recent story on how the Canadian tundra was once a vast forest spurred me to discuss something that has been bothering me. Before I get to my point I just want to emphasize that the Canadian tundra was once a vast forest and it didn't change to a frozen landscape because of anything humans did.
The story that article reminded me about was how some scientists have estimated that we may only have between 60 to 100 harvests left due to soil depletion. Sure this theory may just be more environmental alarmism but it seems to be grounded in more solid scientific evidence than most climate change arguments.
But here's the thing - if the soil depletion theory is correct - shouldn't we welcome climate change on behalf of the survival of the species? If both climate change and soil depletion are correct then logic says as things get warmer places like the Canadian tundra and Siberia in Russia would then be available for farming and the raising of crops potentially saving mankind from vast famines.
Not arguing the validity of either climate change or soil depletion theories just saying there's potentially a silver lining. And thus no reason to worry. Besides if climate change is due to a change in the tilt of the Earth's axis, solar cycles, the magnetic poles switching or any other reason like that - there's not much we humans can do anyway (except maybe invest in buying cheap Canadian tundra land as a gift to our grandchildren or great-grandchildren).
It's just another global warming / organic farming ad.ReplyDelete
I haven't trusted Scientific American for a couple of decades.
"Oh noes, chemical farming is ruining the environment and we'll maybe stave in a century! The solution is to starve 90% of the population to death right now!"
Yeah, it's amazing how something humans have done for thousands of years in the same places is all of a sudden a crisis. Tobacco farming ruined the soil in the South, yet they seem to be able to grow crops there.ReplyDelete