The demise of The Great Salt Lake...

brianlux

...and the environmental catastrophe it may lead to.

I won't quote the whole article here, but it is well worth reading. 
It will take a the strong will of the people of Utah and anyone else concerned to resolve this tremendous issue- if it is even possible to resolve it at this point.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/16/great-salt-lake-disappear-utah-poison-climate-crisis

Great Salt Lake’s retreat poses a major fear: poisonous dust clouds

The largest salt lake in the western hemisphere risks ‘one of the worst environmental disasters’ as it faces the prospect of disappearing in just five years

To walk on to the Great Salt Lake, the largest salt lake in the western hemisphere which faces the astounding prospect of disappearing just five years from now, is to trudge across expanses of sand and mud, streaked with ice and desiccated aquatic life, where just a short time ago you would be wading in waist-deep water.

But the mounting sense of local dread over the lake’s rapid retreat doesn’t just come from its throttled water supply and record low levels, as bad as this is. The terror comes from toxins laced in the vast exposed lake bed, such as arsenic, mercury and lead, being picked up by the wind to form poisonous clouds of dust that would swamp the lungs of people in nearby Salt Lake City, where air pollution is often already worse than that of Los Angeles, potentially provoking a myriad of respiratory and cancer-related problems.

This looming scenario, according to Ben Abbott, an ecologist at Brigham Young University, risks “one of the worst environmental disasters in modern US history”, surpassing the partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor in Pennsylvania in 1979 and acting like a sort of “perpetual Deepwater Horizon blowout”.

Salt Lakers are set to be assailed by a “thick fog of this stuff that’s blowing through, it would be gritty. It would dim the light, it would literally go from day to night and it could absolutely be regular all summer,” said Abbott, who headed a sobering recent study with several dozen other scientists on the “unprecedented danger” posed by lake’s disintegration.

“We could expect to see thousands of excess deaths annually from the increase in air pollution and the collapse of the largest wetland oasis in the intermountain west,” he added.

There is evidence that plumes of toxic dust are already stirring as the exposed salt crust on the lake, which has lost three-quarters of its water and has shriveled by nearly two-thirds in size since the Mormon wagon train first arrived here in the mid-19th century, breaks apart from erosion. Abbott now regularly fields fretful phone calls from people asking if Salt Lake City is safe to live in still, or if their offspring should steer clear of the University of Utah.

“People have seen and realized it’s not hypothetical and that there is a real threat to our entire way of life,” Abbott said. “We are seeing this freight train coming as the lake shrinks. We’re just seeing the front end of it now.” About 2.4 million people, or about 80% of Utah’s population, lives “within a stone’s throw of the lake”, Abbott said. “I mean, they are directly down wind from this. As some people have said, it’s an environmental nuclear bomb.”

More at link.

PJ_Soul

Sorry I can't be more positive but... it's too late IMO. The nightmare scenarios are going to play out.

Halifax2TheMax

brianlux said:

...and the environmental catastrophe it may lead to.

I won't quote the whole article here, but it is well worth reading. 
It will take a the strong will of the people of Utah and anyone else concerned to resolve this tremendous issue- if it is even possible to resolve it at this point.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/16/great-salt-lake-disappear-utah-poison-climate-crisis

Great Salt Lake’s retreat poses a major fear: poisonous dust clouds

The largest salt lake in the western hemisphere risks ‘one of the worst environmental disasters’ as it faces the prospect of disappearing in just five years

To walk on to the Great Salt Lake, the largest salt lake in the western hemisphere which faces the astounding prospect of disappearing just five years from now, is to trudge across expanses of sand and mud, streaked with ice and desiccated aquatic life, where just a short time ago you would be wading in waist-deep water.

But the mounting sense of local dread over the lake’s rapid retreat doesn’t just come from its throttled water supply and record low levels, as bad as this is. The terror comes from toxins laced in the vast exposed lake bed, such as arsenic, mercury and lead, being picked up by the wind to form poisonous clouds of dust that would swamp the lungs of people in nearby Salt Lake City, where air pollution is often already worse than that of Los Angeles, potentially provoking a myriad of respiratory and cancer-related problems.

This looming scenario, according to Ben Abbott, an ecologist at Brigham Young University, risks “one of the worst environmental disasters in modern US history”, surpassing the partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor in Pennsylvania in 1979 and acting like a sort of “perpetual Deepwater Horizon blowout”.

Salt Lakers are set to be assailed by a “thick fog of this stuff that’s blowing through, it would be gritty. It would dim the light, it would literally go from day to night and it could absolutely be regular all summer,” said Abbott, who headed a sobering recent study with several dozen other scientists on the “unprecedented danger” posed by lake’s disintegration.

“We could expect to see thousands of excess deaths annually from the increase in air pollution and the collapse of the largest wetland oasis in the intermountain west,” he added.

There is evidence that plumes of toxic dust are already stirring as the exposed salt crust on the lake, which has lost three-quarters of its water and has shriveled by nearly two-thirds in size since the Mormon wagon train first arrived here in the mid-19th century, breaks apart from erosion. Abbott now regularly fields fretful phone calls from people asking if Salt Lake City is safe to live in still, or if their offspring should steer clear of the University of Utah.

“People have seen and realized it’s not hypothetical and that there is a real threat to our entire way of life,” Abbott said. “We are seeing this freight train coming as the lake shrinks. We’re just seeing the front end of it now.” About 2.4 million people, or about 80% of Utah’s population, lives “within a stone’s throw of the lake”, Abbott said. “I mean, they are directly down wind from this. As some people have said, it’s an environmental nuclear bomb.”

More at link.

Not to be glib but I wonder if lone drivers of cars will wear masks? And its definitely a potential/likely major environmental disaster. Sad. I'll need to read up on the causes as I don't know the source of the water in the Great Salt Lake, snow melt/rain/run off? And I thought that I had time in my life to see Spiral Jetty. Sad.

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

Sorry I can't be more positive but... it's too late IMO.

It does not look good, that's for sure.  I do find some hope in the fact that researchers like Bonnie Baxter and Ben Abbott, brave and stalwart souls they be, are working hard to raise awareness and seek solution. 
Sadly, the conservative government of Utah seems unwilling to face realities, even at their own peril.  It is a peculiar characteristics of many people to stand by their entrenched beliefs rather than save their own behinds.

brianlux

Halifax2TheMax said:

brianlux said:

...and the environmental catastrophe it may lead to.

I won't quote the whole article here, but it is well worth reading. 
It will take a the strong will of the people of Utah and anyone else concerned to resolve this tremendous issue- if it is even possible to resolve it at this point.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/16/great-salt-lake-disappear-utah-poison-climate-crisis

Great Salt Lake’s retreat poses a major fear: poisonous dust clouds

The largest salt lake in the western hemisphere risks ‘one of the worst environmental disasters’ as it faces the prospect of disappearing in just five years

To walk on to the Great Salt Lake, the largest salt lake in the western hemisphere which faces the astounding prospect of disappearing just five years from now, is to trudge across expanses of sand and mud, streaked with ice and desiccated aquatic life, where just a short time ago you would be wading in waist-deep water.

