Post n. 36 (English)
THE AGE
Cenozoic era
Quaternary period
Holocene era
The Holocene includes the last 11,700 years, with a pleasantly mild climate encompasses all of human history.
THE ANTHROPOCENE
According to Paul Crutzen, Holocene would end at the end of the eighteenth century with the beginning of the use of fossil fuels and the consequent colossal environmental changes, and the Anthropocene era would begin.
THE GREAT ACCELERATION
As Mcneill and Engelke point out, the Anthropocene has undergone a strong acceleration since 1945
ENERGY FOR MAN BEFORE 1800
Farm animals
Windmills
Watermills
Wood
Virtually zero impact on the environment
FROM 1800 TO TODAY
Fossil fuels
Hydroelectric energy
Atomic energy
FOSSIL FUELS:
Solar energy frozen over the past 500 million years. Until 1965 it is considered that the amount of energy consumed was still quite limited and of little impact on the environment. In 1965, the annual energy consumption was 3813 million tons of oil equivalent; in 2013, it went to 12.730 million tons of oil equivalent.
FOSSIL FUELS AND THE ENVIRONMENT
THE COAL
Coalmines have made significant changes to the land, air and waters with irreparable damage.
THE SUBSIDENCE
SUBSIDENCE IN BUGGERRU, SARDINIA
IN CHINA ONLY (DATA 2005), WITH ABOUT 100,000 SMALL MINES, THE SUBSIDENCE HAS CONCERNED A LARGE AREA HOW MUCH SWITZERLAND. (SHANXI CHINA)
Debris and sterile materials discharged in the neighbouring areas release into the environment Sulfuric acid and heavy metals, which destroyed the aquatic life of several courses of water. In China alone, sterile minerals covered an area as large as Israel. In general, the consequences were: destruction of the landscape, of the forests, of the Wildlife habitats, soil erosion and vast farmland reduction areas of the planet.
POLAND
Methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, comes out of the coalmines. Inside the mines methane with oxygen gives rise to an explosive mixture that triggers "Coal fires", underground fires that can burn for centuries.
PENNSYLVANIA: MINE IN FLAME FROM HALF A CENTURY, BUT THERE ARE OVER 200 FIRE OF THIS KIND IN THE USA AND THOUSANDS IN THE WORLD
Fires saturate the atmosphere of fumes with very high concentrations of CO, CO2, CH4, SO2, NOX and other gases, and harmful ash that emerge from the openings of the ground.
JHARIA INDIA, THE MINE THAT HAS BURNED FOR 100 YEARS
Since 1945 coal has also been extracted from open pit mines resulting in it defacing the landscape. Sterile rock left in the valleys transported by rain has buried forests and streams.
RUSSIA
BARALABA AUSTRALIA
CHINA
MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL
It is a variant to the excavation of mines when the coal is found at the depth of a few hundred meters under a mountain. The most economical solution: raze the mountain.
APPALACHIA USA
APPALACHIA
APPALACHIA AERIAL VISION
For the population the consequences have been devastating and forced to abandon those areas where their ancestors had lived for millennia. In some cases they are strong opposition occurred, as in Appalachia but in the end the big industries mines got the better by waging a war between the poor: opponents against workers involved in extraction.
WHO BENEFITS FROM THE EXTRACTION OF THE COAL?
MINERAL COMPANIES, RICH COUNTRIES AND POOR COUNTRIES BECAUSE IT IS ENERGY GOOD MARKET. TO PAY THE CONSEQUENCES, THE ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL POPULATIONS.
FOSSIL FUELS AND THE ENVIRONMENT
OIL
DRILLS ON THE LAND AND AT SEA
DISASTERS ON THE EARTH:
SAHARA
TEXAS
DELTA OF NIGER
PERU
DISASTERS AT SEA, HAVEN: ARENZANO
SINKING OF THE EXXON VALDEZ
2010 DEEPWATER HORIZON FIRE
2010 UNDERWATER DISASTER, BREAKAGE OF THE CONDUCT: DEEPWATER HORIZON
IMPACT
Destruction of mangrove swamps resulting in an end to aquatic life. Acid rain and pollution have destroyed crops, an undefined number of people forced to abandon their places of origin.
