News of nature

My Photo
Name:
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Sunday, January 29, 2006

Latest climate change news

From Yle

Climate change won't be withdrawable soon?

Published 29.01.2006, at 13.33

American researchers have started to ponder when climate change will reach its peak after which it cannot be prevented or even slow down. Discussion started when information was published that last year was the warmest ever of those years that have been researched.

In Washington Post's interviews top class researches present three phenomenon that are already taking place, and which will in long run lead to unstoppable change on the climate of earth.

First threat is melting and breaking down of Greenlandic or norther polar ice, which would notably increase the level of sea. Researchers have noticed, that both glaciers are breaking off from their sides, but because of snowing are getting more mass to their midparts. This process combined with about three degree rise in temperature would break the glaciers down. Researches believe this is possible during this century.

Second threat mentioned is the coral color's fading caused by water temperature rise. If water gets two degrees warmer it would kill microalga that is the food of corals. The color fading would kill coral in one week, which would leade to decrease in living terms of fish species living at coral reefs. Last year the ocean water between Texas and Trinidad was over 2 degrees warmer than normal and corals died in vaste areas.

Third possible thread according to researchers is the stopping of thermohalinic circulation, meaning Atlantic currents such as Golf stream. According to the measurements the currents have already slowed down significantly. Computer analysis made in Germany tells that there is 50 % possibility that the Atlantic currents will stop totally in 200 years. This is happened before, last time 8200 years ago.

By using forecasts researchers are trying to get a picture of how much we'd need to cut down greenhouse pollution in order to still get a hold of the climate warming.


USA government trying to silence a scientist?

During George W. Bush's time the government of USA has had a policy that it will try to use technology that will decrease pollution, but it won't accept strict restrictions that have numbers on them. The leading climate researcher of NASA, James E. Hansen, claims in interviews by The New York Times and The Washington Post, that Bush has designated his own men to work in Nasa that are trying to stop Hansen to publish his information of climate change.

Hansen has been warning about climate warming for years, and according to him the government's officials are censoring his texts and trying to prevent media to do interviews with him. For example a request for interview by National Public Radio was declined by goverment official. Hansen didn't get to talk before the highest representative of NASA gave his permission.

Bush's government denies this claim.They say that checking Hansen's speeches is just that they want that the public info given by Nasa is uniform and accurate.

YLE24

Saturday, October 15, 2005

Conservation of Nordic Nature in a Changing Climate

Conservation of Nordic Nature in a Changing Climate report by Nordic council of ministers

Read whole PDF here

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Wikipedia on Pentti Linkola

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Linkola

Pentti Linkola
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Pentti Linkola (December 7, 1932) is a radical Finnish philosopher and environmentalist and an advocate of genocide. He has written widely about his ideas and is without doubt the best-known deep ecologist in Finland. He has retired and works as a professional fisherman.


Life

Linkola grew up in Helsinki. His father Kaarlo Linkola was the Rector of Helsinki University and his mother's father Hugo Suolahti had worked as the Chancellor in the same university. Pentti Linkola did not want to continue his zoological and botanical studies after his first year. He became a free naturalist. During these years he wrote the Suuri lintukirja ("Great Book of Birds") (1955) with O. Hilden.

Linkola's first political publication was author's edition, the pamphlet Isänmaan ja ihmisen puolesta ("For the Man and the Country") (1960), in which he spoke strongly for pacifism and encouraged conscientious objection. However, Linkola himself has completed military service and has a military rank of corporal.


Ideas

In the essay collection Unelmat paremmasta maailmasta ("The Dreams about a Better World") (1971) he spoke for the first time out his ecological attitudes. He has continued to speak against the modern western way of life and the overuse of natural resources, and his latest books Johdatus 1990-luvun ajatteluun ("The Introduction to the Philosophy of the 1990s") (1989) and Voisiko elämä voittaa ("Could Life Prevail") (2004) are collections of his writings that have been published in various Finnish newspapers and magazines.

As a philosopher Linkola can be described as a biocentric empirist. He demands that man return to a smaller ecological niche and abandon modern technology and the pursuit of economic progress. Linkola considers population growth the biggest threat to life on Earth. He advocates eugenics and genocide as a means to combat overpopulation.


Support for terrorism

Linkola has expressed his support for terrorism like 9/11 or Unabomber.


Guru status

Pentti Linkola has encountered a lot of opposition with his criticism of the affluent western society, but many look up to him as a sort of a guru, largely because he lives as he teaches. He doesn't own a car; he earns his living by fishing from a rowing boat and selling the fish from door to door with a horse.

