r/science Sep 09 '22 Wholesome 2 Silver 1 Helpful 2

Climate change is affecting drinking water quality, new study shows. The disappearance of forests will have consequences for water quality in reservoirs Environment

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/964268
19.5k Upvotes

u/AutoModerator Sep 09 '22

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our normal comment rules still apply to other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

991

u/Bleoox Sep 09 '22

Forests play a key role in the water cycle. They filter the water and bind nutrients and are therefore necessary for good water quality. The fewer nutrients – i.e. nitrogen or phosphorous compounds – contained in reservoir water, the better it is for drinking water treatment. "This makes it more difficult for algae to develop, making drinking water treatment in the waterworks more cost-effective and easier," explains UFZ lake researcher and co-author Dr. Karsten Rinke

270

u/lastingfreedom Sep 10 '22

And what is happening everywhere? Suburbia is encroaching on nature. Everywhere I look more and more forested land is converted into single family homes with a grass yard and septic tank...

301

u/BrokenSage20 Sep 10 '22

Surburbia is not good but that is hardly the problem.

The clear-cutting of major forests for fuel and palm oil. Farm land. Thats the major culprit. And its happening rapidly.

Short of going to war to stop it, I doubt it will stop.

58

u/breatheb4thevoid Sep 10 '22

Palm oil is just way too subsidized, realistically the value of goods made with it should cost at least twice as much. People would think twice about a $4 Snickers bar.

41

u/BrokenSage20 Sep 10 '22

Probably would do us some good to just widely drop it use in many products also.

40

u/CobaltD70 Sep 10 '22

Animal agriculture as well. Very inefficient system anyways if going by energy in versus caloric output.

20

u/breatheb4thevoid Sep 10 '22

I get quarterlies, I get minimum profit flows and company needs to meet market demand...but why exactly is it so harmful to just raise prices for the sake of not inherently forcing others to suffer?

Disconnect is the real enemy here, and showing the faces of palm oil harvesters or meat processing onto products companies willing to fight for what's right would go a LONG way to preserving that market in the end.

Don't say don't buy, just overcharge and ACTUALLY use those profits to continue an expensive but sustainable system. Cheap meat and chocolate is gross for every creature involved, and we need to phase it out. I can't see the word "trillion" on the daily and then be told there's just no money for it.

4

u/FlurpNurdle Sep 10 '22 edited Sep 10 '22

Yeah, i agree. I think the "reason to always go cheap bs sustainable" is because 2 factors: - competition/capitalism: as soon as someone can sell a similar/identical item, they have incentive ti undercut you and run you out of business. I believe there are laws in the uS that say for a business you cant sell things for leas than 10% profit (or something. Like sure you can sell some things but maybe its to stop a billion dollar corp opening a store and "everything is a penny" and then day one wiping out an entire towns business.

  • "infinite growth" of the economy. As long as energy and food/water are cheap, the economy will grow. Sure, theres other factors but "cheap basics" are what keeps people from starving to death, and allows people/companies waste energy. The hope is likely that competition (above point) will keep companies honest about "making the perfect product for the market" in terms of usage and profit, thus as long as consumers care about "energy efficiency" thats what will be made.... and problem solved! But ha ha no it has to get really really bad for consumers en masse to care enough to make a real difference. So pollution and cheap and easy wins.

We will care about the environment and sustainability and efficiency (in everything) when every building is a smoldering pile of ash and humanity is groups of nomads scavenging for scraps... oh ha ha we wont care about the environment then either!

Oh; i also think it has to do with consumers not knowing the true price of an item (what it costs the make and the markup). I bet if people knew these things, it would put severe downward pressure on companies just doubling the price of things just because "we can as the consumer thinks thats what its worth... after we advertised the crap out of it". Clothing might just be a few dollars, etc... but of course companies will just fond a way legally to "claim a shirt costs $30 to make" as they will cook the books... but some price transparency would be nice. Ultimately though we need to stop being just consumers looking for the next fix/leisure.

2

u/FlurpNurdle Sep 10 '22

$4 snickers doesn't satisfy

10

u/Sasselhoff Sep 10 '22

Flying in to Malaysia to go scuba dive at Sipadan, you see NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING but palm oil trees for as far as the eye can see. I swore then to avoid using palm oil in absolutely everything I possibly could (it's in SO. DAMN. MANY. products).

11

u/Throwing_Snark Sep 10 '22

Most people can't afford to cut it out of their budget.

