'Mass extinction event' that could wipe out a million species is already underway, says UN-backed report

People can help preserve up to a million species at risk of extinction in five simple ways, 150 scientists say in a United Nations-sponsored report released on Monday.

The report comes after a week-long meeting of experts from 50 countries in Paris. They warn that a “mass extinction event” precipitated by human activities is already underway - the first such event since dinosaurs were wiped out by an asteroid 66 million years ago. Scientists say that in total, our planet has experienced five previous mass extinctions in the past half-billion years; this sixth wave would be the first caused by humans.

The report calls for urgent changes in government policies to limit environmental damage and climate change, but will also recommend that families or individuals sponsor beekeepers near their homes, for a cost of less than £100 a year. Bee populations are falling but they are essential to pollinate crops and food supplies depend on them.

Eating organic food is another way to preserve fast shrinking insect populations. The report says the reason your car windscreen is no longer covered in dead insects after a long drive is because pesticides have wiped out nearly 80 per cent of Europe’s winged insects over the past three decades. The decline has also reduced bird numbers by nearly a third, because there are no longer enough insects for them to eat. If insects disappear, vegetable and fruit crops will fail because they won’t be pollinated.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/06/mass-extinction-event-could-wipe-million-species-already-underway/

It's so true about the insect/windscreen comment.
Our regular 260 mile drive to Wales and back seldom needs a proper windscreen wash anymore.

"Sponsor a beekeeper near you..".

I don't know how they would control, regulate and police such a scheme..

I can already imagine some small shyster business scamsters planning on how they could rip off the bulk of the funds for such a plan.

While at the same time,  the great majority of honest and independent beekeepers would be missing out; more likely than not, unable to identify themselves as possible worthy recipients, because of the very nature of the beekeeping industry.

What I reckon would be better for beekeeping overall,  would be better education and support of beekeepers on one side,  allied with better environment and habitat protection on the other --  and a governent willing to stand up against the polluters (esp. the big agribusiness/pesticide/GMO corp'ns..), big oil and mining concerns, rampant development/deforrestation.

And rein in those big mouthed traitorous 'fuckers the likes of Tommy and Smelly and those scumbags they regularly idolise, whose anti-science, anti-climate, anti-habitat propaganda bullshit will always do far more harm than good, with their pathetic corporate suckup antics..

-----and get some control on population expansion. We need to help countries where there is no structure for proper employment so they don't have to have so many children, hoping enough will survive to keep them in their dotage. The UN should buy the rainforests and keep them as they are

(won't happen of course)

i think we should sterilise the lefties, that way we solve two problems

reducing the population , because everyone knows its leftwing scum who have loads of uneducated babies they cant feed or support and therefore have to rely on handouts whihc means cheap food which means pesticides which means dead insects.

and two, it will remove their defective and inferior DNA from the genepool, thereby making humanity stronger.

some on didge, you love the world so much, then step right up and take a snip for the team

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

"Sponsor a beekeeper near you..".

I don't know how they would control, regulate and police such a scheme..

I can already imagine some small shyster business scamsters planning on how they could rip off the bulk of the funds for such a plan.

While at the same time,  the great majority of honest and independent beekeepers would be missing out;  more likely than not, unable to identify themselves as possible worthy recipients, because of the very nature of the beekeeping industry.

What I reckon would be better for beekeeping overall,  would be better education and support of beekeepers on one side,  allied with better environment and habitat protection on the other --  and a governent willing to stand up against the polluters (esp. the big agribusiness/pesticide/GMO corp'ns..), big oil and mining concerns, rampant development/deforrestation.

.

+1

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

"Sponsor a beekeeper near you..".

I don't know how they would control, regulate and police such a scheme..

I can already imagine some small shyster business scamsters planning on how they could rip off the bulk of the funds for such a plan.

While at the same time,  the great majority of honest and independent beekeepers would be missing out;  more likely than not, unable to identify themselves as possible worthy recipients, because of the very nature of the beekeeping industry.

What I reckon would be better for beekeeping overall,  would be better education and support of beekeepers on one side,  allied with better environment and habitat protection on the other --  and a governent willing to stand up against the polluters (esp. the big agribusiness/pesticide/GMO corp'ns..), big oil and mining concerns, rampant development/deforrestation.

And rein in those big mouthed traitorous 'fuckers the likes of Tommy and Smelly and those scumbags they regularly idolise, whose anti-science, anti-climate, anti-habitat propaganda bullshit will always do far more harm than good, with their pathetic corporate suckup antics..

Why do you keep lying about me...!?


I am against pesticides and pollution and deforestation...!