Bibliography

* Linkola, Pentti & O. Hilden: Suuri Lintukirja. Otava 1955, renewed edition 1962.
* Isänmaan ja ihmisen puolesta: Mutta ei ketään vastaan. Fourth edition. Helsinki: Suomen sadankomitealiitto, 1981 (third edition 1970).
* Linkola, Pentti: Pohjolan linnut värikuvin: Elinympäristö. Levinneisyys. Muutto. Otava 1963-67.
* Linkola, Pentti: Unelmat paremmasta maailmasta. Fourth edition. Porvoo: WSOY, 1990.
* Linkola, Pentti: Toisinajattelijan päiväkirjasta. Porvoo: WSOY, 1979.
* Linkola, Pentti & Osmo Soininvaara: Kirjeitä Linkolan ohjelmasta. Porvoo: WSOY, 1986.
* Linkola, Pentti: Johdatus 1990-luvun ajatteluun. Porvoo: WSOY, 1989.
* Ekologiseen elämäntapaan: johdantoartikkeli. Yliopistopaino, 1996.
* Linkola, Pentti: Voisiko elämä voittaa. Helsinki: Tammi, 2004.

Also:

* Kämäräinen, Kauko: Linkola, oikeinajattelija. Tampere: Määrämitta, 1992.


External links

* Plausible Futures Newsletter Traces Linkola's career in the Green movement, and the connections between fascism and ecology (he has often been called an "eco-fascist" - some say he styles himself one).
* Church of Euthensasia reports a Wall Street Journal-Europe interview in which he expresses the view that World War III would be: "a happy occasion for the planet.... If there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating, if it meant millions of people would die."
* Who is Pentti Linkola? More quotes and information from a supporter's website, including his feelings about the human race:

"Such a lousy animal species that it would not survive even one million years, even though all now extinct species survived much longer."

* Finnish-English translation project of his 2004 book: Voisiko elämä voittaa A project aiming at bringing writings of Linkola to a wider audience, still at its early stages but steadily going forward.

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Pentti Linkola, from Taivaansusi

From Taivaansusi website, originally in Finnish

Pentti Linkola
- Prophet on his own planet

Pentti Linkola is without any doubt one of the most agitational thinkers in Finland. Everytime this 63 year old fisherman makes the decision to stand up to the spotlight of publicity, his statements cause the neck hair of all those hibernating in their self satisfaction rise. Naturally even the City magazine, the main magazine for urban lifestyle in Finland, can't even decide if he is "seriously taken prophet for apocalypse" or "just a sadistic nutcase bully.

Last year at a lecture organized by Forum Humanun Linkola declared for example that an induvidual who still believes in a human being has fallen out of all rational conversation, that EU, that strives for useless effectivity, is senseless praising multiplied by who knows how much, and that western culture is awful and shameful setback in the history of human kind. Most part of the audience was genuinely upset. The ones with the most twisted sense of humour understood the gags and laughed out loud. One could notice a small smile visiting also Linkola's face.
The funniest part in all was that the objections presented by audience couldn't annul the heavy propositions performed by the lecturer. By comparing human's and bug's spiritual life at the beginning of his speech Linkola introduced his listeners to a weird level of philosophy and logic, where normally crazy sounding claims seemed like facts. In the Linkola world the sun power really was desctructive - not really where the energy is gotten from but to what it is used for.


Human is an error of evolution


If you could change something in this world, what would be the first thing to work on?

"Of course I'd solve this population problem. I'd drop the amount of population to way less than 2 billion, which is the amount this planet can bare. Also I'd idolate vaste areas for other species. People could live for example in the Mediterrian countries, where, of course, should be collected an archive of all the achivements of all the cultures."

Is there any ways to accomplish this kind of a goal?

"That's all just speculation. Of course some gang of nuclear physicists could take over the power and start a limited nuclear war using all their professional knowledge. To avoid environmental damage they should of course use neutron bombs."

How have we ended up in situation where this radical acts would be needed? Has there been somekind of an error in evolution?

"Error or mistake or cancer, what ever name you want to use. Human has too good co operation between brains and hands, and thus he has the elements of desctruction in him. Then there are some controlling systems, but there isn't enough of them. In some societies they have worked too. And anyways, there is always some people who can see that we're heading for hell. But there isn't plenty of us. The biggest threat to life is too much of life."

The population problem is the worst especially in third world countries. What do you think, should these countries be helped and if yes, what kind of help?