But the mounting sense of local dread over the lake’s rapid retreat doesn’t just come from its throttled water supply and record low levels, as bad as this is. The terror comes from toxins laced in the vast exposed lake bed, such as arsenic, mercury and lead, being picked up by the wind to form poisonous clouds of dust that would swamp the lungs of people in nearby Salt Lake City, where air pollution is often already worse than that of Los Angeles, potentially provoking a myriad of respiratory and cancer-related problems.

This looming scenario, according to Ben Abbott, an ecologist at Brigham Young University, risks “one of the worst environmental disasters in modern US history”, surpassing the partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor in Pennsylvania in 1979 and acting like a sort of “perpetual Deepwater Horizon blowout”.

Salt Lakers are set to be assailed by a “thick fog of this stuff that’s blowing through, it would be gritty. It would dim the light, it would literally go from day to night and it could absolutely be regular all summer,” said Abbott, who headed a sobering recent study with several dozen other scientists on the “unprecedented danger” posed by lake’s disintegration.

“We could expect to see thousands of excess deaths annually from the increase in air pollution and the collapse of the largest wetland oasis in the intermountain west,” he added.

There is evidence that plumes of toxic dust are already stirring as the exposed salt crust on the lake, which has lost three-quarters of its water and has shriveled by nearly two-thirds in size since the Mormon wagon train first arrived here in the mid-19th century, breaks apart from erosion. Abbott now regularly fields fretful phone calls from people asking if Salt Lake City is safe to live in still, or if their offspring should steer clear of the University of Utah.

“People have seen and realized it’s not hypothetical and that there is a real threat to our entire way of life,” Abbott said. “We are seeing this freight train coming as the lake shrinks. We’re just seeing the front end of it now.” About 2.4 million people, or about 80% of Utah’s population, lives “within a stone’s throw of the lake”, Abbott said. “I mean, they are directly down wind from this. As some people have said, it’s an environmental nuclear bomb.”

More at link.

Not to be glib but I wonder if lone drivers of cars will wear masks? And its definitely a potential/likely major environmental disaster. Sad. I'll need to read up on the causes as I don't know the source of the water in the Great Salt Lake, snow melt/rain/run off? And I thought that I had time in my life to see Spiral Jetty. Sad.

Beside have a too-large population for the area to sustain (kind of like most of planet earth these days), a big factor is that much of the water that feeds The Great Salt Lake comes from the Bear, Jordan, and Weber rivers (fed by snow melt off and mountain watershed), and much of that water has been siphoned off to support an overly bloated human population and for growing alfalfa (which, of course, is another problem related to human's consumption of meat.)

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Sorry I can't be more positive but... it's too late IMO.

It does not look good, that's for sure.  I do find some hope in the fact that researchers like Bonnie Baxter and Ben Abbott, brave and stalwart souls they be, are working hard to raise awareness and seek solution. 
Sadly, the conservative government of Utah seems unwilling to face realities, even at their own peril.  It is a peculiar characteristics of many people to stand by their entrenched beliefs rather than save their own behinds.

Yes, and ultimately it's just people. The regular masses who just can't imagine terrible things happening to them. If the masses cared, then the government would act, or lose power. And I don't think Democrats are doing all that much better in this regard TBH. They talk some talk, but still don't do nearly enough, and Dem voters like convenience just as much as any GOPer out there.

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Sorry I can't be more positive but... it's too late IMO.

It does not look good, that's for sure.  I do find some hope in the fact that researchers like Bonnie Baxter and Ben Abbott, brave and stalwart souls they be, are working hard to raise awareness and seek solution. 
Sadly, the conservative government of Utah seems unwilling to face realities, even at their own peril.  It is a peculiar characteristics of many people to stand by their entrenched beliefs rather than save their own behinds.

Yes, and ultimately it's just people. The regular masses who just can't imagine terrible things happening to them. If the masses cared, then the government would act, or lose power. And I don't think Democrats are doing all that much better in this regard TBH. They talk some talk, but still don't do nearly enough, and Dem voters like convenience just as much as any GOPer out there.

Yeah, I totally agree on all counts.  Democrats in general are more supportive of environmental protection but as you say, a lot of talk, not nearly enough action far too many compromises. Politicians in general are doing doing enough.

We can do more as well.  Everybody needs to step up and make some adjustments to how we live.  More sweaters, less energy for heating.  Reuse and recycle and buy durable instead of disposable. Maintain things so they last longer. Drive less (much less!).  We can all make a difference and still be relatively comfortable and happy. 

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Sorry I can't be more positive but... it's too late IMO.

It does not look good, that's for sure.  I do find some hope in the fact that researchers like Bonnie Baxter and Ben Abbott, brave and stalwart souls they be, are working hard to raise awareness and seek solution. 
Sadly, the conservative government of Utah seems unwilling to face realities, even at their own peril.  It is a peculiar characteristics of many people to stand by their entrenched beliefs rather than save their own behinds.

Yes, and ultimately it's just people. The regular masses who just can't imagine terrible things happening to them. If the masses cared, then the government would act, or lose power. And I don't think Democrats are doing all that much better in this regard TBH. They talk some talk, but still don't do nearly enough, and Dem voters like convenience just as much as any GOPer out there.

Yeah, I totally agree on all counts.  Democrats in general are more supportive of environmental protection but as you say, a lot of talk, not nearly enough action far too many compromises. Politicians in general are doing doing enough.

We can do more as well.  Everybody needs to step up and make some adjustments to how we live.  More sweaters, less energy for heating.  Reuse and recycle and buy durable instead of disposable. Maintain things so they last longer. Drive less (much less!).  We can all make a difference and still be relatively comfortable and happy. 

For sure! I'm going to just toot my own horn and say I do a lot, as I have had no children (which is in fact the #1 most damaging thing a person can do to the environment), and I have lived my entire life car-free. I also fortunately love being cold, and have my heat turned completely off about 345 days a year, and on for only a few hours for the other 20. So I have no personal guilt, aside from being a parasite as a human being, lol. I can't help that.... Actually, correction. I do totally suck in one big way. I'm a total meat eater and I have no plans to stop. So that's my big hypocritical thing.

I do strongly believe that people have to stop having children. I know how controversial that is, and that most parents will just call me ridiculous for saying, but I also know that that would solve a whole lot of problems.

