Is Humanity 'Unsustainable' to the Planet Earth?

Environmental issues have taken the center stage in the last thirty years or so by many groups of individuals who notice Earth's changes and the elimination of nature. Many different subjects from sustainability to agro-ecology have become popular by students hoping for change in the way the world is being maintained by corporate interests and governments. It is almost impossible to say whether the entire world will be fed using organic farming methods and alternative energy sources as long as greedy corporate interests stand to lose profit. Another question would be how much damage has already been done and if this push for environmental "awareness" is even worth it.

Some examples taught in by the environmental studies curriculum avoid information presented by alternative media for obvious reasons. Others seem to teach an over optimistic view of how there is hope in feeding the world, living with 10 billion people, and coexisting together in the same conditions we have now peacefully missing big chunks of reality in the process. A questionable video presented by John Stossel (affiliated with ABC) in 2001 called Is Tampering with Nature a Good Thing? brought to light some interesting facts of what was considered noteworthy at the time. Main points included the conundrum of whether human impacts on the environment were as dangerous as they were made out to be. Stossel went even further to claim that there was no certain consensus that global warming was harming the planet in 2001. At the time, over 17,000 scientists agreed that no major evidence to prove that global warming existed while only 1,600 believed that there was an issue/cause for concern. It seemed that the panel of scientists was more concerned with the funding issue; considering the lack of capital for 'investigations' or 'research' programs.

Pat Michaels, a research professor at the University of Virginia presented his opinion by stating that the senate hearings (along with the administrator of NASA) could exaggerate any details just to fund and keep the program running. Now, scientists on this same panel have changed their idea ten years later with sufficient data that humans contribute 99% of the problem concerning climate change. If this is the case, why do many (along with policy makers and politicians) still believe that climate change is a marketing ploy or "junk science?" It could be speculated that the main reason for little or no support in the issue is due to the leading energy interests (coal, nuclear, and oil). With politicians in the U.S. receiving the majority of their funding from these corporations, it is highly unlikely that renewables or alternative energies (i.e. geothermal, PV, wind farms, methane hydrates) would be considered any further than they are at current levels.

Climate Change and the Future of Humanity

Climate change will always be attributed to anthropocentric changes and the consumption of fossil fuel for energy including GHG gasses. Whether or not humanity can utilize science to surpass this stage in finding more sustainable resources for energy use is at a standstill. If and when major energy corporations (coal, oil, gas) decide to take a cut in profit for the sake of the human race in the near future remains to be seen.

The American southwest is suffering the effects of climate change based on reports by many agencies like Los Alamos National Laboratory, the U.S. Geological Survey, the University of Arizona, and other partner organizations. Their research has led them to believe that combining the tree-ring growth record with historical information, climate records, and computer-model projections of future climate trends, the future of trees in the those areas may be disappear due to drought stress. According to future forest drought-stress levels, some scientists believe that they will exceed the "mega droughts" of the 1200s and 1500s. Using climate-model projections, the team projected that such mega drought-type forest drought-stress conditions will be exceeded and become problematic by 2050. If these climate-model projections are correct, forest drought-stress levels (even during the wettest and coolest years of the late 21st century) will be more severe than the driest, warmest years of the previous mega droughts wiping out flora and fauna of these areas.

To add to the negative effects of climate change, scientists have reported that due to global warming, the size of fish will likely shrink by 25% in coming decades. The reduction in individual fish size will be caused by a dwindling of overall fish stocks, and the world's growing human population. Since both are interconnected, fisheries are getting more pressure due to uncontrollable human growth rates that need to reduce in number if solutions are to be made. Professor William Cheung from the University of B.C. foolishly stated that "we were surprised as we did not think the effects would be so strong and so widespread." According to his research led by a team of scientists, the tropical areas of the globe will suffer between 14%-24% species loss by 2050 due to global warming.

Professor Callum Roberts from the University of York stated the connection between fossil fuel dependency and the reduction of these fish species could cause a large loss in food stock that many people depend on:

"We will see dramatic changes in the oceans likely to reduce productivity. One billion people rely on fish for primary animal protein and that is going to increase, especially in developing countries. We have to get to grips with our dependence on fossil fuels otherwise we are stuffed".

It seems that oxygen poor waters and migration issues for fish are the two main culprits for species loss. This can be connected with the industrial use of fossil fuels, agricultural chemicals (insecticides, pesticides, and herbicides) running into bodies of water, and millions of people who eat fish for animal protein. Although the major suggestion is to cut carbon dioxide to prevent ocean acidification, other factors can help fish species thrive in ocean waters for other organisms that depend on them for a food source as well. Humans need to understand what limits are and consider that they are not alone on this planet. Other populations depend on fish for food and cannot have them available to eat due to human greed and ignorance.

Central American maize and bean farmers are also at risk with new reports in climatic changes. These two important crops are what keep Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Honduras alive as far as economy. Climate change with high temperatures and rainfall patterns could alter the landscape destroying the livelihoods of millions of farmers. The International Center for...