mon May 27 10:26 PM, 2019
WE go and talk to them via local NGO's and governments offering alternatives, as people do in some of the documentaries I've seen recently looking at problems like this. WE offer alternatives and advice, like the scheme in Yucatan mapping the the connections between the cenotes, to make sure that the economic development taking place doesn't do further accidentally damage the region's only fresh water resource through run off seeping through the limestone. WE support campaigns to reduce damaging practices like the destruction of habitat and livelihoods by things like the spread of palm oil plantations, many of them led by local people and politicians, who, surprise, surprise, also have concerns about what is happening to the planet, especially in their own countries. In other words we recognise that the same international interconnection that has resulted in projects all over Africa to help the survival of European migrant birds on their wintering grounds needs to be applied to our other environmental problems.
John Watson said
Mon May 27 8:14 AM, 2019
It's that phrase "by all of us" that's the problem
In the UK we are reasonably well informed
How do you persuade someone in Indonesia (other over-populated countries are available) to stop burning wood to cook food to keep their children alive ?
How do you stop China's semi-autonomous regions from building 1-2 coal-fired power stations per week ?
etc, etc, etc
The UN is the only worldwide organisation with the recognition to steer governments, but it has no authority. And it's not exactly dynamic
Things will have to get tangibly worse before nations will do anything. And by then ...
Mike Passant said
Sun May 26 3:41 PM, 2019
I dont disagree with anything Andy says, but personally I feel that even though we are dangerously close to tipping point, science and technology and the will to do something urgently still offer some hope of a potential solution if the public can be sufficiently frightened out of apathy.
I use the term tipping point to mean the scenario where with any further critical rise in average temperature the permafrost across the arctic region melts sufficiently to release methane into the atmosphere on a huge scale (methane being of course a far more deadly greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, as well as being inflammable). I raised the matter of methane release at the meeting deliberately to cause alarm if I could, as people are more inclined to take the issue seriously if they get worried, but the attendees at least were already worried, and our MP who is shadow minister of labour really did take all the concerns on board, so I am glad that we attended.
I am fundamentally still pessimistic but if my granddaughter can enjoy a few more decades of happy life by all of us at least doing our best now to halt or at least delay any disaster that is better than just giving up in despair.
Cheers,
Mike P.
-- Edited by Mike Passant on Sunday 26th of May 2019 03:43:06 PM
Andy Bissitt said
Sat May 25 9:20 PM, 2019
Craig Higson wrote:
Mike Passant wrote:
Last night Barb and I attended a public meeting hosted by our local NW Durham Labour MP Laura Pidcock.
About 80/90 people attended and we expected that the dominant theme would centre upon Brexit, especially in view of yesterdays events.
How wrong can one be? Immediately the obvious main area of concern expressed from the floor was Climate Change, which took up about 85% of the meeting time with well argued points and everyone in agreement. About a dozen of us individually said our piece. What came out of this as a conclusion was that while the future hinges largely on what action might be taken by China India USA and Russia and Brazil, we in GB can at least focus on setting the pace by example and so influencing others in the right direction. The recent high profile street demonstrations do seem to be having the desired effect.
Cheers,
Mike P.
A glimmer of hope then Mike?
I only wish it was. The small number of people there asked about Climate change (formerly Global warming before they realised this was harder to sell to the public) because they are concerned. I would reckon that in the U.K. they are outnumbered by hundreds to one. Just look around you: neighbours with all lights blazing when only one person lives there, using pressurised water cleaners, driving to the shops one-third of a mile away, and these were just examples from the last 24 hours. Most people do not want to do anything which would disrupt their lives in any way at all. The thing that makes me laugh most at the moment is continual use of the phrase 'we need to educate the public'. The problem therein lies: the public at large are just not educated about anything. Period. When I saw so few moths (or other insects) around my trap a couple of nights ago (in decent conditions), I realised the game is almost up, not necessarily for the human race at first, but the natural world. I am not just a doom and gloom merchant, I only report what I see (or don't, as is now the case).
Craig Higson said
Sat May 25 2:05 PM, 2019
Mike Passant wrote:
Last night Barb and I attended a public meeting hosted by our local NW Durham Labour MP Laura Pidcock.
About 80/90 people attended and we expected that the dominant theme would centre upon Brexit, especially in view of yesterdays events.
How wrong can one be? Immediately the obvious main area of concern expressed from the floor was Climate Change, which took up about 85% of the meeting time with well argued points and everyone in agreement. About a dozen of us individually said our piece. What came out of this as a conclusion was that while the future hinges largely on what action might be taken by China India USA and Russia and Brazil, we in GB can at least focus on setting the pace by example and so influencing others in the right direction. The recent high profile street demonstrations do seem to be having the desired effect.
Cheers,
Mike P.
A glimmer of hope then Mike?
Mike Passant said
Sat May 25 9:19 AM, 2019
Last night Barb and I attended a public meeting hosted by our local NW Durham Labour MP Laura Pidcock.
About 80/90 people attended and we expected that the dominant theme would centre upon Brexit, especially in view of yesterdays events.
How wrong can one be? Immediately the obvious main area of concern expressed from the floor was Climate Change, which took up about 85% of the meeting time with well argued points and everyone in agreement. About a dozen of us individually said our piece. What came out of this as a conclusion was that while the future hinges largely on what action might be taken by China India USA and Russia and Brazil, we in GB can at least focus on setting the pace by example and so influencing others in the right direction. The recent high profile street demonstrations do seem to be having the desired effect.