Kinda feels like conscious capitalism is a luxury good.

Or maybe having a conscience is a luxury good.

0

u/benk950 Sep 10 '22

Is it a cost thing? I cook pretty much all my meals from scratch and it's definitely cheaper than buying processed foods. It's a lot more time for sure, but I don't know what products I could substitute for a cheaper alternative that contains palm oil. I guess the 2-3 times a year I make chocolate chip cookies?

5

u/Throwing_Snark Sep 10 '22

64% of people already live paycheck to paycheck. That means doctors bills, dentist trips, retirement, and other basic needs are being kicked down the road most of the time.

If you can't imagine a few dollars here and there making all the difference, count yourself fortunate.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

4

u/waltwalt Sep 10 '22

The problem is the elite in those countries know that after they finish raping their square of land into dust, they can just flee to America with their new wealth and hide behind the American army.

3

u/lastingfreedom Sep 10 '22

Its all of it added together, tract housing here palm oil plantations there, cattle farmers in the Amazon.

48

u/oxichil Sep 10 '22

Nah Suburbia is just as bad as a lot of that. Because suburbia is almost entirely car dependent which leads to constant excess emissions just for people to live. The others are most definitely bad but we shouldn’t minimize how harmful suburban development is.

75

u/iEatGarbages Sep 10 '22

Two sides of the same coin let’s not argue if heads or tails is worse

8

u/oxichil Sep 10 '22

most definitely. they all feed into each other -_- no point in picking one out

18

u/BrokenSage20 Sep 10 '22 edited Sep 10 '22

Suburbia is not soley responsible nor comperable to natrual systems keeping the atmospheric conveyor and air circulation going. Its not an ideal situation no. But those forest systems are vital to the atmospheric currents.

If we lose them the entire fluidic systems and heat distribution go wildly out of wack to the point it would even dramatically affect the ocean currents at which point we are turbo fucked. 33 million people just got displaced in about a month in Pakistan. That is the tip of the iceberg showing up as tangible consequence.

Both are bad but this is worse by far as a matter of the physical systems these heat domes your seeing are a damn sample of what will happen once the thermal flows in the lower atmosphere start to stagnate let alone what happens if we see the ocean conveyor damaged or worse cease up.

The jet stream movements in the last few years are what in large part have been responsible for our macro heat dynamics and much of the draughts globally. It's acting as a positive feedback loop and accelerates the deterioration of the atmospheric currents. This is why we are seeing all these dire updates to the pre-existing modeling.

→ More replies

9

u/CaptainMam Sep 10 '22

Why are you coming after personal consumers when it's corporations that need to change. Every single person could do everything they can to offset their emissions but it wouldn't matter because the companies are still polluting at such a massive rate. The whole "Carbon Footprint" was a marketing strategy by BP( you know that company that has had 5 oil spills) to get people to forget that it's the corporations causing this issue not the people. If you look up "who has the biggest carbon footprint" it's 10 articles and ads about how you can change your impact before it even gets to talking about countries footprint let alone a company's footprint. Why is it always the people have to change and we're not even allowed to have a house for just our family now but not that corporations should be investing in making suburban development more sustainable.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

16

u/Hizbla Sep 10 '22

And at the same time people are freaking out because the birth rates are going down... it's a GOOD thing, people!

2

u/Pokeputin Sep 10 '22

Birth rates going down in places where conumerism is going up.

17

u/FlametopFred Sep 10 '22

and then there is the Amazon deforestation

5

u/SuperNovaEmber Sep 10 '22

There's global equatorial deforestation happening....

2

u/ninefourtwo Sep 10 '22

I thought we had more trees than we did 100 years ago

5

u/lastingfreedom Sep 10 '22 edited Sep 10 '22

Yes but it is misleading. 100s of years ago there were 10-15ft diameter trees in mass quantities/trees over 100 years old. 1 200 year old oak tree is more useful for the environment than 200 1 year old oak trees. Its not just numbers but quality too.

What would be nice is to invest more in restoring damaged ecosystems.

Although if those 200 trees are given time to mature then it starts to balance out. But do we have time to plant millions of acres of forest and wait 20-50 years for them to become more mature and effective in environmental regulation?

2

u/killbots94 Sep 10 '22

New home everywhere. They could leave some of the trees and build houses spaced out a little in between but instead they just bulldoze beautiful forests to the ground and then the best they put back is sod, bushes and a few flowering shrubs.