Lerxst1992

Every November,  why can't the democrats flood the media with ads about the toxic Salt Lake, or incidents like the train wreck in OH? Control the narrative.  Big industry is destroying the planet, and voting gop may get you 100mph trains filled with vinyl chloride in 150 cars steaming your town, your air and your water 

Because yknow, not enough profit in a 140 car train 

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Sorry I can't be more positive but... it's too late IMO.

It does not look good, that's for sure.  I do find some hope in the fact that researchers like Bonnie Baxter and Ben Abbott, brave and stalwart souls they be, are working hard to raise awareness and seek solution. 
Sadly, the conservative government of Utah seems unwilling to face realities, even at their own peril.  It is a peculiar characteristics of many people to stand by their entrenched beliefs rather than save their own behinds.

Yes, and ultimately it's just people. The regular masses who just can't imagine terrible things happening to them. If the masses cared, then the government would act, or lose power. And I don't think Democrats are doing all that much better in this regard TBH. They talk some talk, but still don't do nearly enough, and Dem voters like convenience just as much as any GOPer out there.

Yeah, I totally agree on all counts.  Democrats in general are more supportive of environmental protection but as you say, a lot of talk, not nearly enough action far too many compromises. Politicians in general are doing doing enough.

We can do more as well.  Everybody needs to step up and make some adjustments to how we live.  More sweaters, less energy for heating.  Reuse and recycle and buy durable instead of disposable. Maintain things so they last longer. Drive less (much less!).  We can all make a difference and still be relatively comfortable and happy. 

For sure! I'm going to just toot my own horn and say I do a lot, as I have had no children (which is in fact the #1 most damaging thing a person can do to the environment), and I have lived my entire life car-free. I also fortunately love being cold, and have my heat turned completely off about 345 days a year, and on for only a few hours for the other 20. So I have no personal guilt, aside from being a parasite as a human being, lol. I can't help that.... Actually, correction. I do totally suck in one big way. I'm a total meat eater and I have no plans to stop. So that's my big hypocritical thing.

I do strongly believe that people have to stop having children. I know how controversial that is, and that most parents will just call me ridiculous for saying, but I also know that that would solve a whole lot of problems.

And well you should because I know you are a star that way. 

Yeah, I have long put over-population at the very top of the list of things that are harmful to the planet.  I don't know of any logical argument against that statement.

I also have never had kids of my own (I did help raise two of my nephews for a while), but I never really thought about that in the way you put it until a number of years ago a friend of mine said, "A lot of my friends talk about how 'green' they are but they all have kids.  I've never had kids.  I'm more 'green' than they will ever be."  So obvious, yet that really struck me.  My reason for not having kids was more due to for years having watched the havoc wrecked on our planet by humans and all the other turmoil we create and not want to subject another young life to all that.

As for being hypocritical,  I think we all have fall a bit short in some way.  I have a car.  Ouch!  Dinged there!  I can at least say I maintain it well and it will last far longer than the average car and I keep my driving to a minimum.  Ah well, none of us is perfect.  But the average person obviously does much more damage than those who are aware of the situation and make an effort to lessen one's impact.  And I personally know some very well off self-avowed liberals who talk about being environmentalists yet who have enormous ecological footprints.

Lerxst1992 said:

Every November,  why can't the democrats flood the media with ads about the toxic Salt Lake, or incidents like the train wreck in OH? Control the narrative.  Big industry is destroying the planet, and voting gop may get you 100mph trains filled with vinyl chloride in 150 cars steaming your town, your air and your water 

Because yknow, not enough profit in a 140 car train 

I am hugely saddened whenever there is a major train incident like this or others like the one in Dunsmuir California in 1991 that dumped all kind of toxic waste into the Sacramento river.  These incidents can be avoided and should be because well maintained rail systems are the best way to transport people and goods.   Trains are able to move the most weight for the least amount of fuel than any other mode of transportation- far more efficient than planes, ships, or trucks. If we had any sense at all, refurbishing our railroad systems would be a major priority.  It vexes me to no end that it is not.

mace1229

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Sorry I can't be more positive but... it's too late IMO.

It does not look good, that's for sure.  I do find some hope in the fact that researchers like Bonnie Baxter and Ben Abbott, brave and stalwart souls they be, are working hard to raise awareness and seek solution. 
Sadly, the conservative government of Utah seems unwilling to face realities, even at their own peril.  It is a peculiar characteristics of many people to stand by their entrenched beliefs rather than save their own behinds.

Yes, and ultimately it's just people. The regular masses who just can't imagine terrible things happening to them. If the masses cared, then the government would act, or lose power. And I don't think Democrats are doing all that much better in this regard TBH. They talk some talk, but still don't do nearly enough, and Dem voters like convenience just as much as any GOPer out there.

Yeah, I totally agree on all counts.  Democrats in general are more supportive of environmental protection but as you say, a lot of talk, not nearly enough action far too many compromises. Politicians in general are doing doing enough.

We can do more as well.  Everybody needs to step up and make some adjustments to how we live.  More sweaters, less energy for heating.  Reuse and recycle and buy durable instead of disposable. Maintain things so they last longer. Drive less (much less!).  We can all make a difference and still be relatively comfortable and happy. 

For sure! I'm going to just toot my own horn and say I do a lot, as I have had no children (which is in fact the #1 most damaging thing a person can do to the environment), and I have lived my entire life car-free. I also fortunately love being cold, and have my heat turned completely off about 345 days a year, and on for only a few hours for the other 20. So I have no personal guilt, aside from being a parasite as a human being, lol. I can't help that.... Actually, correction. I do totally suck in one big way. I'm a total meat eater and I have no plans to stop. So that's my big hypocritical thing.

I do strongly believe that people have to stop having children. I know how controversial that is, and that most parents will just call me ridiculous for saying, but I also know that that would solve a whole lot of problems.

Stop having kids completely? Or just stop having large families?

Halifax2TheMax

If Lake Powell drops as much more as it’s likely, phoenix and Vegas are screwed. I wonder what those folks are going to do?

Water levels in the nation’s second-largest reservoir dropped to a record low last week, raising the alarm that major changes are on the way for the seven states — and millions of Americans — relying on that system, experts say.

Lake Powell, a man-made reservoir that sits along the Colorado River on the Arizona-Utah border, generates electricity for about 4.5 million people. It is also a key part of the Colorado River Basin system, which supplies water to more than 40 million people. As of last week, its water levels fell to 3,522 feet above sea level, which is the lowest seen since the structure was filled in the 1960s. It’s now just 22 percent full, and unprecedented cuts in states’ water usage are necessary to avoid dire consequences.

“There’s too little supply and too much demand,” said Brad Udall, a water and climate scientist at Colorado State University. “Ultimately, I think what we’re going to see here is some major rewriting of Western water law.”

“We’re seeing a collision right now between 19th century water law, 20th century infrastructure and 21st century population and climate change,” Udall added. “And how this works out is anybody’s guess.”

