Global Ecological Restoration: Yes We Did It, and We Can (will and must immediately begin to) Undo It

We did it, we can undo itTwo wonderful commentaries today are worthy of merit for communicating well the urgency of climate and global ecological change, while proposing sufficient solutions (both to which EcoInternet is committed). The Yale Environment360 site notes the “urgency of the current situation cannot be overemphasized” and thus urges the next President of the United States to immediately wield powers under the clean air act [ark] to regulate carbon dioxide [search].
And environment heavy-hitters including Thomas E. Lovejoy and Tim Flannery note that while atmospheric carbon levels at 387 are already past the dangerous level [ark] of 350, that tremendous potential exists to ecologically restore degraded lands [search], returning carbon to safe levels while staunching hemorrhaging of biodiversity. There is much more work to be done on the social incentives and policies necessary to make it equitable and just, but it is a global ecological necessity that we strongly and immediately commit to an era of ecological restoration.
Indeed, we did it — destroyed the Earth's life giving ecosystems — and we can (will and must) undo it or being ends. Finally leading scientists and institutions are thinking big and proposing ecologically based policy prescriptions that matter and provide some measure of hope when implemented. Now we need nations, leaders and global citizens to lead. It is up to all of us — global citizens committed to global ecological sustainability, loosely coordinated through the Internet — to make it happen no matter what. Global ecological restoration is the ultimate truth for all remaining time.

You may also like...

1 Response

  1. We have a remarkably large and loud number of people, many of them are our leaders, who are denialists and naysayers with regard to the science of global warming. They have been doing what they are doing now during most of my lifetime. What they are saying and doing, I suppose, is derived from one form or another of self-interested-thinking. At least one consequence of their specious, widely shared and consensually validated way of viewing the world and promoting their interests could lead the human community into danger. Let me say more now about what I mean.
    Self-interested-thinking is potentially dangerous because it serves to hide the truth of global warming, among other things, as well as to “poison the well” of public discourse regarding climate change.
    Too many of our politicians, economists, big-business benefactors and the talking heads in the mass media are all “whistling the same tune”. What is even worse is the way leaders entice many appointees and surrogates to whistle that same tune. After all, who can resist offerings of great wealth, power and privileges that accrue to those who go along and get along with whatsoever is political convenient, economically expedient, religiously tolerated and socially agreeable. In the face of such temptation, we can readily understand why scientific gains are eschewed by denialists and naysayers. The many warnings of scientists about the potentially pernicious effects of climate change serve to forcefully impede the adamant efforts of the wealthy and powerful to acquire even more wealth, more power and more privileges.
    Not only are too many leaders hiding or otherwise in denial of the good scientific evidence of human-driven climate change, they are also surreptitiously involved in poisoning the well of public discourse by facilitating the strategic dissemination of disinformation. And for what? Evermore power, wealth and privileges for themselves and their minions so they can carefreely play out their conspicuous consumption fantasies by living large, long and unsustainably, come what may, having forsaken the future of their children and forgotten how human life and the colossal global economy utterly depend upon Earth's limited resources and frangible ecosystem services for existence.
    It seems to me that the human community has reached a crossroads: EITHER we will choose to “stay the current course” of endless global economic growth, ever increasing conspicuous per capita consumption, and skyrocketing human population numbers OR we will find other ways to go forward. If distinctly human-driven overproduction, over-consumption and overpopulation activities of the human species we see overspreading the surface of Earth in our time are unsustainable, then I suppose we will choose to make changes in our behavioral repertoire so that sustainable ways of living in the world are proposed by policymakers, adopted by leaders and enacted by our community.
    Steven Earl Salmony
    AWAREness Campaign on the Human Population,
    established 2001

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.