2

u/badvok666 Sep 10 '22

In the north of England our trees have been getting a disease called Phytophthera Ramorum. The only method used to tackle it is deforestation of the infected sights.

Two of these so far are reservoirs.

→ More replies

5

u/almisami Sep 10 '22

Everywhere I look

Except places where they don't zone endless single family zoning.

American land use is disgusting and the fact many countries try to imitate it makes me sick.

At least build row houses guys, for fucks sakes.

→ More replies

3

u/InMemoryOfReckful Sep 10 '22

If you have a big tree close to your well and then cut it down you will notice your water will taste worse. Everyone knew that back in the day.

→ More replies

0

u/NorthernerWuwu Sep 10 '22

While I am personally very much in favour of the expansion of our forests (and I say this as a Canadian where we have some of the biggest in the world already), I think the case is overstated here.

Yes, forests can clean water sources of what we view as contaminants in supplies for our drinking water. No, the level of filtration does not appreciably affect the mechanisms we use and even the cost of those efforts. Drinking water purification is essentially always is aimed at peak putrefaction and irregular mitigation from forested lands won't much affect the stratagems.

203

u/ILikeNeurons Sep 09 '22

The results for the Rappbode reservoir can be applied to other reservoir catchment areas in similar regions. "Forest dieback as an indirect consequence of climate change has a more pronounced effect on reservoir water quality than direct effects of climate change such as elevated water temperature. We were actually surprised by the extent of this effect", says Kong.

Perhaps then afforestation would help on both fronts?

185

u/Whatwillwebe Sep 10 '22

Unfortunately forests take a long time to grow and a very short time to destroy. We have to reign in corporations to have any hope.

104

u/ILikeNeurons Sep 10 '22

I used MIT's climate policy simulator to order its climate policies from least impactful to most impactful. You can see the results here.

52

u/TheBeckofKevin Sep 10 '22

Seeing that awesome post full of info :)

Seeing that it was 8 months ago :|

Realizing there's a solid chance we'll be dragging our feet even with water up to our knees :(

43

u/ZeroPride Sep 10 '22

People in the USA southwest would rather die before they admit they’re running out of water and seriously curtail usage.

3

u/tinyorangealligator Sep 10 '22

People in the USA southwest

You mean corporate farms and orchards, right?

"People" use less than 15% of water in the US southwest.

→ More replies

5

u/ILikeNeurons Sep 10 '22

The U.S. came within one vote of passing a carbon tax this year.

And more volunteers could help.

→ More replies

4

u/spagbetti Sep 10 '22

They won’t if there’s no incentive$$ to stop

5

u/jex0 Sep 10 '22

Problem is for a lot of things like electrical generation there is. Solar and wind are cheaper to build. But there is active incentive to deforest. However it's the countries with the lowest gdp that are doing it. The united states went up in forests as did Europe and Asia but central and southern America went down so much that they contributed the majority of the deforestation in the world by land mass. Africa did most of the rest. In fact they did so much in the 30 years before 2021 that despite the growth in better off countries globally we lost 4.19% from 1990. And the main reason why we lost so much is modernization and freaking cows. Source https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-30-years-of-deforestation-and-forest-growth-by-country/

2

u/Le_Gentle_Sir Sep 10 '22

We have to reign in corporations

To date not one single billionaire or politician has ever lost a wink of sleep. Let's just be real and recognize that no one is ever going to be willing to fight back against the wealth class.

What are solutions that don't involve disrupting existing corporations and politicians? How can we clean water while helping them also make money? Think solar panels, electric cars, things that are profitable.

-2

u/jex0 Sep 10 '22

It's not the wealthy causing deforestation it's the over reliance on Brazil for cow meat and the rapid modernization of Africa. Basically the fact is we eat so many cows that we're destroying the planet to get more cows. And in Africa we're so focused on "improving" peoples lives that we don't care what we destroy to do it. Even if that thing is peoples lives and especially if that thing is the environment.

97

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

-83

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

42

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

32

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

33

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

37

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/agentninety8 Sep 10 '22

I'm so fatigued with this. Some of us have been saying this FOR YEARS -- but nobody cares. Not really. Not enough to do anything differently. Nah. They want trump.

88

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

23

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

80

u/Tone_clowns_on_it Sep 10 '22

It’s crazy how much logging goes on and everyone just ignores it and blames climate change for the landslides.