A historic megadrought, the chronic overuse of water resources and the worsening climate crisis have sapped the Colorado River and endangered the Lake Powell reservoir and its Glen Canyon dam. If the reservoir drops to 3,490 feet, the dam may be unable to generate hydropower.

“We're 32 feet above where problems occur. And we've had years, recently, where we've lost 50 feet or more of reservoir volume,” Udall said. “We're one bad year away from reaching the point where we can't generate hydropower. That's the first worry here.”

At 3,370 feet, the reservoir becomes a “dead pool,” meaning water may be unable to flow downstream at all, cutting states off. “Lake Powell water is about a quarter of the water in the Los Angeles Basin. It supplies water to 90 percent of people in Las Vegas. It supplies water to about half of Phoenix. It supplies water that produces most of your winter vegetables,” Udall said.

The Bureau of Reclamation, which is in charge of the nation’s dams, recently propped up Lake Powell by flowing more water into the lake from upstream reservoirs, and reducing how much it releases downstream. However, those weren’t permanent fixes.

The Interior Department last year said that the seven states relying on the Colorado River — California, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming — need to reduce water usage by 2 to 4 million acre-feet. Six of the states reached an agreement on how to move forward. California, the biggest water user, was the lone holdout, and instead proposed a separate plan. Neither plan is enough.

Continues 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/02/18/changes-needed-save-second-largest-us-reservoir-experts-say/

static111

Halifax2TheMax said:

If Lake Powell drops as much more as it’s likely, phoenix and Vegas are screwed. I wonder what those folks are going to do?

Water levels in the nation’s second-largest reservoir dropped to a record low last week, raising the alarm that major changes are on the way for the seven states — and millions of Americans — relying on that system, experts say.

Lake Powell, a man-made reservoir that sits along the Colorado River on the Arizona-Utah border, generates electricity for about 4.5 million people. It is also a key part of the Colorado River Basin system, which supplies water to more than 40 million people. As of last week, its water levels fell to 3,522 feet above sea level, which is the lowest seen since the structure was filled in the 1960s. It’s now just 22 percent full, and unprecedented cuts in states’ water usage are necessary to avoid dire consequences.

“There’s too little supply and too much demand,” said Brad Udall, a water and climate scientist at Colorado State University. “Ultimately, I think what we’re going to see here is some major rewriting of Western water law.”

“We’re seeing a collision right now between 19th century water law, 20th century infrastructure and 21st century population and climate change,” Udall added. “And how this works out is anybody’s guess.”

A historic megadrought, the chronic overuse of water resources and the worsening climate crisis have sapped the Colorado River and endangered the Lake Powell reservoir and its Glen Canyon dam. If the reservoir drops to 3,490 feet, the dam may be unable to generate hydropower.

“We're 32 feet above where problems occur. And we've had years, recently, where we've lost 50 feet or more of reservoir volume,” Udall said. “We're one bad year away from reaching the point where we can't generate hydropower. That's the first worry here.”

At 3,370 feet, the reservoir becomes a “dead pool,” meaning water may be unable to flow downstream at all, cutting states off. “Lake Powell water is about a quarter of the water in the Los Angeles Basin. It supplies water to 90 percent of people in Las Vegas. It supplies water to about half of Phoenix. It supplies water that produces most of your winter vegetables,” Udall said.

The Bureau of Reclamation, which is in charge of the nation’s dams, recently propped up Lake Powell by flowing more water into the lake from upstream reservoirs, and reducing how much it releases downstream. However, those weren’t permanent fixes.

The Interior Department last year said that the seven states relying on the Colorado River — California, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming — need to reduce water usage by 2 to 4 million acre-feet. Six of the states reached an agreement on how to move forward. California, the biggest water user, was the lone holdout, and instead proposed a separate plan. Neither plan is enough.

Continues 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/02/18/changes-needed-save-second-largest-us-reservoir-experts-say/

A couple of those states have microchip plants that are major water guzzlers and wasters.

Halifax2TheMax

static111 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

If Lake Powell drops as much more as it’s likely, phoenix and Vegas are screwed. I wonder what those folks are going to do?

Water levels in the nation’s second-largest reservoir dropped to a record low last week, raising the alarm that major changes are on the way for the seven states — and millions of Americans — relying on that system, experts say.

Lake Powell, a man-made reservoir that sits along the Colorado River on the Arizona-Utah border, generates electricity for about 4.5 million people. It is also a key part of the Colorado River Basin system, which supplies water to more than 40 million people. As of last week, its water levels fell to 3,522 feet above sea level, which is the lowest seen since the structure was filled in the 1960s. It’s now just 22 percent full, and unprecedented cuts in states’ water usage are necessary to avoid dire consequences.

“There’s too little supply and too much demand,” said Brad Udall, a water and climate scientist at Colorado State University. “Ultimately, I think what we’re going to see here is some major rewriting of Western water law.”

“We’re seeing a collision right now between 19th century water law, 20th century infrastructure and 21st century population and climate change,” Udall added. “And how this works out is anybody’s guess.”

A historic megadrought, the chronic overuse of water resources and the worsening climate crisis have sapped the Colorado River and endangered the Lake Powell reservoir and its Glen Canyon dam. If the reservoir drops to 3,490 feet, the dam may be unable to generate hydropower.

“We're 32 feet above where problems occur. And we've had years, recently, where we've lost 50 feet or more of reservoir volume,” Udall said. “We're one bad year away from reaching the point where we can't generate hydropower. That's the first worry here.”

At 3,370 feet, the reservoir becomes a “dead pool,” meaning water may be unable to flow downstream at all, cutting states off. “Lake Powell water is about a quarter of the water in the Los Angeles Basin. It supplies water to 90 percent of people in Las Vegas. It supplies water to about half of Phoenix. It supplies water that produces most of your winter vegetables,” Udall said.

The Bureau of Reclamation, which is in charge of the nation’s dams, recently propped up Lake Powell by flowing more water into the lake from upstream reservoirs, and reducing how much it releases downstream. However, those weren’t permanent fixes.

The Interior Department last year said that the seven states relying on the Colorado River — California, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming — need to reduce water usage by 2 to 4 million acre-feet. Six of the states reached an agreement on how to move forward. California, the biggest water user, was the lone holdout, and instead proposed a separate plan. Neither plan is enough.

Continues 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/02/18/changes-needed-save-second-largest-us-reservoir-experts-say/

A couple of those states have microchip plants that are major water guzzlers and wasters.

For the vaccine?

static111

Halifax2TheMax said:

static111 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

If Lake Powell drops as much more as it’s likely, phoenix and Vegas are screwed. I wonder what those folks are going to do?

Water levels in the nation’s second-largest reservoir dropped to a record low last week, raising the alarm that major changes are on the way for the seven states — and millions of Americans — relying on that system, experts say.