WHO HAS BENEFITED?
THE PETROLEUM COMPANIES, MAINLY THE RICH COUNTRIES IN THE FORM OF CHEAP OIL, THE COUNTRIES OF EXTRACTION, IN THE FORM OF CHEAP OIL AND OF ROYALTIES. TO PAY THE CONSEQUENCES, THE ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL POPULATIONS.
ITALY: RAVENNA
ADRIATIC MAP
CROATIAN SITES: BLOCKED FOR THE MOMENT
SICILY CHANNEL
CLOSE: WHAT TO DO?
GLOBAL POLLUTION
An oil power plant releases an average of:
Millions of tons of CO2
Thousands of tons of SO2 (acid rain)
Tens of kilograms of mercury and arsenic lead.
CONSEQUENCES
London 1952 in total 12,000 deaths
Mexico City today is estimated to be between 6000 and 12000 deaths a year.
Worldwide in 2002, deaths were calculated at 800,000 each year.
Furthermore, CO2 and acid rain, as you can imagine, are upsetting ecosystems and beyond. Acid rains in Poland were comparable to vinegar and began to attack train rails.
FIGHT TO POLLUTION
With alternating phases and delays between the various locations of the world today it can be said that, through public policies, acid rain and heavy metals have been reduced in a healthy way in the rich world. Public policies regarding the unstoppable increase in CO2, the main greenhouse gas, have proven ineffective. It is possible that CO2 is not the only cause of global warming, something perhaps still eludes us. However, science has ascertained that CO2 makes a considerable contribution to climate change and not taking this into account is irresponsible, as is irresponsible that in about a century we are burning what the planet has accumulated over 500 million years.
Furthermore, the deadly fine dust and ozone (O3, from NOX and solar rays) produced by the use of fossil fuels are a serious health hazard not only in large cities but also in all areas with high intensity of traffic.
ATOMIC ENERGY
The story begins in 1956 with radiant and inexhaustible prospects. Between 1965 and 1980, the global electricity supplied by nuclear power plants passes from 1 to 10 percent, but the enthusiasm died out in 1986
CHERNOBYL
IMPACT
The radioactive cloud contaminated an area of over 200 thousand square kilometres (equal to about two thirds of Italy) inhabited by 5 million people. In the end including the "liquidators”, the death toll is calculated in thousands. 130,000 people have been moved elsewhere leaving an uninhabitable area for at least 2 centuries.
AND THEN FUKUSHIMA
FUKUSHIMA 5 YEARS LATER
Detailed data on the victims of the disaster are lacking. In Fukushima 350,000 inhabitants had to leave their homes. Unfortunately nuclear technology does not currently guarantee the standards of security needed and all industrialized countries have blocked the construction of new nuclear power plants and are preparing to shut down existing ones.
HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY
ADVANTAGES
It supplies energy at any time, supplies water for irrigation and fish farming, does not release greenhouse gases.
THE OPPOSITION OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS IS WEAK
DISADVANTAGES
Accidents cause real disasters, some examples:
Vajont: 2018 the inhabitants who died in the disaster and thousands of inhabitants displaced.
The collapse of the Henan dam in China caused 26,000 deaths due to the flood and another 145,000 deaths in the following days from epidemics and famine
VAJONT
AND MANY SUFFERINGS
The reservoirs require a lot of space, currently the covered area all over the world is equal to twice the surface of Italy. Worldwide, it is estimated that between 40 and 80 million people have had to abandon their places of origin usually in a forced way.
WHO HAS BENEFITED? THE HYDROELECTRIC COMPANIES AND ALL IN THE WORLD, RICH AND POOR. TO PAY THE CONSEQUENCES, THE ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL POPULATIONS
BUT WHY ALL THIS?