You are wasting your energy, he won't take any notice.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

"Sponsor a beekeeper near you..".

I don't know how they would control, regulate and police such a scheme..

I can already imagine some small shyster business scamsters planning on how they could rip off the bulk of the funds for such a plan.

While at the same time,  the great majority of honest and independent beekeepers would be missing out;  more likely than not, unable to identify themselves as possible worthy recipients, because of the very nature of the beekeeping industry.

What I reckon would be better for beekeeping overall,  would be better education and support of beekeepers on one side,  allied with better environment and habitat protection on the other --  and a governent willing to stand up against the polluters (esp. the big agribusiness/pesticide/GMO corp'ns..), big oil and mining concerns, rampant development/deforrestation.

And rein in those big mouthed traitorous 'fuckers the likes of Tommy and Smelly and those scumbags they regularly idolise, whose anti-science, anti-climate, anti-habitat propaganda bullshit will always do far more harm than good, with their pathetic corporate suckup antics..

bees are awful for the envirnoment, any time i see bees i blitz them, little bastards

you keep bees and you call me anti climate

im saving the climate by killing em all whenever i can

http://www.pthomeandgarden.com/5-ways-bees-are-important-to-the-environment/

https://www.sustainweb.org/foodfacts/bees_are_important/

https://friendsoftheearth.uk/bees/why-do-we-need-bees

Tommy Monk wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

"Sponsor a beekeeper near you..".

I don't know how they would control, regulate and police such a scheme..

I can already imagine some small shyster business scamsters planning on how they could rip off the bulk of the funds for such a plan.

While at the same time,  the great majority of honest and independent beekeepers would be missing out;  more likely than not, unable to identify themselves as possible worthy recipients, because of the very nature of the beekeeping industry.

What I reckon would be better for beekeeping overall,  would be better education and support of beekeepers on one side,  allied with better environment and habitat protection on the other --  and a governent willing to stand up against the polluters (esp. the big agribusiness/pesticide/GMO corp'ns..), big oil and mining concerns, rampant development/deforrestation.

And rein in those big mouthed traitorous 'fuckers the likes of Tommy and Smelly and those scumbags they regularly idolise, whose anti-science, anti-climate, anti-habitat propaganda bullshit will always do far more harm than good, with their pathetic corporate suckup antics..

Why do you keep lying about me...!?


I am against pesticides and pollution and deforestation...!

Your usual whining and complaints on here directly contradict what you claim to support and believe in, Tommy...

You claim to be in support of protecting the environment, opposed to pollution, pesticides and deforrestation -- and yet you deny the existence of human-accelerated climate change, while supporting extreme right wing politicians (and by default those corporations who fund them..);

You often seem to be in support of workers rights, universal health care, better access to affordable housing, and the like -- but then you again contradict yourself by supporting far-right, anti-union, anti-humanist groups..

You simply can't have it both ways, Tommy -- if you were to vote in line with your expressed beliefs on here, you would be supporting moderate/'centrist' groups, but instead you keep on backing right-wing exteremist anti-environment anti-worker groups and parties.

Vintage wrote:
You are wasting your energy, he won't take any notice.

Ohh, do piss off you braindead old harridan..

Come back when you have something useful and constructive to add.

Oh Wolfie, you and your sweet nothings!! You know you love me really.

Vintage wrote:Oh Wolfie, you and your sweet nothings!! You know you love me really.

He is trying to serenade you

He sends me love poems all the time

Roses are red
Violets are blue
Nazis wear black
Smelly I love you

That's what he pmd me

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

"Sponsor a beekeeper near you..".

I don't know how they would control, regulate and police such a scheme..

I can already imagine some small shyster business scamsters planning on how they could rip off the bulk of the funds for such a plan.

While at the same time,  the great majority of honest and independent beekeepers would be missing out;  more likely than not, unable to identify themselves as possible worthy recipients, because of the very nature of the beekeeping industry.

What I reckon would be better for beekeeping overall,  would be better education and support of beekeepers on one side,  allied with better environment and habitat protection on the other --  and a governent willing to stand up against the polluters (esp. the big agribusiness/pesticide/GMO corp'ns..), big oil and mining concerns, rampant development/deforrestation.

good post

my brother has bees. he makes 100s of jars of honey and gives loads to the family (I love honey, i can just eat it in big spoonfuls out of the jar). then he sells the rest off and donates the money to a local charity

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Vintage wrote:
You are wasting your energy, he won't take any notice.

Ohh,  do piss off you braindead old harridan..

Come back when you have something useful and constructive to add.

HEY!