Lake Powell, a man-made reservoir that sits along the Colorado River on the Arizona-Utah border, generates electricity for about 4.5 million people. It is also a key part of the Colorado River Basin system, which supplies water to more than 40 million people. As of last week, its water levels fell to 3,522 feet above sea level, which is the lowest seen since the structure was filled in the 1960s. It’s now just 22 percent full, and unprecedented cuts in states’ water usage are necessary to avoid dire consequences.

“There’s too little supply and too much demand,” said Brad Udall, a water and climate scientist at Colorado State University. “Ultimately, I think what we’re going to see here is some major rewriting of Western water law.”

“We’re seeing a collision right now between 19th century water law, 20th century infrastructure and 21st century population and climate change,” Udall added. “And how this works out is anybody’s guess.”

A historic megadrought, the chronic overuse of water resources and the worsening climate crisis have sapped the Colorado River and endangered the Lake Powell reservoir and its Glen Canyon dam. If the reservoir drops to 3,490 feet, the dam may be unable to generate hydropower.

“We're 32 feet above where problems occur. And we've had years, recently, where we've lost 50 feet or more of reservoir volume,” Udall said. “We're one bad year away from reaching the point where we can't generate hydropower. That's the first worry here.”

At 3,370 feet, the reservoir becomes a “dead pool,” meaning water may be unable to flow downstream at all, cutting states off. “Lake Powell water is about a quarter of the water in the Los Angeles Basin. It supplies water to 90 percent of people in Las Vegas. It supplies water to about half of Phoenix. It supplies water that produces most of your winter vegetables,” Udall said.

The Bureau of Reclamation, which is in charge of the nation’s dams, recently propped up Lake Powell by flowing more water into the lake from upstream reservoirs, and reducing how much it releases downstream. However, those weren’t permanent fixes.

The Interior Department last year said that the seven states relying on the Colorado River — California, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming — need to reduce water usage by 2 to 4 million acre-feet. Six of the states reached an agreement on how to move forward. California, the biggest water user, was the lone holdout, and instead proposed a separate plan. Neither plan is enough.

Continues 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/02/18/changes-needed-save-second-largest-us-reservoir-experts-say/

A couple of those states have microchip plants that are major water guzzlers and wasters.

For the vaccine?

Why else would there be a global demand for more chips?

Wobbie

we have REALLY bad politicians in Utah. they pay lip service to air quality, the great salt lake and affordable housing.

then they vote to give their mormon constituents $8000 per kid for private (teach what you want) schools.

that said, there’s no saving the GSL. either nature saves it or it dries up.

PJ_Soul

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Sorry I can't be more positive but... it's too late IMO.

It does not look good, that's for sure.  I do find some hope in the fact that researchers like Bonnie Baxter and Ben Abbott, brave and stalwart souls they be, are working hard to raise awareness and seek solution. 
Sadly, the conservative government of Utah seems unwilling to face realities, even at their own peril.  It is a peculiar characteristics of many people to stand by their entrenched beliefs rather than save their own behinds.

Yes, and ultimately it's just people. The regular masses who just can't imagine terrible things happening to them. If the masses cared, then the government would act, or lose power. And I don't think Democrats are doing all that much better in this regard TBH. They talk some talk, but still don't do nearly enough, and Dem voters like convenience just as much as any GOPer out there.

Yeah, I totally agree on all counts.  Democrats in general are more supportive of environmental protection but as you say, a lot of talk, not nearly enough action far too many compromises. Politicians in general are doing doing enough.

We can do more as well.  Everybody needs to step up and make some adjustments to how we live.  More sweaters, less energy for heating.  Reuse and recycle and buy durable instead of disposable. Maintain things so they last longer. Drive less (much less!).  We can all make a difference and still be relatively comfortable and happy. 

For sure! I'm going to just toot my own horn and say I do a lot, as I have had no children (which is in fact the #1 most damaging thing a person can do to the environment), and I have lived my entire life car-free. I also fortunately love being cold, and have my heat turned completely off about 345 days a year, and on for only a few hours for the other 20. So I have no personal guilt, aside from being a parasite as a human being, lol. I can't help that.... Actually, correction. I do totally suck in one big way. I'm a total meat eater and I have no plans to stop. So that's my big hypocritical thing.

I do strongly believe that people have to stop having children. I know how controversial that is, and that most parents will just call me ridiculous for saying, but I also know that that would solve a whole lot of problems.

Stop having kids completely? Or just stop having large families?

I mean, I know it won't happen, but in the first world, completely. There were 100 million refugees resulting from climate change migration in 2022 alone. There are more than enough people to fill the job vacancies without us having kids, and the problem of climate migration is only going to get worse. Technically we should not be filling our populations (and jobs and schools) by procreating ourselves and growing new polluters and resource gobblers. We should be doing it with the climate refugees, as more and more places will become uninhabitable. The world's population HAS to shrink and be redistributed if we are to have any hope at all, and we are going to have to deal with the consequences of a shrinking population. Otherwise we are done for. Again, I realize people are unfortunately going to keep feeling like they need to have kids so they kind of feel like they can live forever through them... but having kids seriously is the most harmful thing any of us can do to the environment right now.

And since I know this is never going to happen, I already think we ARE done for, which is why I started off in this thread saying it's too late!

static111

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Sorry I can't be more positive but... it's too late IMO.

It does not look good, that's for sure.  I do find some hope in the fact that researchers like Bonnie Baxter and Ben Abbott, brave and stalwart souls they be, are working hard to raise awareness and seek solution. 
Sadly, the conservative government of Utah seems unwilling to face realities, even at their own peril.  It is a peculiar characteristics of many people to stand by their entrenched beliefs rather than save their own behinds.

Yes, and ultimately it's just people. The regular masses who just can't imagine terrible things happening to them. If the masses cared, then the government would act, or lose power. And I don't think Democrats are doing all that much better in this regard TBH. They talk some talk, but still don't do nearly enough, and Dem voters like convenience just as much as any GOPer out there.

Yeah, I totally agree on all counts.  Democrats in general are more supportive of environmental protection but as you say, a lot of talk, not nearly enough action far too many compromises. Politicians in general are doing doing enough.

We can do more as well.  Everybody needs to step up and make some adjustments to how we live.  More sweaters, less energy for heating.  Reuse and recycle and buy durable instead of disposable. Maintain things so they last longer. Drive less (much less!).  We can all make a difference and still be relatively comfortable and happy. 

For sure! I'm going to just toot my own horn and say I do a lot, as I have had no children (which is in fact the #1 most damaging thing a person can do to the environment), and I have lived my entire life car-free. I also fortunately love being cold, and have my heat turned completely off about 345 days a year, and on for only a few hours for the other 20. So I have no personal guilt, aside from being a parasite as a human being, lol. I can't help that.... Actually, correction. I do totally suck in one big way. I'm a total meat eater and I have no plans to stop. So that's my big hypocritical thing.