"Mostly help to plant forets and then guarding the planted seedlings. Other ways they will go back to their clay houses and take those freshly planted trees to the ovens of those clay huts. And naturally one could give help to birth control, but definitely not any other kid of charity."

How far would you be ready to go with controlling the population from growing?

"Birth control definitely shouldn't be in the hands of an individual. The power should be on the state or world government. Just if father and mother can freely to decide how many kids they will have means no hope for us. And then some people are agaist abortion. That's just absurd, but luckily it's been decreasing lately. If people imagine that every individual should have full human rights straight from fetus forward it means there won't be any solution to this problem. People have to understand that we aren't valuable or unique individuals.
When we start solving this population problem I'd prefer if we could start from new born children than elderly people. Just like any other species, human grows wiser with age. I'd prefer to accept the killings of new born than making old people's lives shorter."

But you have kids yourself. Aren't they a moral problem for you?

"I have two daughters and they have only one offspring in total even as they are already over their thirties. I do have good conscience at least in this population matter so far. I already back in the 60s was thinking of this population boom question and with my wife we decided that two kids is absolute maximum."

Sexual murderers to gas chamber

You mentioned that you felt good when they hung criminals that had killed endangered elephants. Do you have the same view on death penalty in generel?

"Of course. It's hideous that even the sexual murderers of children are kept alive. It's absurd. But the moral aspect isn't important but understanding that a such protecting approach to human life is a plug to solving the population problem. When there is death penalty in use the value of human life is in its correct place. Amnesty International works for good when it's agaist some tortures, but when it's trying to get rid of death penalty it's going to the wrong direction."

Many think that that kind of ideas are cruel or even crazy. Do you think so as well?

"Maybe in this context they are cruel. But there isn't any good alternative. No matter how you look at it, there are too many people in the world and half should be gotten rid of. Any self respecting futurologist can predict just more and more of ecological catastrophes and more of wars between humans.
I'm not enough of a biologist to say that I'd say that it isn't bad at all to get rid of 3-4 billion individuals from the face of the earth, even as all my life I've been following different bird flocks whose population goes down fast and then rises again.
And we did see in WW2 Nazi Germany what's the price of a human life. But in few years the price of it went up to level of priceless and all these redcrosses and mothertheresas are dong well. If WW2 killed some dozens of millions of humans, in gas chambers some 6 million and in Stalin's attacks some 10 million, so where can you see it now? In the morals?"

Freedom of an individual is ridiculous

Define your connection to religion?

"I'd need the coordinates of the god before I could believe in one. Sometimes it's hard to believe in the existance of electricity as well, as you can't see that either. But at least there is somekind of proofs that it does exist.
Belief itself has plenty of good, I think, as somehow it is a conservative and preserving factor, that helps slowing down progression and thus weakens the speed of nature's desctruction. Church does follow the earthly society few steps behind, first there's the dish washing machine, then kitchen's general purpose machine and naturally after these follows female priests.
And then there's the laestadian movement that tries to fill the earth. That should be criminalized."

You're views on democrazy and freedom of an individual are quite negative. Why?

"The main reason is the proof. All these catastrophies of natural systems and all that show that this isn't working. The main thing is that an average person shouldn't be in control. It's ridiculous to think that a human would know what is best for him.
And what is normal human's individual rights? It's that you can write to a magazine that the bus stop at some suburb should be moved to another corner. Normal human doesn't want to critisize the system or the president, he can just whine a bit just for the trend of it. But when the election comes will these same people vote for the Naturelaw or Ecological party? No, they will vote for the normal big parties because they are so obedient. And they don't care for freedom of an individual.
And freedom of speech is just perfect silliness. Who suffered from lack of freedom of speech in Soviet Union? Andrei Saharov, Solzenitsyn and few others. If we lived in some dictature I could be one of those demanding for freedom of speech. But maybe not, if I noticed if the system was good."

Weirdassness


You've thought that in an ideal society the work would be people's other job, and for example adult education should be banned.

"No theorietical studies, dear god, after 25 years of age! The natural learning age of human is the youth and if after that he is shown a job that goes with his talents and tendencies, he will be happy doing it until he reaches the pension age. And pensionage would be one according to one's condition and not some magical agelimit. We could afford this kind of system and it would also make it possible to have jobs for inferior workers.

In this current philosophy of reorganization people are being fired no matter in what branch, when some try to gain surplus. And then they wonder about unemployment."