Cheers,
Mike P.
Mike Chorley said
Thu May 9 7:31 PM, 2019
China tried the compulsory one child per family system for many years and found it didn't work, so there have to be other reasons to do it, just as there have to be a variety of reasons to adopt non-carbon energy sources, reduce the use of plastic, (especially single use plastic), find alternatives to palm oil and all the other problems that we're facing. The answers lie in better education, health, economic status, but the way to do that isn't to watch other countries try to achieve that, it's to help them achieve that, which is why I said it will depend on us being willing to contribute a bit more. As for religious attitudes, I know a lot of fellow Catholics who have practiced contraception (and I don't mean the Rhythm method so wonderfully satirized by Billy Connolly) for quite a long time, regardless of what The Vatican says - and with the support of their parish priests. I suspect that is true of other religions as well.
John Watson said
Thu May 9 8:06 AM, 2019
Yes, overpopulation is part of the root cause, alongside reluctance to adopt non-carbon sources of energy
But, think this through. Let's watch China, Indonesia, India etc increase their standard of living to the point when they don't want more than 2 children. How many more generations will that take? How much carbon emissions does that cost? How much more pollution is produced? How much more stress on habitat does that cost?
And, it also assumes that certain religions (I really don't want to bring religion into this!) accept contraception & rights for women to control their careers & limit childbearing
In the timescale essential to stop climate change, it's simply not going to happen
Mike Chorley said
Wed May 8 9:15 PM, 2019
The answer to the problem of over-population is the same now as it was in Europe until the middle of the 20th century. A better standard of living and better health care for all. If your first born and their first born are around to help support you in your old age, then you don't need to produce as many children to make sure some survive. The decline in European population growth in recent years seems to support this. The problem is that this means people in the developed world have to pay that bit more and that's where the problem lies. Incidentally, while I'm typing this, I'm watching film of a guy in Chennai who spends 50% of what I suspect is quite a modest income feeding a large flock of urban parakeets.
Steve Suttill said
Wed May 8 9:32 AM, 2019
Unless we humans stop breeding at the current rate, any other measures we take are just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.
John Watson said
Wed May 8 8:36 AM, 2019
Such a jolly thread !
I studied Chemistry at Uni. In 1975, I was told there are 2 major global chemical problems: the ozone hole & global warming. That was 44 years ago
The ozone hole is now depleting because of a concerted international effort. It was killing people, and an alternative found. Because of the chemistry & chain reactions, the residual CFCs take decades to denature
Global Warming was identified as an issue in 1859 (Tyndall), and the first calculations done in 1896 (Arrhenius), as a professor friend has told me
I'm sure most people worldwide are now aware of it. After all, it's been 160 years! But, apart from some efforts by a minority of people in a minority of countries, the only impact so far is that a global disaster may have been postponed. Slightly.
The UK is better informed than most, and has made substantial (but insufficient) changes. But what about China, India, Indonesia, Russia, US, Brazil ? How do you tell Russia to stop extracting gas when it's a major part of their trade? How do you tell Indonesians (for example) with a population of 261 million to have smaller families, when it's against their culture (let's keep religion out of this)? How do you persuade the right-wing Brazilian govt to enforce protection of their remaining rainforest? How do you tell Indians not to feed their children so others can survive?
These people & nations don't want to believe it until they can see it. And that's too late
There's a fascinating seminar by Prof Daniel Gilbert of Harvard, explaining the psychology. Basically, humans perceive a threat if it triggers an instinct. Climate Change doesn't do this
https://vimeo.com/10324258
People will deal with Climate Change, one way or another, but the big question is what damage will have been done before that happens
Craig Higson said
Tue May 7 11:03 PM, 2019
Mike Chorley wrote:
Depends which day you looked, Craig...and maybe where - it was a lead or prominent feature throughout the BBC's news coverage yesterday. There was also a story on the problems with deforestation in Madagascar during the weekend coverage, including an interview with someone from Chester Zoo, promoting a longer piece on the BBC News Channel. I agree though that we need more positive stories about efforts which are having a positive effect, about ways to be ecologically friendly which don't cost a lot, like programmes which demonstrate the economic savings for families in cutting food waste, buying fresh food instead of pre-packed etc, and certainly all of the solutions which Mike P mentioned. There will always be the self-centred and the selfish who have no interest in the world around them until it stops them from doing what they want, but I think the fact that even some of the 'disposable fashion' chains are implementing schemes where customers can recycle last year's/month's/week's 'must-have' item shows that a wider range of people and businesses are taking notice.
-- Edited by Mike Chorley on Tuesday 7th of May 2019 08:21:18 PM
To be honest I didn't see hardly any news yesterday, but what I did see was about the baby and I hadn't seen this new report until today. Add to that that I have avoided news channels for a while because of the (in my opinion) poor reporting on so many things and I could well be missing some stuff that gets through.
Andy Bissitt said
Tue May 7 9:17 PM, 2019
We've definitely seen and heard more coverage on ecological matters in the past few days than ever before, but the cynic in me says that it is just a convenient way to fill transmission space whilst there is nothing more 'important' with which to do so. Let's keep this simple: if we cannot even make Japan (and a few others) stop commercial whaling, what chance of saving any animal? First suggestion: cease trading with Japan until they comply. Oh sorry! We need their car building (and doubtless many other commodities) factories here don't we? As Mike says, we are 30/40 years too late, and business links between countries are now too deeply entwined to be able to 'threaten' action against those who are pillaging the World (the Chinese mainly). So long planet, it was nice knowing you.