I do strongly believe that people have to stop having children. I know how controversial that is, and that most parents will just call me ridiculous for saying, but I also know that that would solve a whole lot of problems.

Stop having kids completely? Or just stop having large families?

I mean, I know it won't happen, but in the first world, completely. There were 100 million refugees resulting from climate change migration in 2022 alone. There are more than enough people to fill the job vacancies without us having kids, and the problem of climate migration is only going to get worse. Technically we should not be filling our populations (and jobs and schools) by procreating ourselves and growing new polluters and resource gobblers. We should be doing it with the climate refugees, as more and more places will become uninhabitable. The world's population HAS to shrink and be redistributed if we are to have any hope at all, and we are going to have to deal with the consequences of a shrinking population. Otherwise we are done for. Again, I realize people are unfortunately going to keep feeling like they need to have kids so they kind of feel like they can live forever through them... but having kids seriously is the most harmful thing any of us can do to the environment right now.

And since I know this is never going to happen, I already think we ARE done for, which is why I started off in this thread saying it's too late!

Why not put the onus on the areas where people are over populating to not have kids rather than where there is stable or negative population growth?

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Sorry I can't be more positive but... it's too late IMO.

It does not look good, that's for sure.  I do find some hope in the fact that researchers like Bonnie Baxter and Ben Abbott, brave and stalwart souls they be, are working hard to raise awareness and seek solution. 
Sadly, the conservative government of Utah seems unwilling to face realities, even at their own peril.  It is a peculiar characteristics of many people to stand by their entrenched beliefs rather than save their own behinds.

Yes, and ultimately it's just people. The regular masses who just can't imagine terrible things happening to them. If the masses cared, then the government would act, or lose power. And I don't think Democrats are doing all that much better in this regard TBH. They talk some talk, but still don't do nearly enough, and Dem voters like convenience just as much as any GOPer out there.

Yeah, I totally agree on all counts.  Democrats in general are more supportive of environmental protection but as you say, a lot of talk, not nearly enough action far too many compromises. Politicians in general are doing doing enough.

We can do more as well.  Everybody needs to step up and make some adjustments to how we live.  More sweaters, less energy for heating.  Reuse and recycle and buy durable instead of disposable. Maintain things so they last longer. Drive less (much less!).  We can all make a difference and still be relatively comfortable and happy. 

For sure! I'm going to just toot my own horn and say I do a lot, as I have had no children (which is in fact the #1 most damaging thing a person can do to the environment), and I have lived my entire life car-free. I also fortunately love being cold, and have my heat turned completely off about 345 days a year, and on for only a few hours for the other 20. So I have no personal guilt, aside from being a parasite as a human being, lol. I can't help that.... Actually, correction. I do totally suck in one big way. I'm a total meat eater and I have no plans to stop. So that's my big hypocritical thing.

I do strongly believe that people have to stop having children. I know how controversial that is, and that most parents will just call me ridiculous for saying, but I also know that that would solve a whole lot of problems.

Stop having kids completely? Or just stop having large families?

I mean, I know it won't happen, but in the first world, completely. There were 100 million refugees resulting from climate change migration in 2022 alone. There are more than enough people to fill the job vacancies without us having kids, and the problem of climate migration is only going to get worse. Technically we should not be filling our populations (and jobs and schools) by procreating ourselves and growing new polluters and resource gobblers. We should be doing it with the climate refugees, as more and more places will become uninhabitable. The world's population HAS to shrink and be redistributed if we are to have any hope at all, and we are going to have to deal with the consequences of a shrinking population. Otherwise we are done for. Again, I realize people are unfortunately going to keep feeling like they need to have kids so they kind of feel like they can live forever through them... but having kids seriously is the most harmful thing any of us can do to the environment right now.

And since I know this is never going to happen, I already think we ARE done for, which is why I started off in this thread saying it's too late!

Regarding your words in bold above, there is so much irony in that.  People want to have kids so as to carry on their lineage, yet in doings so we overpopulate our species and threaten our very existence.  There's no lineage in an extinct species.

static111 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Sorry I can't be more positive but... it's too late IMO.

It does not look good, that's for sure.  I do find some hope in the fact that researchers like Bonnie Baxter and Ben Abbott, brave and stalwart souls they be, are working hard to raise awareness and seek solution. 
Sadly, the conservative government of Utah seems unwilling to face realities, even at their own peril.  It is a peculiar characteristics of many people to stand by their entrenched beliefs rather than save their own behinds.

Yes, and ultimately it's just people. The regular masses who just can't imagine terrible things happening to them. If the masses cared, then the government would act, or lose power. And I don't think Democrats are doing all that much better in this regard TBH. They talk some talk, but still don't do nearly enough, and Dem voters like convenience just as much as any GOPer out there.

Yeah, I totally agree on all counts.  Democrats in general are more supportive of environmental protection but as you say, a lot of talk, not nearly enough action far too many compromises. Politicians in general are doing doing enough.

We can do more as well.  Everybody needs to step up and make some adjustments to how we live.  More sweaters, less energy for heating.  Reuse and recycle and buy durable instead of disposable. Maintain things so they last longer. Drive less (much less!).  We can all make a difference and still be relatively comfortable and happy. 

For sure! I'm going to just toot my own horn and say I do a lot, as I have had no children (which is in fact the #1 most damaging thing a person can do to the environment), and I have lived my entire life car-free. I also fortunately love being cold, and have my heat turned completely off about 345 days a year, and on for only a few hours for the other 20. So I have no personal guilt, aside from being a parasite as a human being, lol. I can't help that.... Actually, correction. I do totally suck in one big way. I'm a total meat eater and I have no plans to stop. So that's my big hypocritical thing.

I do strongly believe that people have to stop having children. I know how controversial that is, and that most parents will just call me ridiculous for saying, but I also know that that would solve a whole lot of problems.

Stop having kids completely? Or just stop having large families?

I mean, I know it won't happen, but in the first world, completely. There were 100 million refugees resulting from climate change migration in 2022 alone. There are more than enough people to fill the job vacancies without us having kids, and the problem of climate migration is only going to get worse. Technically we should not be filling our populations (and jobs and schools) by procreating ourselves and growing new polluters and resource gobblers. We should be doing it with the climate refugees, as more and more places will become uninhabitable. The world's population HAS to shrink and be redistributed if we are to have any hope at all, and we are going to have to deal with the consequences of a shrinking population. Otherwise we are done for. Again, I realize people are unfortunately going to keep feeling like they need to have kids so they kind of feel like they can live forever through them... but having kids seriously is the most harmful thing any of us can do to the environment right now.

And since I know this is never going to happen, I already think we ARE done for, which is why I started off in this thread saying it's too late!