I thought that was me

I won't put up with this flirting

that I won't

Words of love [Buddy Holly] !

He's a sweet talking Lothario, Gelico, romancing a woman or four in every forum!

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Why do you keep lying about me...!?


I am against pesticides and pollution and deforestation...!

Your usual whining and complaints on here directly contradict what you claim to support and believe in,  Tommy...

You claim to be in support of protecting the environment, opposed to pollution, pesticides and deforrestation  --  and yet you deny the existence of human-accelerated climate change,  while supporting extreme right wing politicians (and by default those corporations who fund them..);

You often seem to be in support of workers rights,  universal health care, better access to affordable housing, and the like  --  but then you again contradict yourself by supporting far-right, anti-union, anti-humanist groups..

You simply can't have it both ways, Tommy --  if you were to vote in line with your expressed beliefs on here, you would be supporting moderate/'centrist' groups, but instead you keep on backing right-wing exteremist anti-environment anti-worker groups and parties.

Why are you conflating pesticides with climate change?

And who are these far right groups that I support?

I want better employment rights and wages, not worse... and more access to affordable housing... and in my view it would be better for me and vast majority of people if immigration was curtailed so UK workers had more value and respect and better wages, and housing would be more readily available for UK people too...!

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Vintage wrote:
You are wasting your energy, he won't take any notice.

Ohh,  do piss off you braindead old harridan..

Come back when you have something useful and constructive to add.

Wolfie, do you find it physically impossible to communicate without throwing around insults like that?

You know, in our rules, we say:

"Site disruption" -- any member engaging in conduct which moderators deem a significant disruption will be warned or basemented. This includes excessively making personal insults, excessively turning threads into flame wars, creating threads intended to antagonize other members, and other anti-social behaviors.

That means we understand that sometimes personal insults will be made. It seems to me you do it to excess, so consider this a warning.

Vintage wrote:
He's a sweet talking Lothario, Gelico,  romancing a woman or four in every forum!

"every forum..." ???

You are delusional..

How many other forums do you think you have seen me on ?

One would be too many

Tommy Monk wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


Your usual whining and complaints on here directly contradict what you claim to support and believe in,  Tommy...

You claim to be in support of protecting the environment, opposed to pollution, pesticides and deforrestation  --  and yet you deny the existence of human-accelerated climate change,  while supporting extreme right wing politicians (and by default those corporations who fund them..);

You often seem to be in support of workers rights,  universal health care, better access to affordable housing, and the like  --  but then you again contradict yourself by supporting far-right, anti-union, anti-humanist groups..

You simply can't have it both ways, Tommy --  if you were to vote in line with your expressed beliefs on here, you would be supporting moderate/'centrist' groups, but instead you keep on backing right-wing exteremist anti-environment anti-worker groups and parties.

Why are you conflating pesticides with climate change?

And who are these far right groups that I support?

I want better employment rights and wages, not worse... and more access to affordable housing... and in my view it would be better for me and vast majority of people if immigration was curtailed so UK workers had more value and respect and better wages, and housing would be more readily available for UK people too...!

No answer from the lying twat fleakeeper...

June 29, 1989


UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

Great post Maddog...!

Maybe some of the 'climate change' militants here can explain the legitimacy of the claims made in the above article that you posted...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:Great post Maddog...!

Maybe some of the 'climate change' militants here can explain the legitimacy of the claims made in the above article that you posted...!?

Um ... maybe the science of climate change study has advanced a bit in the past three decades?

It's funny to me how you'll lap up stuff like this, but ignore articles I've posted about how the big oil companies themselves studied climate change in the '80s and concluded that they were the culprit, only to start burying their own research in the '90s.

Tommy Monk wrote:
Great post Maddog...!

Maybe some of the 'climate change' militants here can explain the legitimacy of the claims made in the above article that you posted...!?

Maybe you,  FatDawg  and SmellyBlunder  could stop posting up your irrelevant and pointless propaganda puff pieces,  where your only mission seems to be offering up more and more deflection, denial and misdirection wherever possible...

I would take this kind of mindless garbage from you corporate shills a lot more seriously,  if only you clueless morons could demonstrate even one iota of scientific and technical understanding,  with regard to these topics..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Vintage wrote:
He's a sweet talking Lothario, Gelico,  romancing a woman or four in every forum!

"every forum..."   ???

You are delusional..

How many other forums do you think you have seen me on  ?

Waiting, waiting, waiting...

Still no clue what these other forums are that the delusional old troll has claimed I've been on..

Why is she an "old troll" ?