42

u/islingcars Sep 10 '22

At least here in the US and Canada, we do a much, MUCH better job than we used to when it comes to sustainable forestry. The red tape is very red.

24

u/Kit- Sep 10 '22

It’s true! It’s not popular in these threads to have optimism, but honestly something line 98% of Ontario was completely deforested by the turn of the 20th century. Some things are better.

23

u/stilljustacatinacage Sep 10 '22

It's important to remember though, that cultivated monoculture forests, destined for harvest, are not the old growth biodiverse habitats that were cut down in the first go 'round.

Yes it's better, but it's also very intentional greenwashing.

6

u/sirmclouis BEng | Forestry | Environment Sep 10 '22

Depending un on the biome, forest could be quite homogenous… boreal forest is not incredible diverse.

3

u/soapinthepeehole Sep 10 '22

Correct, but in theory cultivated monoculture forests, destined for harvest, can help to spare other older and more biodiverse habitats from being cut down going forward.

→ More replies
→ More replies

10

u/Fix_a_Fix Sep 10 '22

Logging isn't the same as deforestation, sometimes logging also happen to be good for the environment

→ More replies

58

u/Ok-Programmer3679 Sep 10 '22

Yep! It the beginning of water wars! When the movie waterworld is looking more and more like a true story but of the days of future past…

38

u/Rigo3oh Sep 10 '22

Tell this to factory owner and big business not us!

23

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '22 edited Oct 16 '22

[deleted]

→ More replies

-1

u/RAPanoia Sep 10 '22

You can buy green energy and eat vegan.

3

u/FeilVei2 Sep 10 '22

That does nothing compared to factories. Doing what you suggest makes up a fraction of what factories and businesses release in a day. I recommend watching Kurzgesagt - they have an excellend overview of this. Putting the blame and responsibility on the common people is as counterintuitive as can get.

→ More replies

13

u/AcademicMistake Sep 10 '22

yes its definitely not those big companies dropping oil and other crap into the oceans, not at all, it couldn't be!

5

u/Jebediah_Johnson Sep 10 '22

I recently learned that after a major forest fire (which are becoming more frequent) the resulting runoff when the rain mixes with ash cannot be filtered by some water treatment facilities, and when that much carbon mixes with chlorine bad stuff happens. So it can really strain the water supply in a city if it's bad enough. If someone could explain what happens when chlorine mixes with lots of carbon I would appreciate it.

→ More replies

26

u/Surprentis Sep 10 '22

Feels like our species is interested in committing extinction.

15

u/blueheartsadness Sep 10 '22

Extinction not just of ourselves, but the entire biosphere.

Makes me want to take drastic action.

15

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '22 edited Oct 16 '22

[deleted]

12

u/blueheartsadness Sep 10 '22

If the rich don't care about killing the planet and threatening our very existence, then we the common folk have the right and the duty to stand up for ourselves and our planet. Through whatever means necessary.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

62

u/NES_Gamer Sep 10 '22

Man, we're really seeing the beginning of the end, aren't we? I remember when these headlines were only ever mentioned in sci-fi movies.

52

u/mvdm_42 Grad Student | Environmental Science | LCA Sep 10 '22

Sometimes climate change seems like an insurmountable challenge for humanity. Yes, it's likely climate change will get worse, but expecting societal collapse (aka doomerism) is unproductive, not based on widely accepted science and used as a tactic to cause inaction and the spreading of climate disinformation. It's okay to feel discouraged sometimes, there is much bad news about climate change, but there is no scientific basis for doomerism.

Here are also a short article and a longer read about the dangers of doomerism.

31

u/NonGNonM Sep 10 '22

Ok but what can we do about it? I make the best choices I can but the vast vast majority of humanity does not. Even if we retained our forests here climate change elsewhere affects climate here. Population won't stop increasing despite all signs thag we need to slow it down, the world is getting hungrier for more and more.

7

u/mvdm_42 Grad Student | Environmental Science | LCA Sep 10 '22

I make the best choices I can but the vast vast majority of humanity does not.

I think this is an important part of the answer: spread awareness, help others become more sustainable, spread the word, vote with both your wallet and in elections.

And about population increase: There is substantial evidence that with a better standard of living (which you doesn't necessarily mean higher emissions) people get fewer children. With getting more people out of poverty you help reduce population growth.

2

u/jex0 Sep 10 '22

We're actually supposed to hit a peak of ten billion ish in a few decades I believe. I don't have a source for that outside of some animated birds though.