Why not put the onus on the areas where people are over populating to not have kids rather than where there is stable or negative population growth?

That is also a good point but a very difficult thing to accomplish.  My understanding is that better education is the answer.  Well educated people generally tend to pro-create at a much lower rate.  I will be so bold as to also say I believe that is why our overall level of intelligence is decreasing. 

static111

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Sorry I can't be more positive but... it's too late IMO.

It does not look good, that's for sure.  I do find some hope in the fact that researchers like Bonnie Baxter and Ben Abbott, brave and stalwart souls they be, are working hard to raise awareness and seek solution. 
Sadly, the conservative government of Utah seems unwilling to face realities, even at their own peril.  It is a peculiar characteristics of many people to stand by their entrenched beliefs rather than save their own behinds.

Yes, and ultimately it's just people. The regular masses who just can't imagine terrible things happening to them. If the masses cared, then the government would act, or lose power. And I don't think Democrats are doing all that much better in this regard TBH. They talk some talk, but still don't do nearly enough, and Dem voters like convenience just as much as any GOPer out there.

Yeah, I totally agree on all counts.  Democrats in general are more supportive of environmental protection but as you say, a lot of talk, not nearly enough action far too many compromises. Politicians in general are doing doing enough.

We can do more as well.  Everybody needs to step up and make some adjustments to how we live.  More sweaters, less energy for heating.  Reuse and recycle and buy durable instead of disposable. Maintain things so they last longer. Drive less (much less!).  We can all make a difference and still be relatively comfortable and happy. 

For sure! I'm going to just toot my own horn and say I do a lot, as I have had no children (which is in fact the #1 most damaging thing a person can do to the environment), and I have lived my entire life car-free. I also fortunately love being cold, and have my heat turned completely off about 345 days a year, and on for only a few hours for the other 20. So I have no personal guilt, aside from being a parasite as a human being, lol. I can't help that.... Actually, correction. I do totally suck in one big way. I'm a total meat eater and I have no plans to stop. So that's my big hypocritical thing.

I do strongly believe that people have to stop having children. I know how controversial that is, and that most parents will just call me ridiculous for saying, but I also know that that would solve a whole lot of problems.

Stop having kids completely? Or just stop having large families?

I mean, I know it won't happen, but in the first world, completely. There were 100 million refugees resulting from climate change migration in 2022 alone. There are more than enough people to fill the job vacancies without us having kids, and the problem of climate migration is only going to get worse. Technically we should not be filling our populations (and jobs and schools) by procreating ourselves and growing new polluters and resource gobblers. We should be doing it with the climate refugees, as more and more places will become uninhabitable. The world's population HAS to shrink and be redistributed if we are to have any hope at all, and we are going to have to deal with the consequences of a shrinking population. Otherwise we are done for. Again, I realize people are unfortunately going to keep feeling like they need to have kids so they kind of feel like they can live forever through them... but having kids seriously is the most harmful thing any of us can do to the environment right now.

And since I know this is never going to happen, I already think we ARE done for, which is why I started off in this thread saying it's too late!

Regarding your words in bold above, there is so much irony in that.  People want to have kids so as to carry on their lineage, yet in doings so we overpopulate our species and threaten our very existence.  There's no lineage in an extinct species.

static111 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Sorry I can't be more positive but... it's too late IMO.

It does not look good, that's for sure.  I do find some hope in the fact that researchers like Bonnie Baxter and Ben Abbott, brave and stalwart souls they be, are working hard to raise awareness and seek solution. 
Sadly, the conservative government of Utah seems unwilling to face realities, even at their own peril.  It is a peculiar characteristics of many people to stand by their entrenched beliefs rather than save their own behinds.

Yes, and ultimately it's just people. The regular masses who just can't imagine terrible things happening to them. If the masses cared, then the government would act, or lose power. And I don't think Democrats are doing all that much better in this regard TBH. They talk some talk, but still don't do nearly enough, and Dem voters like convenience just as much as any GOPer out there.

Yeah, I totally agree on all counts.  Democrats in general are more supportive of environmental protection but as you say, a lot of talk, not nearly enough action far too many compromises. Politicians in general are doing doing enough.

We can do more as well.  Everybody needs to step up and make some adjustments to how we live.  More sweaters, less energy for heating.  Reuse and recycle and buy durable instead of disposable. Maintain things so they last longer. Drive less (much less!).  We can all make a difference and still be relatively comfortable and happy. 

For sure! I'm going to just toot my own horn and say I do a lot, as I have had no children (which is in fact the #1 most damaging thing a person can do to the environment), and I have lived my entire life car-free. I also fortunately love being cold, and have my heat turned completely off about 345 days a year, and on for only a few hours for the other 20. So I have no personal guilt, aside from being a parasite as a human being, lol. I can't help that.... Actually, correction. I do totally suck in one big way. I'm a total meat eater and I have no plans to stop. So that's my big hypocritical thing.

I do strongly believe that people have to stop having children. I know how controversial that is, and that most parents will just call me ridiculous for saying, but I also know that that would solve a whole lot of problems.

Stop having kids completely? Or just stop having large families?

I mean, I know it won't happen, but in the first world, completely. There were 100 million refugees resulting from climate change migration in 2022 alone. There are more than enough people to fill the job vacancies without us having kids, and the problem of climate migration is only going to get worse. Technically we should not be filling our populations (and jobs and schools) by procreating ourselves and growing new polluters and resource gobblers. We should be doing it with the climate refugees, as more and more places will become uninhabitable. The world's population HAS to shrink and be redistributed if we are to have any hope at all, and we are going to have to deal with the consequences of a shrinking population. Otherwise we are done for. Again, I realize people are unfortunately going to keep feeling like they need to have kids so they kind of feel like they can live forever through them... but having kids seriously is the most harmful thing any of us can do to the environment right now.

And since I know this is never going to happen, I already think we ARE done for, which is why I started off in this thread saying it's too late!

Why not put the onus on the areas where people are over populating to not have kids rather than where there is stable or negative population growth?

That is also a good point but a very difficult thing to accomplish.  My understanding is that better education is the answer.  Well educated people generally tend to pro-create at a much lower rate.  I will be so bold as to also say I believe that is why our overall level of intelligence is decreasing. 

I just want to make clear that I am not for the point that my question implies.  I think it is as ridiculous as expecting western people to not procreate.  It is IMO ridiculous and untenable and not for selfish reasons.  When you even open that door it leads into all sorts of murky waters as to who deserves to live, have kids, etc.   Keep in mind that the US is the 186th most densely populated country which doesn't exactly raise an alarm as the worst offender for global overpopulation.  So what constitutes over population?  We would have to define that.  Is it the inability for a culture to provide for all of it's citizens, is it over taxing the land and natural resources, is it people having more kids than they can afford per capita?  Then of course who decides?  Dangerous waters in my opinion.  

brianlux

static111 said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Sorry I can't be more positive but... it's too late IMO.