Before we could reach this ideal society there should be something that could be done already.

"If a man wants to make the planet's situation better on his own half he can make some changes in his practical life. One can live in as small aparment as possible and lower the room temperature to 18 degrees. And definitely not own a car, but rather use the public transport or taxis. Both will be much cheaper alternatives in the long run for the household as well. This way we could get some time-out for nature.

And the information technology isn't any real well being, it doesn't bring us a single egg or any other materia. And the standard of living doesn't get better because of mobile phones, that's just foolishness."


Do you live according to your principles?

"I of course want to be an example. I still use a work horse in my occupation and I don't have a car, TV, water piping or plumbing systems. I do have electricity, as one always has to do compromises. But I've noticed that all this remains as just an example that none of my neighbors have followed."

Liquidating the know-how


You've proposed that right now it would be enough just to liquidate the highest technology experts working for industry. Were you serious or did you just want to provocate?

"It would be one good way to stop or at least slow down the trembling of nature's balance. There's always more industry leaders but talents don't last forever."

What do you think about actual eco terrorism?

"Morally it is obviously justified, but there's no sense of hitting your head straight away to the police shields. There's not many of those people who care about this planet that they shouldn't be wasted on some kamikaze attacks."

You've never been part of that actual terrorism. If there was a new group forming that would be ready for direct action, would be you ready to take a role as for example as mentor?

"I'd be happy to. And there has been all kinds of plans during the years. But you're right, I've been only participating to non-violent attacks and been paying tens of thousands of Finnish mark for fines and court fees."

Would you be ready to sacrifice your life for nature preserving, if in that way you could save for example some worm species?

"This should be asked from some younger fellow comrade, as I'm already this old, and there's not necessarily that much lust for life left. Of course I would be ready to sacrifice myself, even for a small thing. In fact there are periods when I would be ready to die for nothing at all."

Your thoughts clearly have been growing more cynical and nihilistic. In the 60s you were talking about pasificism and now you would be ready to accept all kinds of blood deeds without a blink. Where does this progress come from?

"My great ideological opponent Urho Kekkonen said that one gets more radical with age. I'd prefer thinking that my thoughts have changed because the world has changed."

You are one of our most quoted thinkers and even New York Times have been presenting your thoughts. Do you think you have made a difference with your declarations?

"It's really hard to say. Lot of people who think the same way as me believe that my thoughts have had a more effect but I haven't seen any concrete influence. The world's situation at the moment is already a such that at least I can't make it worse."

Thursday, September 29, 2005

Parody magazine

This is from Finnish online parody magazine Lehti

Scientists: Climate change might not be connected to climate change
(BUENOS AIRES)

According to scientists the recent exceptionally strong and frequent storms and the changed climage in general might not have anything to do with the climate change. Climate scientist Carindustry Edom agrees.

"It's true that climate has changed, but it doesn't mean that the climate change is reality. Climate change is more like an impending abstraction, that might happen in future or not. But one shouldn't consider it as an excisting fact" Edom reminds.

UN report on nature desctruction

Finnish YLE: UN report: Destruction of nature accelerating

Man caused descruction of nature has never been as fierce as now and it's just getting worse, says Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report made by UN.

The last 50 years have changed the world's ecosystems more than any period in man's history. Big part of the changes made cannot be annuled. The worst threat is the warming of climate caused by fossil fuel. In near future there will more dramatic and fast changes in local environments, such as forest fires, death of sea beds and disease epidemics.

Scientists give advice what to do in future to change the way of destructive progress. People should consume differently, use natural resources should be limited, new nature friendly technology should be taken into use and there should be education how to do all this.


(Reuters, STT)

Forest aerosols to slow down climate warming

Finnish news about forests

The aerosols produced by forests might slow down the climate warming. Also the forests work as carbon eaters that will tie up carbon dioxide from air. Aerosols reflect sun light back to space by forming clouds and thus making climate cooler.
Warmer climate in Finland might lead to increase of growing forests, which would also mean more aerosols.

(STT)

Artic ice melting faster

Finnish broadcasting company is pretty much the best news agency for climate change news, I've noticed. Almost everyday there's an interesting article of environment, but as everything is in Finnish, I'm going to do little summaries here for people interested in climate change. Here's link to the news.

Arctic ice melting faster and faster
Artic ice has melted to its smallest size since hundred years. The melting of ice is nowadays faster and starts earlier than before, which was witnessed already in 2002 in Siberia and Alaska. Now the same is happening also at arctic seas. The ice cover is five times as lighter than it usually has been during last 30 years.