Mike Chorley said
Tue May 7 8:19 PM, 2019
Depends which day you looked, Craig...and maybe where - it was a lead or prominent feature throughout the BBC's news coverage yesterday. There was also a story on the problems with deforestation in Madagascar during the weekend coverage, including an interview with someone from Chester Zoo, promoting a longer piece on the BBC News Channel. I agree though that we need more positive stories about efforts which are having a positive effect, about ways to be ecologically friendly which don't cost a lot, like programmes which demonstrate the economic savings for families in cutting food waste, buying fresh food instead of pre-packed etc, and certainly all of the solutions which Mike P mentioned. There will always be the self-centred and the selfish who have no interest in the world around them until it stops them from doing what they want, but I think the fact that even some of the 'disposable fashion' chains are implementing schemes where customers can recycle last year's/month's/week's 'must-have' item shows that a wider range of people and businesses are taking notice.
-- Edited by Mike Chorley on Tuesday 7th of May 2019 08:21:18 PM
Craig Higson said
Tue May 7 7:43 PM, 2019
Problem is Mike, we need more than just individuals trying. The media need to change their approach too. The latest report hasn't even made news headlines - its way down the list after the new royal baby, Liverpool vs Barcelona etc etc.
Part of the problem is there is always 'bad news' from an eco perspective and I think people just turn off. Another problem I believe is that people are more concerned with making ends meet than buying environmentally friendly. Also there seems to be a large element of society that, to be honest, just don't care. They're more bothered about having the latest phone, fashion accessory, car, designer label etc etc.
That native american saying about only finding out you can't eat dollars once everything else is gone seems more relevant than ever!!
Mike Passant said
Tue May 7 6:09 PM, 2019
I suppose that recent publicised concerns about the looming extinction threat to millions of species can only be seen as a positive factor, and the demos in London concerning climate change may kick start more serious political efforts. It is most certainly not a Chinese hoax (as some dimwit suggests). However the suggested target date to achieve zero carbon emissions by 2050 is laughable, - it is way too late by then.
Can we contemplate a world with no Rhinos, Polar Bears, Tigers, or Emperor Penguins - it may seem unimaginable but is a real possibility.
We should have been seriously addressing these problems 30/40 years ago with more effective educational and awareness programs including emancipation of women across developing countries and encouragement of effective contraception.
As individuals we can only try.
Regards,
Mike P.
Mike Passant said
Mon Jan 29 8:03 PM, 2018
Chris Packhams program In search of the missing girl on BBC 2 was sobering.
It is 9 years since I mentioned the problem of human overpopulation on this thread, since when the population of our planet has increased by another 800,000,000.
Mike P.
Henry Cook said
Wed Jul 29 9:09 PM, 2009
It is raining here as well so I though i'd put some brief thoughts in on your ideas. Population is a fascinating (to me anyway), very necessary but exceedingly dangerous issue Mike. It is a significant factor at present behind your two other drivers behind climate change. The only country to pursue more than negligable control over over-population as far as i'm aware, has been China with their one-child per couple policy, but even this is losing will as the country opens up to global society. With popular western cultural mentalities as they currently are (ie prevailing human rights and freedom to bring up a family, both mentalities which I believe in etc) it would be political suicide for any controlling party in a democracy to suggest reducing the birth rate as such by introducing forced contraception There is a line though, where issues such as human rights, freedom etc have the potential to stand in the way of preserving the earth into the next century. Please don't mistake this comment for a call for extremism! This line not to cross is the carrying capacity of the earth. In this quoted sense it seems controlling population is necessary. To this extent I understand David Attenborough's attempt to raise awareness of the issue is worthy but possibly a touch simplified. The obvious alternative to population control is controlling ourselves in terms of the resources we use. If everyone attempted to live 'sustainably' then there is no population threatening the future of the earth issue. We are increasingly moving in this direction as a developed nation (and not coincidently with our assocaited low poverty levels) which gives some hope. The stats on how much total resources the current global population uses varies wildly depending on the type of scare story people are trying to tell but your figure of 1.5 earths Mike is probably on the low side. Up to 3 earths isn't beyond scope, in which case the earths optimum population and current resource usage leves is 2 billion people. Yikes, this is deep for a birding forum! Think I will finish up by saying that population is an issue, it is also an issue which should be talked about and read about from a variety of authors to engender awareness. Polarizing debates emanating from extreme standpoints are dangerous for the issue and could just stall progressive talking (not that i'd expect that to happen on this forum). Lovelock, Erlich, Malthus, Constanza, Meadows, Davis are all interesting reads on the subject of population and sustainability. Thanks. Henry.
Mike Passant said
Wed Jul 29 7:44 PM, 2009
It's a wet day in Durham, so how about a bit of controversy?
Just to pick up on Gary Marland's point (back in April) about the RSPB advertising exotic holidays. I find it hard to criticize anyone travelling by air to pursue their hobby. I do believe eco-tourism has conferred considerable awareness to local/indigenous peoples that their birdlife/wildlife has real value, and that their precious rainforest and all which it contains represents intrinsic wealth beyond measure. The more of us who go to see (and pay to see) their wildlife, the better.