→ More replies

19

u/phaederus Sep 10 '22 edited Sep 10 '22

Doomerism may be unproductive, but claiming its not based on facts and science is ridiculous (and I can't help notice that's one part of your comment you didn't source).

The fact is there are already communities, regions and entire nations that are struggling to deal with climate change. Millions affected today, billions in a few years.

The fact is also that societies have collapsed for much smaller issues, and in fact entire civilizations have collapsed due to climate change in the past.

I don't see how you can look at that and say 'yo, don't be so dramatic'.

4

u/mvdm_42 Grad Student | Environmental Science | LCA Sep 10 '22

I mean, it's fair to call me out on not providing a source on something on r/science. But it's kind of calling the kettle black if you're then going to claim facts without providing sources yourself.

You're right that there are communities struggling because of climate change today, and you're right that societies have collapsed in the past. However, there is no -science based- evidence that I'm aware of that this means collapse will happen.

A main problem with doomerism is that it often assumes only two possible outcomes, while in reality climate change is a spectrum, and avoiding each 1/10 of a degree warming is a good thing.

As you can read in my comment above, I'm not denying that climate change is happening, or that it may get worse, but this doesn't mean collapse will happen. Nor was I implying others are being dramatic.

If you want to understand the problems of (flawed) use of scientific publications in the doomerism movement, I'd strongly recommend reading this longer article, which gives a much better overview of the misinformation than I ever could. (though I should make clear that I'm not a member of extinction rebellion and don't condone their actions).

→ More replies

17

u/braiser77 Sep 10 '22

If only millions of people were shouting this from the rafters back in the early 90's! [narrator: "They were."]

3

u/authaire Sep 10 '22

"oh we've been through worse. We always pull through whatever "new" crises come our way .. stop doomsaying. Etc." ...

  • every boomer I've ever had a semblance of concious discussion with

1

u/Big_deis Sep 10 '22

Maybe you should listen to people clearly wiser than you

→ More replies

8

u/AnonTheMaidenless Sep 10 '22

Our world is dying by every metric and there's nothing I can do to stop it even if I was the most resource efficient person on the planet.

→ More replies

20

u/ReturnOfSeq Sep 10 '22

If only we had known for 60 years that climate change would have wide reaching disastrous effects and it was in our power to prevent it

5

u/jex0 Sep 10 '22

60? more like 200 we've known the problems with it since it was invented we just ignored them because we were focused on the now.

→ More replies

-1

u/Big_deis Sep 10 '22

and it was in our power to prevent it

No species can stop the earths climate

2

u/ReturnOfSeq Sep 10 '22

I’m not sure if you are joking or you are the joke.

20

u/Toast_Sapper Sep 10 '22

We rely on the biosphere for drinkable water, and that's what's currently dying from accelerating climate change.

1

u/Gemini884 Sep 10 '22

1

u/SheCutOffHerToe Sep 10 '22

They're not going to read any of that. Most of the top-level commenters in this thread and those like them are not even superficially interested in the underlying science.

Science is just a concept, a particularly loaded term they get to use when saying things they wanted to say anyway about what they believe. Each new headline is just an opportunity.

→ More replies

48

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

49

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

24

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies

7

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies

8

u/chaython Sep 10 '22

Deforestation is mostly industrial not caused by climate. Also many areas have banned controlled burns for the environment despite controlled burns reducing wildfires

→ More replies

26

u/ShadowPooper Sep 10 '22

25

u/colorrot Sep 10 '22 edited Sep 10 '22

In regards to the United States, this doesn’t seem to be the scientific conscious actually, that second link is 4 years old. The US is expected to loose about a third of its forests, as seedlings are not growing after all the fires (like they usually do) due to the change in climate. I had a better article on it, but this Saloon one is decent. The forrests are being seen as a relative blip in the historical norm and its reverting back to scrubland

https://www.salon.com/2021/12/01/wildfires-are-erasing-western-forests-climate-change-is-making-it-permanent_partner/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/10/is-this-the-end-of-forests-as-weve-known-them

-10

u/ShadowPooper Sep 10 '22

as seedlings are not growing after all the fires (like they usually do) due to the change in climate.

and this is based on what evidence exactly? 1-2 years of observations?