Arctic area specialists say the phenomenon is partly cased by climate change. Also the greenhouse effect will get worse because snow and ice reflect sunshine back to space better than water does.

Prediciton for temperature rise at artic areas is thought to be from 4 to 7 Celsius degrees before 2100. Siberia's permafrost has started melting, and iceage old frozen swamps are now lakes and mud. In hundred years the metan coming from swamps would make climate change effect 10 to 25 procent faster. In Alaska there's huge insect groups, the forest fires have increased and even some buildings have started sinking into the melting ground.

There's no way to stop the melting anymore and northern areas will get warmer faster than other parts on earth in average. Scientists say that Siberia has gotten 3 degrees warmer in 40 years. In 2001 IPCC specialists predicted that earth will warm up 6 degrees, but now they have to recalculate with the news from Siberia in mind.

So far the climate has gotten 0,7 degrees warmer since 1750. 2 degrees rise would mean dangerous changes to the climate, meaning more floods, storms and droughts. When polar ice starts melting summer time it will mean death to artic species, such as polar bears and some seal species. It would also change the lifestyle of inuits and sami people. The forests would start growing further north and tundra ecosystem would need to move from its way. Also the life of birds that nest in artic areas would be different, which would affect on the whole biodiversity of the planet.

(
YLE24, AP, AFP, BBC)

Famines will get worse

More news from Finnish site.

Climate change will make famines worse

UN's new report tells that the amount of people in hunger will grow by the climate change. The worst off will be the Africa in south of Sahara.

Climate change will weaken the harves in 40 third world country, with population in total of 2 billion. Of those 450 million people are already suffering of malnutrition. Situation will just go worse as the growing season will get shorter in Africa as well as in India, but for exampe in China the climate change will increase the crops by 15 procent. Climate change will also bring plant and animal diseases and pests.

(YLE)

Population growth accelerating climate change

From Finnish broadcasting company again

Population growth increasing greenhouse pollution.

As the population grows, the poor countries get richer and wealthy countries don't cut down their pollutions the increasing of greenhouse effect will continue says scientist Tim Dyson. He also believes that increase of carbon dioxide and other pollution gas will also make the climate get warmer faster.

Dyson mentions that even if the pollution per person stayed at the levels of year 2000 the pollution still would increase by 27% as the population grows by year 2050. By then the world's population will be 9 billion. Also, even if the average pollution per person decreased by 40 % in industrial countries, the effects would be nullified by the population growth in other countries. If pollution in third world countries doubled and stayed the same in industrial countries, the pollution would still be 90% more in year 2050 than in 2000.

The pollution gas amount per person are the worst in USA and Canada, being 20 times as much as in the south of Sahara in Africa. USA is responsible for 25% of the world's pollution gases, and has refused to take much action on it because economics. In third world countries the economical growth will make pollution emissions even worse.

Climate change has been predicted to increase the extreme weather like floods, droughts and storms. At the same time the population growth leads to situation where more and more people live on low, tightly populated coast areas that are the most sensitive to the extreme conditions.

(AFP)

Global warming strenghtens storms

From Finnish broadcasting company

The climate change might increase the power of storms

Warming of the climate can add to the power of tropical storms. The warmer the sea, the stronger the storm.

When water temperature rises over 27,2 celsius degrees the lightning storms can progress into tropical storms. But the most important thing that will affect the power of the strom is the difference between the temperatures of water surface and air. Even a small difference can have big impact. Researches Kerry Emanuel shows in his work that the power of destruction of North Atlantic storms has doubled when then sea surface temperatures has increased half of Celsius degree.

The temperature rise of sea water also adds to the moistness of air, which makes storm clouds bigger.

(AFP, STT)

Lake Malawi

Finnish news tell:

The global conservation organisation WWF worried about lake Malawi

WWF is worried about the drillings at the lake Malawi in order to see if the lake contains any oil or other minerals.

WWF says oil drilling would endanger one of the world's most unique lake ecosystems. In Malawi lives about thousand fish species, which is more than in any other lake.

The research of the lake floor started in March 2005 and they are paid by American US Scientific Foundation. Officially they aren't looking for oil or gas, but WWF is afraid that this is the real reason. If there's oil, it will be most likely that Malawi will want to drill.

Diseases

Here's one about diseases.

Climate change can increase the spread of cholera, as drought and floods can increase the spread of the virus Vibrio cholerae. Floods can infect drinking water and droughts give the virus a nice environment to live in.