However, If climate change is a real concern, let's look at the big picture. There are three drivers behind the climate change problem: Emissions, Forest loss, Human overpopulation.
EMISSIONS Whatever we do in Britain to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is basically praiseworthy, provided that we very carefully monitor and assess the impact of things like windfarms on wildlife and try to minimise the birdkill factor; (personally I am not convinced at all about windfarms; I think they are a visual blight, and they do kill birds). Sadly, looking at things realistically, whatever we do here doesn't make more than a fractional difference to our ultimate fate. India, China, Russia and the USA will determine the world's fate as regards emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants. All the woffle in Britain about "green taxes" is just another means by which to rip off Joe Public.
RAINFOREST LOSS A major driver fuelling climate change is the disastrous shrinkage of rainforest (just look at the mess the Phillipines is in). Trees of course take up atmospheric carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. At at time when we badly need more forests, we are burning them down at an alarming rate.
HUMAN POPULATION GROWTH Above all else though, the major and fundamental driver of climate change is the relentless uncontrolled growth of the human population, now at 6.3 billion, (against an optimum level assessed as 3 billion). We are now consuming the resources of "one and a half Earths". It is the growth in our own numbers that gives rise directly to the two other drivers above! I have been spouting about human population growth for donkey's years, and was heartened recently to see that wise and fantastic wildlife ambassador David Attenborough now voicing his grave concern, and that he has joined the Optimum Population Trust.
It's really a "no brainer" to see that unless quite soon we can introduce a worldwide workable and fair system in which human deaths exceed human births, (not of course by killing people but by reducing births) so that the population is downsized by tens of millions annually, we and all the wildlife are simply knackered, the consequences will be famines, floods, draughts, mass uncontrolled migrations, and wars over resources and territory.
What's the chance of "world population reduction" being on the political agenda in the near future? - I should say exceedingly slim!
In a few hundred years time, if aliens could visit, they might write our epitaph: "a technologically sophisticated species, full of potential, but they were too dim to control their own numbers"
Gary Marland said
Sat Apr 25 11:52 PM, 2009
If we don't start doing something to combat climate change soon we'll all have seen species that have become extinct.
I've just received the latest Birds magazine from the RSPB and there are at least eight glossy adverts for wildlife holidays in exotic places plus countless small ads and this despite the RSPB having a policy on climate change and being members of Stop Climate Chaos.
Gary
Iain Johnson said
Sat Apr 25 10:10 PM, 2009
I've also heard this story before and also envy those who have seen extinct species and curse those who had the ability to take greater action to converse those species status, e.g. several NZ endemics and birds like Ivory Billed Woodpeckers. I'm also amazaed at times, and IBW is a good examples where on the basis of a sighting in 2005 there is now a dedicated search taking place and efforts to preserve habitat, yet the authorities didn't research similar sighting fo the previous four decades or so. Why not?? It seems strange in hindsight.
I've heard a few stories about Huia where the relevant authorities realising the predictment of bird decided to try to capture and relocate a population but spent quite some time organising their efforts, whilst in the meantime the species became extinct.
The current NZ life list record holder has two extinct species on his list: Bush Wren, last seen in the early 1970s (sorry Mike ); and, Stewart Island Snipe. He works for the Department of Conservation out here and has benefitted from being able to work in some remote locations.
Also worth noting that NZ has at least 50 species of extinct bird whilst hawaii has about 70! One of the saddest, IMHO, is the Moa, of which there were 14 species. The Maori hunted Moa for food and it is thought that this one of the earliest extinctions but also caused the downfall of the largest eagle species to have lived, the Haast Eagle, which hunted Moa for food. No Moa = No Eagle!!
There is a book by George Watola, a NZ birder now living in the UK about the status of the extinct birds of NZ.
-- Edited by Iain Johnson on Saturday 25th of April 2009 09:11:34 PM
Geoff Hargreaves said
Sat Apr 25 10:02 PM, 2009
Elephant bird ont flashes?,certainly there are some unexplored bits they could be hiding in ,but i,m told the king street colony is alive and well and 'shows well' most fridays and saturdays just after dusk
cheers geoff
Tony Coatsworth said
Sat Apr 25 8:18 PM, 2009
I've seen a 'Elephant Bird' skeleton and eggs in a museum in Madagascar. Believed to have died out around 1000 AD but there could be a couple still lurking in the Wigan Flashes :)
John Rayner said
Thu Apr 23 10:27 PM, 2009
That's the story I've seen before, not the Wren
Mike Passant said
Thu Apr 23 8:21 PM, 2009
This isn't so much a discussion as a discourse on a topic, (with a little but true story to follow), which I hope may provide some entertainment.
I must admit to a morbid curiosity about extinct bird species. I grieve and fret over their total inaccessability, and feel an aching envy of those who lived in such times that they could, from time to time, even take for granted sightings of such gems as Ivory-billed Woodpeckers, or see clouds of Passenger Pigeons darkening the skies above North America.
Damn it! Although I live in the North- East, I even contrived to be absent when what was possibly the last Slender-billed Curlew to be seen, popped up for 4 days in Northumberland.