How come racist comments are always frowned on, sexist comments are sometimes frowned on, yet ageist comments flow free and unhindered, and usually from the codgiest old fart this forum has ever had to misfortune to suffer??

I wonder if Wolfie ever heard of a sense of humour.

For the second time ,why is she an "old Troll " ?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Great post Maddog...!

Maybe some of the 'climate change' militants here can explain the legitimacy of the claims made in the above article that you posted...!?

Um ... maybe the science of climate change study has advanced a bit in the past three decades?

It's funny to me how you'll lap up stuff like this, but ignore articles I've posted about how the big oil companies themselves studied climate change in the '80s and concluded that they were the culprit, only to start burying their own research in the '90s.

Or the UN is a corrupt, full of shit organization that shouldn't be trusted..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
Great post Maddog...!

Maybe some of the 'climate change' militants here can explain the legitimacy of the claims made in the above article that you posted...!?

Maybe you,  FatDawg  and SmellyBlunder  could stop posting up your irrelevant and pointless propaganda puff pieces,  where your only mission seems to be offering up more and more deflection, denial and misdirection wherever possible...

I would take this kind of mindless garbage from you corporate shills a lot more seriously,  if only you clueless morons could demonstrate even one iota of scientific and technical understanding,  with regard to these topics..

I didn't post propaganda.

And your petulant ad hominems don't change that.

Maddog wrote:June 29, 1989


UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

Well that shows that some scientists get their predictions wrong

How many supported his conclusions?

How many times have climate scientists been right in predictions?

Take your pick, or do you only look at one occasion and use this as your default poor template argument?

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jun/25/30-years-later-deniers-are-still-lying-about-hansens-amazing-global-warming-prediction

Might want to watch this also Maddog?

As nothing worse, where climate denialists think a wrong prediction, is some how a gotcha, to disproving climate change. Its actually a fallacy argument ignoring countless predictions that were correct

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


Maybe you,  FatDawg  and SmellyBlunder  could stop posting up your irrelevant and pointless propaganda puff pieces,  where your only mission seems to be offering up more and more deflection, denial and misdirection wherever possible...

I would take this kind of mindless garbage from you corporate shills a lot more seriously,  if only you clueless morons could demonstrate even one iota of scientific and technical understanding,  with regard to these topics..

I didn't post propaganda.

And your petulant ad hominems don't change that.  

Come off it, Dopey Dawg..

Most of the crap you post on here is pure propaganda..

Amd leave off spouting Latin when you obviously have idea of what it actually means.

"The overwhelming evidence of the IPBES Global Assessment, from a wide range of different fields of knowledge, presents an ominous picture," said IPBES Chair, Sir Robert Watson. "The health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever. We are eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide."

"The Report also tells us that it is not too late to make a difference, but only if we start now at every level from local to global," he said. "Through 'transformative change', nature can still be conserved, restored and used sustainably -- this is also key to meeting most other global goals. By transformative change, we mean a fundamental, system-wide reorganization across technological, economic and social factors, including paradigms, goals and values."

"The member States of IPBES Plenary have now acknowledged that, by its very nature, transformative change can expect opposition from those with interests vested in the status quo, but also that such opposition can be overcome for the broader public good," Watson said.

The IPBES Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services is the most comprehensive ever completed. It is the first intergovernmental Report of its kind and builds on the landmark Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of 2005, introducing innovative ways of evaluating evidence.

Compiled by 145 expert authors from 50 countries over the past three years, with inputs from another 310 contributing authors, the Report assesses changes over the past five decades, providing a comprehensive picture of the relationship between economic development pathways and their impacts on nature. It also offers a range of possible scenarios for the coming decades.

Based on the systematic review of about 15,000 scientific and government sources, the Report also draws (for the first time ever at this scale) on indigenous and local knowledge, particularly addressing issues relevant to Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.

"Biodiversity and nature's contributions to people are our common heritage and humanity's most important life-supporting 'safety net'. But our safety net is stretched almost to breaking point," said Prof. sassy Díaz (Argentina), who co-chaired the Assessment with Prof. Josef Settele (Germany) and Prof. Eduardo S. Brondízio (Brazil and USA).

"The diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems, as well as many fundamental contributions we derive from nature, are declining fast, although we still have the means to ensure a sustainable future for people and the planet."

The Report finds that around 1 million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction, many within decades, more than ever before in human history.

