We
see a lot of content these days about what is variously called
“Global Warming,” or “Global Climate Change,” but only the
scientists seem to agree on what is really happening. The entire
earth is getting warmer in a manner and at a rate that are truly
terrifying to people with scientific training. There is so much
agit-prop opposing the theory that most average work-a-day American
voters think that the whole thing is either a Chinese hoax or a bunch
of bullshit. Moneyed interests form almost the entire opposition
faction, and that's always trouble. They can afford that really good
propaganda. They own the energy industry, plus numerous other
industries that would suffer financially to pay for a meaningful
response to our climate woes. Most of the media are on the opposition
team, just whoring it up for the advertising money, I guess. I happen
to think that our changing climate is a huge problem that is going to
have a meaningful negative impact on the lives of my granddaughters,
but who cares what I think? Almost no one is even listening to the
scientists, so what chance do I have?
A
lot of people, persuaded by the opposition's vast efforts at
misinformation, seem to believe that it's all almost funny. They
repeat the alternative facts, such as, “if temperatures go up by a
few degrees within 100 years, what's the big deal?” Or the ever
popular, “did you see that snow storm? It was freezing! So much for
Global Warming.” It's discouraging to see presidents and members of
congress among those mocking voices. Most of us know better than to
mock scientific realities that we don't understand.
The
Insect Apocalypse
There
is another catastrophe in progress, related in some ways but
completely separate in others. That would be the Sixth Great
Extinction, also known as The Holocene Extinction, or the
Anthropocene Extinction. There have been these great extinctions
throughout the history of life on earth. All of the previous ones
took place before humans became a factor in the ecology of the
planet. The Holocene Epoch of geological history began with the end
of the last ice age, which was about 10,000 BC. That, coincidentally,
marked the beginning of the rise of human society. We began the epoch
as a very small number of hunter-gatherers grouped in bands that were
too small even to call tribes, and we now stand on practically every
usable square foot of the planet as the dominant species.
We
were heavily involved with the Holocene Extinction from the start.
The first to go were the group called the megafauna, those
super-large mostly mammals that you recall from pictures in books.
Those mammoths, and giant ground sloths, things like that. We hunted
them to death and we squeezed out their predators too. The dire
wolves that you may remember from the tar-pits or museums that you
have visited, and the mighty saber-toothed tiger. Gone, gone, and
gone, and we've been at it ever since.
Our
involvement led to the alternate name, “The Anthropocene
Extinction,” which simply means the human driven extinction, the
world that is being shaped by humans.
It
is very interesting to me that we hear so little about the current
great extinction. Keeping it all out of the media cannot be easy, but
then again, people would much rather laugh at what Trump said
yesterday than hear more bad news from scientists, and a lot of
people are so consumed by the feud between those two female
celebrities that they have little time for anything else. For the
last ten or fifteen years, I recall reading very rarely about the
decline in amphibian populations, mostly frogs. It gets reduced to,
“some scientist somewhere says that the overall number of frogs is
going down.” And that's it. It's all coming into clearer focus now.
Entomologists
(the people who study insects) have suddenly begun to realize that
since 1970 or so the overall numbers of insects have declined
precipitously. Some species of insects are already gone, and others
are approaching extinction. It's like that scientific community had a
hunch, and then realized, wait! They really are mostly gone!
There
is some exciting vocabulary that becomes important here:
Numerical
extinction- true extinction; they're all gone; like the Dodo bird or
the passenger pigeon.
Functional
extinction- there are still some of a particular animal around, but
there are no longer enough of them to have any meaningful impact on
the local ecology. Seen any big American bison lately? They've been
reduced to a zoo population.
Extirpation-
localized extinctions.
Defaunation-
the loss of abundance in certain animal populations. This can be in
quantity, or size, or both. For example, murals in ancient Rome often
depict fishermen in the Mediterranean catching very large groupers.* That was a popular fish with the Romans, as it is today anywhere in
the world where they may be found. All of the groupers found anywhere
today are much smaller than those in the murals from 2,000 years ago.
This is also the experience of people who closely examine sport
fishing trophy photos from the Caribbean. Much smaller fish now.
Think of the experience of the poor cod, salmon, blue-fin tuna, and
the sperm whale, over the last two hundred years.
Biological
annihilation- the widespread loss of all animal life in a certain
area. Recall the oceanic dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico. Those
hypoxic (low or no oxygen in the water) areas were caused by
excessive agricultural fertilizer run-off from upstream in the
Mississippi River. Usually called, “nutrient pollution,” and the
very definition of a man-made ecological catastrophe.