I have a "Glass Case" list in my head. I have photographed specimens of Ivory-billed 'Pecker, Labrador Duck, Passenger Pigeon, and the oddest of all, the unique Huia of New Zealand, (in which the male had a chisel shaped bill and the female a bill like a sicklebill), the only known avian example of evolved specialized cooperative feeding.
Every stuffed extinct bird I have seen, has been both a humbling and sad experience.
The following tale was written by me and originally published in the Durham Bird Club bulletin 3 years ago:
Xenicus lyalli -- The Ultimate Blocker
-----------------------------------------------
It was in volume 7 of Del Hoyo's Birds of the World that I came across the story of Xenicus lyalli, the Stephen Island Wren, one of the small family of New Zealand Wrens(Acanthisittidae) comprising 4 species arranged in 2 genera.
Stephen Island is small and lies in the Cook Strait between North and South Islands.
The story goes as follows:
In 1894, a lighthouse was constructed on the island involving clearance of the forest there. The newly appointed keeper, a Mr. Lyall took up his post and for company, brought with him his cat.
The cat soon started bringing to its owner a series of tiny avian corpses, victims of its predatory forays.
It so happened that Lyall was something of an amateur ornithologist, and realizing that the birds were unusual, he had the presence of mind and the ability to preserve the specimens. He also managed on several occasions(at dusk) to observe the birds scurrying into holes among the rocks like mice, and never attempting to take flight, even when suddenly disturbed.
In time, the specimens were passed on to a dealer, who shipped some of these to England, where they came into the possession of Walter Rothschild, avidly building up his collection at Tring. At this time it became apparent that the specimens represented a species new to science, and named accordingly in honour of Lyall as the discoverer, (although it was really the cat). The description, written up in the ornithological journal "Ibis," noted in particular the extremely short wing measurement of the new species.
Meanwhile (and sadly), back in New Zealand, the cat had already ceased bringing back any captured birds. Mr. Lyall never again saw any sign of them, nor has anyone else, ever.
Xenicus lyalli had already passed into extinction, almost ahead of its newly found celebrity. Lyall remained the only human observer of the species in life.
Several superlatives deservedly rest upon this tiny bird. It may well have had the smallest known range of any bird species. It was quite possibly the only known example of a flightless passerine( we shall never know for sure). Additionally, it enjoys the dubious distinction of being the only new species discovered by an animal and then exterminated by that same animal.
In conclusion, one can only speculate as to what might have happened had the species survived longer, and if it had been proven to be a flightless passerine and so taken its rightful place as an avian superstar. Would its very celebrity simply have resulted in an alternative later route to extinction?
Few of us would trade lists with Mr. Lyall (though I suspect he enjoyed some good seawatches), so we should not begrudge him his "blocker".
I just hope he enjoyed his brief acquaintance with his little wrens, and kicked the cat from time to time.
Mike Passant (20 04 2005)
P.S. Xenicus longipes - Bush Wren is extinct in North Island (ca 1850), and very likely so on South Island and on Stewart Island, leaving Xenicus gilviventris - South Island Wren found in the high mountains, as the only surviving congener of "lyalli."
Anyone fancy a twitch?
(With apologies to John Rayner, who has seen this before).
Maps of excessive population growth, pollution, environmental destruction, species extinctions, water shortages, etc point to certain parts of the world more than others, and some nations (eg, China) cause much more than their share of the problems
The solution has to have a major political element, and at the moment I cannot see how that will happen in the forecast timescale
I completely agree about wealth inequalities. It's terrible, and increasing. Ironically, though, if the wealth of the ultra-rich were somehow redistributed, there would be even more demand for energy. I can't see how wealth inequality will reduce in the forecast timescale, either
In time, Climate Change will stabilise; the big question is what will happen in the meantime
The biggest danger is continuing an ideology that prioritises economic growth (in which ecological impacts are regarded by economists as 'externalities'!) and, importantly, the accumulation of wealth in fewer and fewer hands. This ensures that powerful vested interests (in politics, media, PR, science, industry, academia) actively work against attempts to protect the planet and develop truly sustainable ways of living. I'm not saying a large population isn't a problem to be discussed, but we need to be bold enough to confront the prevailing ideological dogma that makes some people unwilling to question a few billionaires owning the earth's resources, but quite ready to talk about limiting how many children the world's poor have.
Blaming India, China and other developing countries is very easy but misguided - purposely so from those who want us washing our hands of the problem and blaming foreigners. For one, we have to acknowledge the developmental benefits that countries such as the UK have already reaped through destroying the environment: https://www.cgdev.org/media/who-caused-climate-change-historically. Our current economic and political orthodoxy actually forces less developed countries to follow similarly destructive 'modernising' paths, partly through prescribed economic restructuring to service debts, and also through systems of punishment (sanctions/isolation/funded fomentation of civil unrest/military intervention) for those that don't want to hand over their natural and labour resources to transnational corporations.
Then we have to recognise that we live in a globalising world in which thinking purely along national lines doesn't get us very far (apart from enabling people to say "it's their fault over there, so what's the point?"), and we have to admit that the large amount of damaging production processes now taking place in the likes of India and China are happening in order to service a global society of consumers - mostly in the so-called developed world but also increasingly the growing (consuming) middle classes of China, India etc: https://www.pnas.org/content/107/12/5687/tab-figures-data.
Sorry for waffling on, but while population numbers and rapidly developing nations are a crucial element of how humans are damaging the planet, they can only be tackled meaningfully and sustainably by confronting the key driver that actively demands poverty and inequality as a necessary platform for itself to survive - capitalism.
