Are you an Extinction Denier?

Maybe you are too young to remember the final summer with a normal level of insects, 1989. We worry about birds hitting windows. Was anyone ever concerned about all the bugs being killed by hitting cars? Was that a major factor in their demise, or was it the chemical sprays, including large areas of land sprayed with DDT which afterwards fell silent?

In an article from AFP, titled “Canada AI project hopes to help reverse mass insect extinction”, by Samira AIT KACI ALI GONZALEZ, a Canadian AI project titled “Antenna” says the insect extinction is being monitored by large data collections and hopefully will find methods to help reverse the trend. "Of all the mass extinctions we have experienced in the past, the one affecting insects is happening a thousand times faster," said Maxim Larrivee, director of the Montreal Insectarium. There are an estimated 10 million species of insects, representing half of the planet’s biodiversity. With half the biodiversity almost gone, why doesn’t that register as a concern, or at least an indicator of loss of life on this planet? Bugs don’t count? Try to find something to eat when they are gone.

Ants:

The first biogeographic map of ants reveals nine global realms. See the map with areas shown for each of the major groups of ants. In looking at data for distribution of other life forms that share common areas, the greatest correlation was between an ant population and certain plants. "It's not very surprising because we know that ants and plants have very close ecological and evolutionary relationships.” This is from The University of Hong Kong:

Runxi Wang et al., “Global biogeographic regions for ants have complex relationships with those for plants and tetrapods” Nature Communications (2024) https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-49918-2

Krill look like ocean insects but are actually crustaceans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_krill https://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/animals/krill/

Krill are the second step in the ocean food chain, eating phytoplankton and diatoms which are the energy input system, making nutrition out of sunlight. But we are damaging the oceans in every possible way, with pollution and acidity, which makes life more and more difficult for phytoplankton to live. Krill must eat a lot of plankton! Then, humans in their greed for profit (and stupidity) decide to suck up tons of krill in an industrial fishery. See the article in Nature titled “Whale recovery and the emerging human-wildlife conflict over Antarctic krill” The human krill fishery is retarding whale recovery. All these creatures are important for the functioning of the Southern Ocean, which drives most ocean currents.

Savoca, M.S., Kumar, M., Sylvester, Z. et al. “Whale recovery and the emerging human-wildlife conflict over Antarctic krill” Nat Commun 15, 7708 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-51954-x

Yet we have found yet another way to damage krill, with nanoplastics! An article in phys.org - “Plastic reduces krill's ability to move carbon into the deep ocean, marine ecologists find,” by British Antarctic Survey, says that krill equate to roughly the same biomass as all the humans on planet Earth. "But for the first time, we have evidence that plastic pollution could be reducing the ability of krill feces to transport and store carbon in the deep ocean by over a quarter—this is huge! Now we can see that plastic pollution is disrupting the natural role that the ocean, and climate heroes like krill, play in balancing the global carbon cycle." Deep ocean is also important for their reproduction; eggs are fertilized near the surface then sink to about 3000 meters where they hatch.

C. Manno et al “Plastics counteract the ability of Antarctic krill to promote the blue carbon pathway in the deep ocean” Marine Pollution Bulletin (2024) https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2024.117238

More on the plastics problem in an article on phys.org: “Plastics contribute to 'triple planetary crisis' impacts” by Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres. The triple crisis involves environmental pollution, climate change and biodiversity loss.

Christian Schmidt et al “A multidisciplinary perspective on the role of plastic pollution in the triple planetary crisis” Environment International (2024) https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.109059

“…we stress the imperative to avoid limiting the assessment of plastics and associated chemicals as an isolated threat, but rather consider MNPs (micro and nanoplastics) as closely interlinked with the triple planetary crisis and beyond, being one stressor amongst many in the multiple stressor context. We strongly advocate to consider the interaction of plastics and associated chemicals with other pollutants as well as mutual interactions and potential amplifications with the crises of climate change and biodiversity loss, to ensure implementation of adequate global measures to protect the Earth, its ecosystems and human health from the plastics crisis.”

But too often the “progress” advocates prioritize ameliorating climate stress with overly ambitious “energy transition” proposals by overriding biodiversity loss, ignoring the necessity of comprehensive actions. Thus the onslaught of mining projects even if that means tearing out the planet’s last intact forests, in order for humans to have a continuous supply of toys (cars, electronics, etc.), as described in this article in phys.org:

“Mining fuels global deforestation and CO₂ surge: Study warns of climate risks” by Avinash Kumar Ranjan and Amit Kumar Gorai.

“Forests are natural "climate shields" that absorb harmful CO₂, regulate weather and support countless species. The loss of forest cover not only affects local ecosystems but also reduces the Earth's natural capacity to sequester carbon, contributing to a rise in atmospheric CO₂ levels. The study highlights that mining-related deforestation is concentrated in some of the world's most vital ecosystems, including:

· Indonesia: Tops the list with more than 3,600 km² of forest loss—leading to carbon emissions of approximately 132 million tons.

· Brazil: The Amazon lost 1,600 km², releasing 53 million tons of CO₂ annually.

· Canada and the U.S.: Together accounted for nearly 3,000 km² of deforestation, emitting a combined 79 million tons of CO₂.

· Africa, South America and Australia also reported significant forest losses, harming ecosystems and communities that rely on forests for their livelihoods.”

Avinash Kumar Ranjan et al “Assessment of global carbon dynamics due to mining-induced forest cover loss during 2000–2019 using satellite datasets” Journal of Environmental Management (2024) https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123271

For more on ocean currents, an article in phys.org, “Greenland's meltwater will slow Atlantic circulation, climate model suggests” by Bob Yirka

Qiyun Ma et al, “Revisiting climate impacts of an AMOC slowdown: dependence on freshwater locations in the North Atlantic” Science Advances (2024) https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adr3243

The main freshwater inputs affecting the AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) flow off Greenland into the Irminger Sea Basin due to Greenland snowmelts. Because of that, cold freshwater pouring directly into the current remains near the surface, slowing the current.

- - -

And to wrap up the news today, a note on stupid humans attempting to throw big money at DAC (Direct Air Capture) of carbon dioxide, in an article at Phys.org: “A reality check on 'direct air capture': Many climate-stabilization plans may be based on questionable assumptions” by Nancy W. Stauffer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Their paper concludes with this warning: "Given the high stakes of climate change, it is foolhardy to rely on DAC to be the hero that comes to our rescue." In their paper, the researchers conclude that the likelihood of deploying DAC at the gigatonne scale is "highly uncertain."

Howard Herzog et al “Getting real about capturing carbon from the air” One Earth (2024) https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2024.08.011

Now here is the truly wicked part - this whole DAC thing is a multi-layer scam. Besides what they talk about in the above article, where it can cost up to (high-end) $5000 per tonne CO₂ captured, there is the whole financial side. First layer - governments subsidize these schemes with tax dollars. Not YOUR tax dollars- once they take it from you, it is their money, it drops into general revenue to blow on whatever comes to mind. And of course the operating costs would also be covered. These captures of CO₂ can be applied to that nation’s Paris Agreement commitments. This is all part of the path to the imaginary “Net Zero” a mirage that obscures the absolute necessity to get to ACTUAL zero emissions. Now imagine the audacity of these people turning around and out the back door, selling carbon credits as well! You go to all this work, setting up advanced equipment to capture carbon, then turn around and sell an offset, so someone else can have a get-out-of-jail-free card to emit MORE? What’s wrong with this picture? Yeah, it’s economic through-put, it creates jobs and adds to the GDP, but like all other carbon scams, dos nothing to reduce what’s in the atmosphere.