Will Earths environment be mostly destroyed within the next 40 years?
Ever since the industrial revolution 150 years ago, earth has suffered many many many catastrophic effects on the environment. Deforestation has caused over 50% of the trees in the world to be cut down. The amazon has been cut down by 40%, the rain forests in africa have been cut down by 60% and over all a very large percentage of earths forests/trees have been cut down. Each day 150 species of animals and plant life species go extinct from the cutting down of the Amazon rainforest alone. If you added up all of the other trees and forests being cut down, it would be in the thousands. Human garbage disposal has been a huge contribute too. There are over 150 locations in the Atlantic ocean where so much garbage has piled up it has dropped the oxygen levels in the ocean by so much that the water there is un-inhabitable for sea life. Putting garbage in the ground has contaminated a exponentially large amount of ground water. Factories and the burning of fossil fuels has increased the global temperature by 3 degrees fahrenheit and is increasing. The temperature increase on Earth may not seem like a lot, but it has catastrophic effects on the environment. Pollution from factories and the burning of fossil fuels also creates acid rain which destroys most life that the rain falls on.
Experts estimate that by 2050 almost all of Earths environment will have been destroyed.
What are your opinions on this?
@Captian. Your in denial and your answer is completely bogus. You say deforestation doesn't effect anything? what about the animals that life in those trees and the trees that do grow back take half a century to grow back fully, and by then so many trees would of been cut down, the growing of the trees that grow back wouldn't be able to keep up.
Also, the industrial part only produces 4% of the carbon dioxide? That is bogus. There is over 200 trillion tons of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels each day.
Also, garbage in the ocean doesn't effect anything? It completely contaminates and pollutes the ocean killing the sea life and killing billions of plankton that produce oxygen, dropping the oxygen levels produced in the ocean and killing most of the sea life in that area due to lack of oxygen.
You sir, are a moron.
- TomcatLv 57 years agoFavorite Answer
There is no doubt our civilization will go down in the fossil record as a decline in the number of species. However there are good stories out there such as attempts being made to manage fisheries throughout the world. The Alaskan fisheries for instance is a natural treasure and only because of strict management of seasons. Also in America there are many more trees, cattle, horses, dear and birds than there used to be before colonization because we are changing the planet, but I don't think we are destroying it. One day there will not be enough room on this planet to allow man eating tigers running around and they will have to be captured or killed. That's sad, but the people are more important. When we go extinct, in about 2 million years all the little rodents that we didn't kill will turn back into some kind of man eating creatures or grass eating creatures and a world beyond our imagination will rise up just like it always does. Is humanity a natural process?
- FreethinkerLv 57 years ago
No. The environment will not be "mostly" destroyed. Some problems will worsen, for example many coastal areas might be submerged, and weather patterns might change adversely. Some species will be lost, and others will become endangered. Yet it will not become an uninhabitable planet like Venus or Jupiter. The earth has incurred considerable environmental damage over the past 150 years, but there is no logical reason to extrapolate that the next 37 will be so much more devastating.
- 7 years ago
No one will know for sure. It is possible the Earth's systems will fail and we will essentially kill our planet. I have read numerous papers on biogeochemistry and that even our planets nutrient cycles are being affected by the current changing climate.We also affect it with fertilizers, human waste, agricultural wastes, and indurstrial wastes. Water will soon be a mainstream problem with heavy irrigation in the U.S. midwest in particular. It will also be in arid regions.
However, I do believe in humanity. I believe in the great thinkers and scientists that have the ability to reduce carbon pollution and reduce waste. Not all hope is lost.
- JesseLv 47 years ago
I certainly hope not, but the way we are going it is possible. The Earth is warming, the ice caps are melting, the interior portions of continents are becoming more like deserts, water supplies are drying up, we are distributing heavy metals back onto the surface of the earth by using coal, and the leaders who might do something about this are either ignorant or in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry. And, by 2050, the population the world will be about 14 million people, when the maximum carrying capacity of the Earth is estimated to be somewhere between 8 and 12 billion. I'll probably be gone by then, but is looking pretty bleak for those of you who will be around for most of this century.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- SagebrushLv 77 years ago
<Experts estimate that by 2050 almost all of Earths environment will have been destroyed.>
Let us see some of the past predictions of these so called experts.
Quote by Noel Brown, UN official: "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."
Alert: NASA's James Hansen Declared Obama Has One Week Left To Save The Planet! -- 'On Jan. 17, 2009 Hansen declared Obama only 'has four years to save Earth' -- Only 7 Days left! --UK Guardian Jan. 17, 2009
According to my calendar it is January 19, 2013. I guess it must be too late. Huh? But I am sure they will still collect taxes to solve the problem.