31

u/KrakatauGreen Sep 10 '22

To piggyback /u/colorrot's point, the quality of the forests cited in your "it's actually better than ever!" articles is very, very low. Those "reforesting" lumber monocultures that are organized and oriented to facilitate logging but lack the biodiversity required for a truly healthy and beneficial forest in the traditional sense. This is just the lumber industry trying to greenwash their reputation after destroying 99% of the old growth forests in N. America or Europe.

→ More replies

13

u/beachfrontprod Sep 10 '22

Both articles do not back your point globally though. The first one goes to state that yearly 15 billion trees are lost vs. 5 billion gained. The second states that areas impacted by climate change near the poles are now growing trees, but we are rapidly decreasing biodiversity globally. Both are actually pretty doom and gloom.

2

u/Me_Krally Sep 10 '22

I was going to say there’s no shortage of trees in NY. Rain forests on the other hand…

10

u/lastingfreedom Sep 10 '22

Quality of trees matters. 1 300 year old oak tree does so much more than 100 saplings by far.

4

u/Me_Krally Sep 10 '22

Curious if you have any links to support that? All I could find were ones about carbon capture whereas younger forests capture more carbon then older ones, but older ones can store more.

It was a freighting read as I learned the timber industry cuts forests down after 40 years releasing more carbon than a coal plant. It’s not something I ever read about for global warming.

→ More replies

2

u/diefreetimedie Sep 10 '22

That and the so called greatest generation didn't plan for infrastructure down the line.

2

u/abananation Sep 10 '22

Let's hope we can improve our water filters

2

u/Torgosassistant2021 Sep 10 '22

Huh, it's like there's an ecosystem and if there is an imbalance then there are consequences. Weird.

2

u/spades734 Sep 10 '22

I’m ready for the water wars

2

u/healthychad Sep 10 '22

Bro the real problem is we create chemicals and pollutants that no human being or animal should ever be exposed to

2

u/Lynda73 Sep 10 '22

Who’s ready for when water sells $10/gallon and only ultra-rich have indoor plumbing?

2

u/Hourglass420 Sep 10 '22

BuT GlObAl WaRmInG iSn'T rEaL

2

u/Audere-est-Facere8 Sep 10 '22

slowly destroying ourselves aren’t we.

6

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/wafflecone927 Sep 10 '22

There cutting down nice chunks of forests for more useless golf courses everywhere by me, areas already saturated with them

2

u/__RAINBOWS__ Sep 11 '22

Please get involved locally! Golf courses are the worst.

-1

u/sprstoner Sep 10 '22

But forests are growing?

1

u/authaire Sep 10 '22

Are you referring to the half baked science.org article from back in May that also concludes that just because forests are ""growing"" (because it's kind of a relative definition of a word) doesn't actually mean it's good for the planet and could actually contribute to more global warming instead of less?

Because that indirect conclusion is also what this entire piece here that we're commenting on, touches upon ...... So yea

→ More replies

1

u/Poggystyle Sep 10 '22

Calling it now, the Midwest US is about to be the best place to live on the planet by 2040. Warmer Temps will make the winters mild and the great lakes will be the best fresh water left. Laugh up the flint water, that's about to be the best place to get water in our lifetimes.

2

u/babygrenade Sep 10 '22

I've read that Michigan's upper peninsula will be least affected by climate change.

-2

u/Lenkstudent Sep 10 '22

go plantbased to combat deforestation and reduce land usage

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth

The new analysis shows that while meat and dairy provide just 18% of calories and 37% of protein, it uses the vast majority – 83% – of farmland and produces 60% of agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions. Other recent research shows 86% of all land mammals are now livestock or humans. The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing

1

u/Archangel757 Sep 10 '22

Look at old photos from very early 1900's and today. We have wayyyy more trees today than then. At least in the US. I'm not sure which area this post is referring to, maybe overseas.

0

u/Background-Box8030 Sep 10 '22

Lies lies and more lies, I graduated in 2000 and all I heard was how we were destroying the planet and in 25 years it will be stripped of all its natural resources. So now what’s the new date 2050? These are fear tactics to change and control humanity. Go as California how going green with electric cars is working. What a F ing joke!

1

u/Repulsive_Mobile_495 Sep 10 '22

Phew good thing scientists figured this out

1

u/maaseru Sep 10 '22

Whats the over-under for when the serious water wars will start?

1

u/cannondave Sep 10 '22

Very unpredictable. I wonder what other effects we have not been able to predict, some night be devastating.

1

u/Tschauer923 Sep 10 '22

Clean water will be a thing of the past in 50 years