Tap,
tap! Is this thing on? Does anyone care?
We
know that no one cares if the temperatures go up a few degrees. Why,
we'd hardly notice! Those scientists are just a bunch of Cassandras!
Chicken Littles, yelling about the sky is falling! I'm betting that
most people's first reaction to the loss of insect populations is
going to be something similar. “Fewer mosquitoes? Fewer flies? I'm
all for that!” If it were only so simple.
Where
are all of these bugs going, anyway? What's killing them? The answer
to that question begins with the obvious and ends with the ominous.
It starts out frightening and finishes up with a really terrifying
bang.
There
are, of course, the usual suspects: pesticides.
It
is unfortunately true that neurotoxins make wonderful anti-insect
pesticides. Their use has become ridiculously widespread. Almost all
agricultural communities use them; recreational and industrial areas
use them; areas of human habitation use them. That covers almost all
of the bases. Wind patterns and the physics of our atmosphere insure
that the pesticides will be widely distributed to areas that we have
designated wild or natural. They settle into the soil itself, and
remain there for longer than their boosters would like to admit. And
they kill a huge number of insects, some of which had been targeted
for death and others of which are mere collateral damage.
One
important class of neurotoxins was designed specifically to target
individual plants. The new class of pesticides were also “shown”
to be less toxic to birds and mammals than other types of pesticides.
As so often happens in corporate science, the effects have been much
more widespread and destructive than was originally advertised. These
were called neonicotinoids. Their use has been banned in the European
Union, but they are still going strong elsewhere.
These
neurotoxins are now “suspect number one” in the disappearance of
so many bee populations. Not the deaths of bees per se, but merely
their disappearance. Entomologists find the hives, and they look
fine, and there are a few bees in there, but the rest have simply
gone missing. Current thinking is that the neurotoxins interfere with
the bees ability to find their way home.
These
neurotoxin based pesticides are drifting in clouds far and wide, getting into the soil and settling on the trees, and they are
killing insects willy-nilly all over the place. As it turns out, one
of the very best ways to kill birds, amphibians, lizards, and small
mammals is to cause the deaths and disappearance of the insect
populations that had sustained them. And sure enough, the bird,
lizard, and amphibian populations of Europe and many other places
have been disappearing. Mysteriously! Although you'd have to be
pretty stupid, or gullible, or well paid by lobbyists to actually
believe that it was mysterious.
The
Worst Part
It
turns out that pesticides, neurotoxins, and neonicotinoids are only
the tip of the iceberg.
For
many millennia, our bug buddies have become accustomed to living on
the earth as they found it. They generated themselves, lived their
little bug lives, and died, according to the same rules for a rather
long time. Things are changing now, and they are not adjusting well.
One
enthusiastic scientist studied a particular area of rain forest in
Puerto Rico. He's been at it since 1970 or so. He counts the insects,
the lizards, and the birds, and he takes appropriate measurements. He
was down there recently and he found that a testing system identical
to the one that he had been using for decades now yielded a lot fewer
bugs. In the beginning he was getting almost five hundred milligrams
of bugs in his bottles and nets. Now he was down to eight milligrams
(8 mg.) using the same testing criteria. That's quite a shocking
diminution. By the way, there was a corresponding loss of lizards and
birds, creatures that eat bugs. (Frogs were not mentioned in the
article that I read. Perhaps they were all dead already.)
Over
this same period, temperatures in this rain forest have risen by
about two degrees. (F) Even scientists don't think that two degrees
should be the difference between life and death, so some studies were
instituted.
The
laboratory tests showed that even a moderate increase in temperature
for these admittedly tropical bugs led to a dramatic drop in
fertility.
It's
that old Global Climate Change again! Maybe it's not a Chinese hoax
after all. Maybe an increase of only a very few degrees makes a big
difference.
If
we don't trust our scientists to figure these things out for us, who
should we trust?
Our
politicians are all on the “I'll be dead and gone, so fuck it, I'm
taking the money” plan. We are allowing them to do it. But what
about my granddaughters? Perhaps you have grandchildren too. Do you
love them? If so, you'd better get on the right side of this issue
pretty damn quickly. We're running out of time.
*English is so strange. I was unsure of the plural for "grouper," so I looked it up. There was no guidance in my biggest dictionary, so I asked Professor Google. The plural is either "groupers," or "grouper." That was the source of my confusion. I've heard it both ways. English is unforgivably strange.
No comments:
Post a Comment