As far as deforestation, there are more trees in the US now than there were when Columbus discovered America. Most of those trees were the result of man's action. For example, a homesteader could get 180 acres of land. If they would plant 1 acre of trees they would get an additional 5 acres and the government would provide the trees and assist in their planting. This make the virtually barren plains into a substantial forest.
<Also, the industrial part only produces 4% of the carbon dioxide? That is bogus. There is over 200 trillion tons of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels each day. >
No it is not bogus. Depending on the difference in temperature the ocean, which covers the major portion of the earth, expels much more than man can make. Check your facts.
Quote by John Takeuchi, meteorologist: “The atmosphere has periodic warming and cooling cycles. The sun is the primary source of energy impacting the earth's surface. That energy heats the land and the seas, which then warm the air above them. Water vapor and other gases in the atmosphere also affect temperature....Oceans are the main repository for CO2. They release CO2 as their temperature rises - just like your beer. This strongly suggests that warming oceans - heated by the sun - are a major contributor to CO2 in the atmosphere.”
Be careful who you call a moron. When you point the finger three of them are pointing right back at you.
- CaptainLv 77 years ago
No the industial world only produces 3% of the carbon dioxide.
Deforestation in some areas is essential, and allows the forest to actually grow back as trees are planted for each of those cut down. Its actually poverty which causes most illegal deforestation.
There is 0 evidence to suggest 150 species go extinct - name 3 which are going extinct? You cant and if they could they would implement a protection program which is good for the animals concerned.
Sea life is NOT affected overall by garbage, in fact garbage produces floating coral reef effects, harbouring some kind of unique fish who otherwise would face ... natural extinction.
- DaveHLv 57 years ago
Undoubtedly. Check skepticalscience.com for confirmation.
- Anonymous7 years ago
I doubt it, unless the climate wars involve nuclear weapons.
- JCLv 57 years ago
I don't think so, but the people who express disdain for the impact mankind has on the environment-in evidence here-aren't helping. Ever since Carson McCuller's 'Silent Spring' sparked the environmental movement there has been resistance to virutally every initiative taken to protect the environment, usually spearheaded by corporate and business interests who claimed that being made accountable for their impacts on the environment would bankrupt them, and a vocal contingent of individuals who bought into that as well as objecting to having to pay the costs of advancing technology, generally on the basis of freedom and liberty. Freedom to pollute wantonly, for example. But like one of my favorite conservatives once said, "Your freedom ends at the tip of my nose." That's a double edged sword for most of us, true...but if one person claims that not being able to toss his garbage in the river impinges on his "freedom" ten more who live downstream are going to object to that freedom-loving guy defining freedom strictly to his own advantage and thinking that gives him the right to define liberty for others. We see this attitude shot through democracy-especially in the United States-and in point of fact, it is this attitude in and of itself that brought forth the Magna Carta, the Declarartion of Independence, the U.S. Constition, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the Civil Rights Act, just to name a few efforts to define freedom and equality. The environment is no exception.
To be sure, there will always be those who will push the envelope on either side of the equation; people who will try to block reasonable progress on arcane environmental considerations, and others who will sometimes even deliberately pollute more in what they imagine is some sort of civil disobedience...the at least stated intent to consume and pollute more has been in evidence here repeatedly, in fact. But that is like shooting oneself in the leg to protest gun legislation.
Regardless, technology marches on, and while it does not resolve all the problems, it does address many of them, and is continuing to do so today, albeit with diminishing returns at this point. We see the development of alternative energy, now in its infancy but gaining ground as the efficiency improves and the infrastructure to distribute it is being built; we see progressive methods of farming improving efficiency, decreasing the environmental impacts of farming and yielding greater profits than ever for those who implement them; we see people first grudgingly accept things like recycling because it takes more time than simply dragging three bags of garbage to the curb every week to be landfilled, then seeing the benefits of it, and we see prototypical efforts to generate energy from landfill deposits producing energy on larger and larger scales.
I don't have an answer for deforestation and many of the issues you raise in your question, I am not an expert, and I do not have a crystal ball to say definitely yes or no insofar as what our global environment will be like in 40 years. I suspect that many millions of people around the world will be directly impacted by our habits and routines now, and others downstream-perhaps one could say some of us are downstream of ourselves-will be indirectly impacted by environmental changes. But I think it is an exaggeration to say that our environment will be 'mostly destroyed' in 40 years. I think we have more time than that...and the more pressing issue short term is to avoid an economic and geopolitical global meltdown, since the scale of the problem requires the coordinated efforts of many peoples and countries around the world. We've seen what happens when countries and governments descend into chaos and dictatorships.
- flossieLv 67 years ago
Yes, may as well give up now.
In the 1800s it was proven (by projection, um where have we heard that recently?) that by the 20th century London would be 100 feet under horse manure, didn't happen obviously.
Do not believe the prophets of doom, science got us into this, science will get us out.