The average abundance of native species in most major land-based habitats has fallen by at least 20%, mostly since 1900. More than 40% of amphibian species, almost 33% of reef-forming corals and more than a third of all marine mammals are threatened. The picture is less clear for insect species, but available evidence supports a tentative estimate of 10% being threatened. At least 680 vertebrate species had been driven to extinction since the 16th century and more than 9% of all domesticated breeds of mammals used for food and agriculture had become extinct by 2016, with at least 1,000 more breeds still threatened.

"Ecosystems, species, wild populations, local varieties and breeds of domesticated plants and animals are shrinking, deteriorating or vanishing. The essential, interconnected web of life on Earth is getting smaller and increasingly frayed," said Prof. Settele. "This loss is a direct result of human activity and constitutes a direct threat to human well-being in all regions of the world."

To increase the policy-relevance of the Report, the assessment's authors have ranked, for the first time at this scale and based on a thorough analysis of the available evidence, the five direct drivers of change in nature with the largest relative global impacts so far. These culprits are, in descending order: (1) changes in land and sea use; (2) direct exploitation of organisms; (3) climate change; (4) pollution and (5) invasive alien species.

The Report notes that, since 1980, greenhouse gas emissions have doubled, raising average global temperatures by at least 0.7 degrees Celsius -- with climate change already impacting nature from the level of ecosystems to that of genetics -- impacts expected to increase over the coming decades, in some cases surpassing the impact of land and sea use change and other drivers.

Despite progress to conserve nature and implement policies, the Report also finds that global goals for conserving and sustainably using nature and achieving sustainability cannot be met by current trajectories, and goals for 2030 and beyond may only be achieved through transformative changes across economic, social, political and technological factors. With good progress on components of only four of the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets, it is likely that most will be missed by the 2020 deadline. Current negative trends in biodiversity and ecosystems will undermine progress towards 80% (35 out of 44) of the assessed targets of the Sustainable Development Goals, related to poverty, hunger, health, water, cities, climate, oceans and land (SDGs 1, 2, 3, 6, 11, 13, 14 and 15). Loss of biodiversity is therefore shown to be not only an environmental issue, but also a developmental, economic, security, social and moral issue as well.

"To better understand and, more importantly, to address the main causes of damage to biodiversity and nature's contributions to people, we need to understand the history and global interconnection of complex demographic and economic indirect drivers of change, as well as the social values that underpin them," said Prof. Brondízio. "Key indirect drivers include increased population and per capita consumption; technological innovation, which in some cases has lowered and in other cases increased the damage to nature; and, critically, issues of governance and accountability. A pattern that emerges is one of global interconnectivity and 'telecoupling' -- with resource extraction and production often occurring in one part of the world to satisfy the needs of distant consumers in other regions."

Other notable findings of the Report include:

Three-quarters of the land-based environment and about 66% of the marine environment have been significantly altered by human actions. On average these trends have been less severe or avoided in areas held or managed by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.

More than a third of the world's land surface and nearly 75% of freshwater resources are now devoted to crop or livestock production.

The value of agricultural crop production has increased by about 300% since 1970, raw timber harvest has risen by 45% and approximately 60 billion tons of renewable and non-renewable resources are now extracted globally every year -- having nearly doubled since 1980.
     
Land degradation has reduced the productivity of 23% of the global land surface, up to US$577 billion in annual global crops are at risk from pollinator loss and 100-300 million people are at increased risk of floods and hurricanes because of loss of coastal habitats and protection.    

In 2015, 33% of marine fish stocks were being harvested at unsustainable levels; 60% were maximally sustainably fished, with just 7% harvested at levels lower than what can be sustainably fished.

Urban areas have more than doubled since 1992.

Plastic pollution has increased tenfold since 1980, 300-400 million tons of heavy metals, solvents, toxic sludge and other wastes from industrial facilities are dumped annually into the world's waters, and fertilizers entering coastal ecosystems have produced more than 400 ocean 'dead zones', totalling more than 245,000 km2 (591-595) -- a combined area greater than that of the United Kingdom.

Negative trends in nature will continue to 2050 and beyond in all of the policy scenarios explored in the Report, except those that include transformative change -- due to the projected impacts of increasing land-use change, exploitation of organisms and climate change, although with significant differences between regions.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190506093610.htm

The evidence already shows this is happenning

Collective data facts globally prove there is a decline and a threat to extinction for countless species unless we act

People want to challenge the date or be as poor as Maddog, using a whataboutism argument to claim this cannot be true, based off a incorrect claim by one envorinmental officer decades ago about climate change. Who is not even a climate scientist. This is covered in the video above

So how about something to refute the data, not piss poor fallacy whataboutism arguments by Maddog. As if one prediction being wrong, then means all must be wrong. That is not a gotcha, but immature and unable to refute the date collated here.