-- Edited by Chris Porter on Saturday 6th of July 2019 11:24:43 AM
02/07/2019
I started this thread some ten years ago with a little story concerning the extinction of a small bird on a small island in New Zealand.
Since then we have gone backwards on all fronts; - carbon emissions (worldwide) will continue to increase by 2050, rainforest destruction is actually being deliberately accelerated by a greedy stupid president of Brazil voted into power by an ignorant population, and short term thinking will ensure populations will not be reduced significantly in time to change things for the better.
I am in my 78th year (and personally glad of it). I have had an amazing life of adventures beyond my wildest dreams, birding and travelling on every continent, skiing, climbing, enjoying sport and always learning more. - Not bad for a council house kid from Radcliffe born in WW2 of divorced parents. As John Rayner says - we have been a very fortunate generation.
I have absolutely nothing more ever to say on this thread, but take this last opportunity to thank all contributors.
With very best wishes,
Mike P.
It's a triple whammy:
- increasing population
- increasing access by more of the population to technology that requires energy
- increasing energy usage by that technology
In the timescale required to prevent Climate Change, none of these trends is going to ease enough to make a huge difference - though it's certainly worth trying
The current CO2 concentration in the air that you & I are breathing right now has increased from 270 ppm (pre-industrial) to 415 ppm - that's a 54% increase. By 2050 it will reach 500 ppm
If China stops building & sponsoring coal-fired power stations today, if Canada/Russia/US/ME stop extracting petroleum today (etc), that figure will continue to increase, albeit more slowly
The CO2 levels need to be brought down, and currently there is no prospect of that happening. Not even close.
Ian
I seem to recall reading somewhere very recently, that the entire worlds population could fit into an area of land no bigger than the size of Texas. Which seems to suggest that, in itself, population is not the major contributor to the worlds problems but it is in fact what that population does that is the real issue that needs addressing.
At the start of the 20th century the worlds human population was about 1.3 billion. The UN projects that based on current data in 2050 there will be 9.6 billion of us, and at the end of the present century there will be about 12 billion; a ninefold increase in 200 years. - Is this a world which we wish to bequeath to todays children?
We stand at the dawn of the age of AI. Also for the first time on the evolutionary timescale there is now a creature (we ourselves of course) capable of shaping its own further evolution by means of advanced technology. One might suppose therefore that by use of the internet we can disseminate information to the largest ever audience instantly. We need to put aside antiquated belief systems, and undue reliance on supernatural baggage which serve only to perpetuate complacency and ignorance (and to be brutally honest have in large measure contributed to todays problems).
However one might phrase the obvious solution, it is basically to have fewer children and to reduce the human population drastically by 2050, by which means the ancillary solutions will be all the more effective. Every child born should as a matter of right be able to look forward to a better life than that of its parents, - who could argue against that? Logic dictates that to achieve this we need to work now towards fewer children- better prospects.
Cheers,
Mike P.
WE go and talk to them via local NGO's and governments offering alternatives, as people do in some of the documentaries I've seen recently looking at problems like this. WE offer alternatives and advice, like the scheme in Yucatan mapping the the connections between the cenotes, to make sure that the economic development taking place doesn't do further accidentally damage the region's only fresh water resource through run off seeping through the limestone. WE support campaigns to reduce damaging practices like the destruction of habitat and livelihoods by things like the spread of palm oil plantations, many of them led by local people and politicians, who, surprise, surprise, also have concerns about what is happening to the planet, especially in their own countries. In other words we recognise that the same international interconnection that has resulted in projects all over Africa to help the survival of European migrant birds on their wintering grounds needs to be applied to our other environmental problems.
In the UK we are reasonably well informed
How do you persuade someone in Indonesia (other over-populated countries are available) to stop burning wood to cook food to keep their children alive ?
How do you stop China's semi-autonomous regions from building 1-2 coal-fired power stations per week ?
etc, etc, etc
The UN is the only worldwide organisation with the recognition to steer governments, but it has no authority. And it's not exactly dynamic
Things will have to get tangibly worse before nations will do anything. And by then ...
I dont disagree with anything Andy says, but personally I feel that even though we are dangerously close to tipping point, science and technology and the will to do something urgently still offer some hope of a potential solution if the public can be sufficiently frightened out of apathy.
I use the term tipping point to mean the scenario where with any further critical rise in average temperature the permafrost across the arctic region melts sufficiently to release methane into the atmosphere on a huge scale (methane being of course a far more deadly greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, as well as being inflammable). I raised the matter of methane release at the meeting deliberately to cause alarm if I could, as people are more inclined to take the issue seriously if they get worried, but the attendees at least were already worried, and our MP who is shadow minister of labour really did take all the concerns on board, so I am glad that we attended.
I am fundamentally still pessimistic but if my granddaughter can enjoy a few more decades of happy life by all of us at least doing our best now to halt or at least delay any disaster that is better than just giving up in despair.
Cheers,
Mike P.