THE DEMOGRAPHIC BOMB
In 1800, the inhabitants of the earth were about 800,000
In 1930, there were already 2 billion inhabitants
In 1960 3 billion
In 2015 7 billion. At this rate in a century the earth would be covered by a giant ball of human flesh
POPULATION AND ENVIRONMENT
There is no denying: more people more human activity and human activity harms
the environment
1) More energy
2) More food and therefore felling of forests to be transformed into agricultural land
3) Surge in the use of fresh water also for megacities and irrigation
4) Intensive exploitation of the seas with advanced technological methods and bottom trawling.
5) Pollution of air and ambient water,
WEALTH AND POVERTY
BUT WE ALL LIVE THE SAME WAY
THE CITIES IN NUMBERS
In 2008, there were:
• 500 cities with over 1 million inhabitants
• 74 with at least 3 million inhabitants
• 12 with over 20 million
Cities produce a huge amount of municipal waste dumped in rivers or at sea or in huge landfills, even in rich countries. Landfills that pollute land, groundwater aquifers and plague the air. But while poor countries have no resources for solutions alternatives, in some rich countries the opposition to the is absolutely incomprehensible construction of waste-to-energy plants with zero impact on the environment, which produce energy and therefore allow you to save huge quantities of fossil fuels.
WASTE TO ENERGY IN NORWAY
AT THE HOUSE OF GRETA
IN SWITZERLAND
IN MANY PARTS IN ITALY
In developing countries, many inhabitants live in abusive and dilapidated camps.
Data 1990
9 million in Mexico City
3 million in San Paulo
Around 1 million slept on the street in Mumbai
AND WALLS TO KEEP THEM AWAY
IS IT FULL OF THE DEMOGRAPHIC BOMB?
• It has been calculated (at least as regards air pollution) that only 37% it would be caused by the need for food. Probably the same percentage applies to the others forms of pollution.
• And the remaining 63%?
• Consumerism of rich countries
•Tourism
• Wars
EVERYTHING HIS FAILURE OF FOOD NEED?
BUT DOES CIVIL NORWAY NEED FOOD?
WHALE MEAT DISH. NORWEGIAN SPECIALTY
CONSEQUENCES
Whaling conducted with fleets of giant ships with advanced technologies (sonar, gps, on-board computer) from: Norway, Iceland, Japan and Russia brought the blue whale, the humpback whale and the grey whale to the edge of extinction. And certainly not from hunger.
WHO HAS PROTESTED? GREENPEACE ONLY
POLLUTION OF LAKE KARACHAI, RUSSIA, WHY? COST REDUCTION, INCOMPETENCE AND NEGLIGENCE
MORE THAN FOOD, DEATH: AGENT ORANGE VIETNAM
STILL NEED FOOD? SHIP FOR MEGA-CRUISES
MASS TOURISM IN THAILAND
LIGURIA ITALY
IN THE ITALIAN ISLANDS
AND TOURISM IN BARRACCOPOLI
WE ARE ALL INVOLVED. ENVIRONMENT, WEALTH AND POVERTY ARE LINKED BY A SINGLE THREAD.
1.5 billion People have well-being.
5.5 billion People live in poverty or extreme poverty.
WHAT TO DO?
Helping the poor to progressively achieve the well-being of rich countries ...
the planet would not hold up.
Or to defend the environment and reduce poverty, are we willing to share our well-being with the rest of the world by halving or reducing our lifestyles and consumption patterns by one third?
AND THEN, WHAT ARE WE WILLING TO GIVE UP?
NORWEGIAN HOUSES
STOCKHOLM
AND IN ITALY AT THE SEA
AND LIVE LIKE ONCE UPON A TIME?
AT HOME?
AT THE SEA?
ON A VESPA?
WEDDING TRIP BY BIKE?
For all living organisms, the imperative is: to survive.
When a group, within a species, occupies a niche rich in food, it defends it with nails and teeth. For the human species, especially in rich countries, this niche contains not only food but also well-being.
For us, survival in the 21st century also means the well-being that we have achieved. It is from this fact that we must start. We have to be intellectually honest, there are not many people in rich countries who want to go back. Despite a greater environmental sensitivity, which is positive, we promise to decrease or be more careful in consumption, decrease waste and engage more in recycling. But all this is not enough and our survival is at risk.
AND THEN, HOW TO SAVE THE PLANET AND REDUCE POVERTY AT THE SAME TIME?
The sustainable development proposal reads: "a development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs"
But how can we translate it into practice?
First of all, the environmental movement cannot be monothematic, it cannot take care of your own garden. If in a locality there is a source of pollution and only people fight for that, outside that locality, they do not feel involved. On the other hand, if in a locality a landfill plagues the air and pollutes the aquifers, the people of that locality are of little interest if global warming will suffocate us in 10 or 20 years. They are already suffocating today.
The environmental movement must first of all concern all the problems of the environment, it must be universal.
Second, massive demonstrations around the world under generic slogans of the like "No to global warming" or "Let's save the planet" damage to the rulers of world an alibi, and so from world conferences all come out as victims, “We wanted but the others have not allowed us to. “We must nail the rulers of the world to their responsibilities. Finally, science must say what is most useful to the environment, otherwise we will fall into the same quarrel ... vaccines, not vaccines, no.
AND THEN
1) If it is true that a substantial part of environmental disasters is caused by wars in the world, the world environmental movement must vigorously protest all over the world against all wars, not for someone or against someone, but against everyone and put the rulers of face their responsibilities.
In addition to reviving the famous Challenge, Barletta promotes the Challenge of the 21st century among the greats of the earth who want to solve problems with weapons. Wars are an instrument of death, suffering and poverty and are the cause of environmental pollution.
ENOUGH WARS. WARS POLLUTE AND GENERATE POVERTY
2) We cannot ask developing countries or poor countries to reduce their consumption, they are already on the bone, and we cannot ask to use less polluting fossil fuels because they cannot buy them.
It is we, the rich countries that must eliminate highly polluting low-cost fuel. Reduce emissions by accelerating on energy saving and the use and research on alternative energy, solar, geothermal, wind etc. and provide this technology to poor countries, for free, yes for free.
Otherwise what does it mean to help them in their home.
But do we have to pay? Yes, we have to pay, but be assured that this will not reduce our well-being.
RICH COUNTRIES MUST ACCELERATE ON ENERGY SAVINGS AND USE AND RESEARCH ON ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES AND MUST PROVIDE IT TO POOR COUNTRIES.
3) Landfills are the poison of the earth. Pollution seas, rivers, lakes aquifers and in the end the waste, ironically, we find them in our tables. Separate waste and recycling are fine, but this does not eliminate landfills.
Landfills need to be eliminated by exploiting technology and providing it to poor countries. And the use of waste-to-energy plants is for the moment the best technology that certainly eliminates landfill disasters and provides us with energy.
ELIMINATE LANDFILLS THROUGH WASTE-TO-ENERGY PLANTS AND PROVIDE THIS TECHNOLOGY TO POOR COUNTRIES
4) Protest vigorously against the intensive exploitation of the seas. It is not acceptable that to have delicious dishes they lead to the extinction of the species.
And it is not acceptable that local populations are left alone when their forests are destroyed.
NO THE DESTRUCTION OF THE FORESTS AND THE IMPOVERISHMENT OF THE SEAS.
The latest estimates indicate the world's population at 7.8 billion and increase at the rate of 50 million. Science does not tell us if this rate of growth leads to frustrating efforts to limit global pollution. Science speak.
However, the pollution is reaching the point of no return. Our survival is at risk. We help the poor to their home or they will come to our home. Even the poor of the earth want to survive and do not want to stay in places of poverty by letting natural selection run its course.
The poor will set out on their way to rich countries and nobody will be able to stop their exodus: neither walls, nor naval blocks.
Giovanni Occhipinti
P.S. The data of this article were taken from essay John R. McNeil and Peter Engelke: "The great acceleration". The considerations belong to various commentators who have dealt with the problem. The images were taken, logically from the Internet. Since this Blog is not for profit, I hope that no one will ask me for copyright rights.
My job was to make a collage and take your insults for having resurrected removed truths.