-- Edited by Mike Passant on Sunday 26th of May 2019 03:43:06 PM
I only wish it was. The small number of people there asked about Climate change (formerly Global warming before they realised this was harder to sell to the public) because they are concerned. I would reckon that in the U.K. they are outnumbered by hundreds to one. Just look around you: neighbours with all lights blazing when only one person lives there, using pressurised water cleaners, driving to the shops one-third of a mile away, and these were just examples from the last 24 hours. Most people do not want to do anything which would disrupt their lives in any way at all. The thing that makes me laugh most at the moment is continual use of the phrase 'we need to educate the public'. The problem therein lies: the public at large are just not educated about anything. Period. When I saw so few moths (or other insects) around my trap a couple of nights ago (in decent conditions), I realised the game is almost up, not necessarily for the human race at first, but the natural world. I am not just a doom and gloom merchant, I only report what I see (or don't, as is now the case).
A glimmer of hope then Mike?
Last night Barb and I attended a public meeting hosted by our local NW Durham Labour MP Laura Pidcock.
About 80/90 people attended and we expected that the dominant theme would centre upon Brexit, especially in view of yesterdays events.
How wrong can one be? Immediately the obvious main area of concern expressed from the floor was Climate Change, which took up about 85% of the meeting time with well argued points and everyone in agreement. About a dozen of us individually said our piece. What came out of this as a conclusion was that while the future hinges largely on what action might be taken by China India USA and Russia and Brazil, we in GB can at least focus on setting the pace by example and so influencing others in the right direction. The recent high profile street demonstrations do seem to be having the desired effect.
Cheers,
Mike P.
But, think this through. Let's watch China, Indonesia, India etc increase their standard of living to the point when they don't want more than 2 children. How many more generations will that take? How much carbon emissions does that cost? How much more pollution is produced? How much more stress on habitat does that cost?
And, it also assumes that certain religions (I really don't want to bring religion into this!) accept contraception & rights for women to control their careers & limit childbearing
In the timescale essential to stop climate change, it's simply not going to happen
I studied Chemistry at Uni. In 1975, I was told there are 2 major global chemical problems: the ozone hole & global warming. That was 44 years ago
The ozone hole is now depleting because of a concerted international effort. It was killing people, and an alternative found. Because of the chemistry & chain reactions, the residual CFCs take decades to denature
Global Warming was identified as an issue in 1859 (Tyndall), and the first calculations done in 1896 (Arrhenius), as a professor friend has told me
I'm sure most people worldwide are now aware of it. After all, it's been 160 years! But, apart from some efforts by a minority of people in a minority of countries, the only impact so far is that a global disaster may have been postponed. Slightly.
The UK is better informed than most, and has made substantial (but insufficient) changes. But what about China, India, Indonesia, Russia, US, Brazil ? How do you tell Russia to stop extracting gas when it's a major part of their trade? How do you tell Indonesians (for example) with a population of 261 million to have smaller families, when it's against their culture (let's keep religion out of this)? How do you persuade the right-wing Brazilian govt to enforce protection of their remaining rainforest? How do you tell Indians not to feed their children so others can survive?
These people & nations don't want to believe it until they can see it. And that's too late
There's a fascinating seminar by Prof Daniel Gilbert of Harvard, explaining the psychology. Basically, humans perceive a threat if it triggers an instinct. Climate Change doesn't do this
https://vimeo.com/10324258
People will deal with Climate Change, one way or another, but the big question is what damage will have been done before that happens
To be honest I didn't see hardly any news yesterday, but what I did see was about the baby and I hadn't seen this new report until today. Add to that that I have avoided news channels for a while because of the (in my opinion) poor reporting on so many things and I could well be missing some stuff that gets through.
We've definitely seen and heard more coverage on ecological matters in the past few days than ever before, but the cynic in me says that it is just a convenient way to fill transmission space whilst there is nothing more 'important' with which to do so. Let's keep this simple: if we cannot even make Japan (and a few others) stop commercial whaling, what chance of saving any animal? First suggestion: cease trading with Japan until they comply. Oh sorry! We need their car building (and doubtless many other commodities) factories here don't we? As Mike says, we are 30/40 years too late, and business links between countries are now too deeply entwined to be able to 'threaten' action against those who are pillaging the World (the Chinese mainly). So long planet, it was nice knowing you.
-- Edited by Mike Chorley on Tuesday 7th of May 2019 08:21:18 PM
Part of the problem is there is always 'bad news' from an eco perspective and I think people just turn off. Another problem I believe is that people are more concerned with making ends meet than buying environmentally friendly. Also there seems to be a large element of society that, to be honest, just don't care. They're more bothered about having the latest phone, fashion accessory, car, designer label etc etc.
That native american saying about only finding out you can't eat dollars once everything else is gone seems more relevant than ever!!
I suppose that recent publicised concerns about the looming extinction threat to millions of species can only be seen as a positive factor, and the demos in London concerning climate change may kick start more serious political efforts. It is most certainly not a Chinese hoax (as some dimwit suggests). However the suggested target date to achieve zero carbon emissions by 2050 is laughable, - it is way too late by then.
Can we contemplate a world with no Rhinos, Polar Bears, Tigers, or Emperor Penguins - it may seem unimaginable but is a real possibility.
We should have been seriously addressing these problems 30/40 years ago with more effective educational and awareness programs including emancipation of women across developing countries and encouragement of effective contraception.
As individuals we can only try.
Regards,
Mike P.
Chris Packhams program In search of the missing girl on BBC 2 was sobering.
It is 9 years since I mentioned the problem of human overpopulation on this thread, since when the population of our planet has increased by another 800,000,000.
Mike P.
Population is a fascinating (to me anyway), very necessary but exceedingly dangerous issue Mike. It is a significant factor at present behind your two other drivers behind climate change.
The only country to pursue more than negligable control over over-population as far as i'm aware, has been China with their one-child per couple policy, but even this is losing will as the country opens up to global society.
With popular western cultural mentalities as they currently are (ie prevailing human rights and freedom to bring up a family, both mentalities which I believe in etc) it would be political suicide for any controlling party in a democracy to suggest reducing the birth rate as such by introducing forced contraception
There is a line though, where issues such as human rights, freedom etc have the potential to stand in the way of preserving the earth into the next century. Please don't mistake this comment for a call for extremism! This line not to cross is the carrying capacity of the earth. In this quoted sense it seems controlling population is necessary. To this extent I understand David Attenborough's attempt to raise awareness of the issue is worthy but possibly a touch simplified. The obvious alternative to population control is controlling ourselves in terms of the resources we use. If everyone attempted to live 'sustainably' then there is no population threatening the future of the earth issue. We are increasingly moving in this direction as a developed nation (and not coincidently with our assocaited low poverty levels) which gives some hope.
The stats on how much total resources the current global population uses varies wildly depending on the type of scare story people are trying to tell but your figure of 1.5 earths Mike is probably on the low side. Up to 3 earths isn't beyond scope, in which case the earths optimum population and current resource usage leves is 2 billion people.
Yikes, this is deep for a birding forum! Think I will finish up by saying that population is an issue, it is also an issue which should be talked about and read about from a variety of authors to engender awareness. Polarizing debates emanating from extreme standpoints are dangerous for the issue and could just stall progressive talking (not that i'd expect that to happen on this forum). Lovelock, Erlich, Malthus, Constanza, Meadows, Davis are all interesting reads on the subject of population and sustainability.
Thanks. Henry.
Just to pick up on Gary Marland's point (back in April) about the RSPB advertising exotic holidays.
I find it hard to criticize anyone travelling by air to pursue their hobby. I do believe eco-tourism has conferred considerable awareness to local/indigenous peoples that their birdlife/wildlife has real value, and that their precious rainforest and all which it contains represents intrinsic wealth beyond measure. The more of us who go to see (and pay to see) their wildlife, the better.
However, If climate change is a real concern, let's look at the big picture. There are three drivers behind the climate change problem: Emissions, Forest loss, Human overpopulation.
EMISSIONS
Whatever we do in Britain to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is basically praiseworthy, provided that we very carefully monitor and assess the impact of things like windfarms on wildlife and try to minimise the birdkill factor; (personally I am not convinced at all about windfarms; I think they are a visual blight, and they do kill birds).
Sadly, looking at things realistically, whatever we do here doesn't make more than a fractional difference to our ultimate fate. India, China, Russia and the USA will determine the world's fate as regards emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants. All the woffle in Britain about "green taxes" is just another means by which to rip off Joe Public.
RAINFOREST LOSS
A major driver fuelling climate change is the disastrous shrinkage of rainforest (just look at the mess the Phillipines is in). Trees of course take up atmospheric carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. At at time when we badly need more forests, we are burning them down at an alarming rate.
HUMAN POPULATION GROWTH
Above all else though, the major and fundamental driver of climate change is the relentless uncontrolled growth of the human population, now at 6.3 billion, (against an optimum level assessed as 3 billion). We are now consuming the resources of "one and a half Earths". It is the growth in our own numbers that gives rise directly to the two other drivers above!
I have been spouting about human population growth for donkey's years, and was heartened recently to see that wise and fantastic wildlife ambassador David Attenborough now voicing his grave concern, and that he has joined the Optimum Population Trust.
It's really a "no brainer" to see that unless quite soon we can introduce a worldwide workable and fair system in which human deaths exceed human births, (not of course by killing people but by reducing births) so that the population is downsized by tens of millions annually, we and all the wildlife are simply knackered, the consequences will be famines, floods, draughts, mass uncontrolled migrations, and wars over resources and territory.
What's the chance of "world population reduction" being on the political agenda in the near future? - I should say exceedingly slim!
In a few hundred years time, if aliens could visit, they might write our epitaph:
"a technologically sophisticated species, full of potential, but they were too dim to control their own numbers"
I've just received the latest Birds magazine from the RSPB and there are at least eight glossy adverts for wildlife holidays in exotic places plus countless small ads and this despite the RSPB having a policy on climate change and being members of Stop Climate Chaos.
Gary
I've heard a few stories about Huia where the relevant authorities realising the predictment of bird decided to try to capture and relocate a population but spent quite some time organising their efforts, whilst in the meantime the species became extinct.
The current NZ life list record holder has two extinct species on his list: Bush Wren, last seen in the early 1970s (sorry Mike
Also worth noting that NZ has at least 50 species of extinct bird whilst hawaii has about 70! One of the saddest, IMHO, is the Moa, of which there were 14 species. The Maori hunted Moa for food and it is thought that this one of the earliest extinctions but also caused the downfall of the largest eagle species to have lived, the Haast Eagle, which hunted Moa for food. No Moa = No Eagle!!
There is a book by George Watola, a NZ birder now living in the UK about the status of the extinct birds of NZ.
-- Edited by Iain Johnson on Saturday 25th of April 2009 09:11:34 PM
cheers geoff