It does not look good, that's for sure.  I do find some hope in the fact that researchers like Bonnie Baxter and Ben Abbott, brave and stalwart souls they be, are working hard to raise awareness and seek solution. 
Sadly, the conservative government of Utah seems unwilling to face realities, even at their own peril.  It is a peculiar characteristics of many people to stand by their entrenched beliefs rather than save their own behinds.

Yes, and ultimately it's just people. The regular masses who just can't imagine terrible things happening to them. If the masses cared, then the government would act, or lose power. And I don't think Democrats are doing all that much better in this regard TBH. They talk some talk, but still don't do nearly enough, and Dem voters like convenience just as much as any GOPer out there.

Yeah, I totally agree on all counts.  Democrats in general are more supportive of environmental protection but as you say, a lot of talk, not nearly enough action far too many compromises. Politicians in general are doing doing enough.

We can do more as well.  Everybody needs to step up and make some adjustments to how we live.  More sweaters, less energy for heating.  Reuse and recycle and buy durable instead of disposable. Maintain things so they last longer. Drive less (much less!).  We can all make a difference and still be relatively comfortable and happy. 

For sure! I'm going to just toot my own horn and say I do a lot, as I have had no children (which is in fact the #1 most damaging thing a person can do to the environment), and I have lived my entire life car-free. I also fortunately love being cold, and have my heat turned completely off about 345 days a year, and on for only a few hours for the other 20. So I have no personal guilt, aside from being a parasite as a human being, lol. I can't help that.... Actually, correction. I do totally suck in one big way. I'm a total meat eater and I have no plans to stop. So that's my big hypocritical thing.

I do strongly believe that people have to stop having children. I know how controversial that is, and that most parents will just call me ridiculous for saying, but I also know that that would solve a whole lot of problems.

Stop having kids completely? Or just stop having large families?

I mean, I know it won't happen, but in the first world, completely. There were 100 million refugees resulting from climate change migration in 2022 alone. There are more than enough people to fill the job vacancies without us having kids, and the problem of climate migration is only going to get worse. Technically we should not be filling our populations (and jobs and schools) by procreating ourselves and growing new polluters and resource gobblers. We should be doing it with the climate refugees, as more and more places will become uninhabitable. The world's population HAS to shrink and be redistributed if we are to have any hope at all, and we are going to have to deal with the consequences of a shrinking population. Otherwise we are done for. Again, I realize people are unfortunately going to keep feeling like they need to have kids so they kind of feel like they can live forever through them... but having kids seriously is the most harmful thing any of us can do to the environment right now.

And since I know this is never going to happen, I already think we ARE done for, which is why I started off in this thread saying it's too late!

Regarding your words in bold above, there is so much irony in that.  People want to have kids so as to carry on their lineage, yet in doings so we overpopulate our species and threaten our very existence.  There's no lineage in an extinct species.

static111 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Sorry I can't be more positive but... it's too late IMO.

It does not look good, that's for sure.  I do find some hope in the fact that researchers like Bonnie Baxter and Ben Abbott, brave and stalwart souls they be, are working hard to raise awareness and seek solution. 
Sadly, the conservative government of Utah seems unwilling to face realities, even at their own peril.  It is a peculiar characteristics of many people to stand by their entrenched beliefs rather than save their own behinds.

Yes, and ultimately it's just people. The regular masses who just can't imagine terrible things happening to them. If the masses cared, then the government would act, or lose power. And I don't think Democrats are doing all that much better in this regard TBH. They talk some talk, but still don't do nearly enough, and Dem voters like convenience just as much as any GOPer out there.

Yeah, I totally agree on all counts.  Democrats in general are more supportive of environmental protection but as you say, a lot of talk, not nearly enough action far too many compromises. Politicians in general are doing doing enough.

We can do more as well.  Everybody needs to step up and make some adjustments to how we live.  More sweaters, less energy for heating.  Reuse and recycle and buy durable instead of disposable. Maintain things so they last longer. Drive less (much less!).  We can all make a difference and still be relatively comfortable and happy. 

For sure! I'm going to just toot my own horn and say I do a lot, as I have had no children (which is in fact the #1 most damaging thing a person can do to the environment), and I have lived my entire life car-free. I also fortunately love being cold, and have my heat turned completely off about 345 days a year, and on for only a few hours for the other 20. So I have no personal guilt, aside from being a parasite as a human being, lol. I can't help that.... Actually, correction. I do totally suck in one big way. I'm a total meat eater and I have no plans to stop. So that's my big hypocritical thing.

I do strongly believe that people have to stop having children. I know how controversial that is, and that most parents will just call me ridiculous for saying, but I also know that that would solve a whole lot of problems.

Stop having kids completely? Or just stop having large families?

I mean, I know it won't happen, but in the first world, completely. There were 100 million refugees resulting from climate change migration in 2022 alone. There are more than enough people to fill the job vacancies without us having kids, and the problem of climate migration is only going to get worse. Technically we should not be filling our populations (and jobs and schools) by procreating ourselves and growing new polluters and resource gobblers. We should be doing it with the climate refugees, as more and more places will become uninhabitable. The world's population HAS to shrink and be redistributed if we are to have any hope at all, and we are going to have to deal with the consequences of a shrinking population. Otherwise we are done for. Again, I realize people are unfortunately going to keep feeling like they need to have kids so they kind of feel like they can live forever through them... but having kids seriously is the most harmful thing any of us can do to the environment right now.

And since I know this is never going to happen, I already think we ARE done for, which is why I started off in this thread saying it's too late!

Why not put the onus on the areas where people are over populating to not have kids rather than where there is stable or negative population growth?

That is also a good point but a very difficult thing to accomplish.  My understanding is that better education is the answer.  Well educated people generally tend to pro-create at a much lower rate.  I will be so bold as to also say I believe that is why our overall level of intelligence is decreasing. 

I just want to make clear that I am not for the point that my question implies.  I think it is as ridiculous as expecting western people to not procreate.  It is IMO ridiculous and untenable and not for selfish reasons.  When you even open that door it leads into all sorts of murky waters as to who deserves to live, have kids, etc.   Keep in mind that the US is the 186th most densely populated country which doesn't exactly raise an alarm as the worst offender for global overpopulation.  So what constitutes over population?  We would have to define that.  Is it the inability for a culture to provide for all of it's citizens, is it over taxing the land and natural resources, is it people having more kids than they can afford per capita?  Then of course who decides?  Dangerous waters in my opinion.  

I totally agree that enforced birth control is not the way to go.  I think education is the key.

As for what constitutes overpopulation- that is a difficult question.  It makes sense to me to leave that to people well versed in biological and ecological (especially population ecology) to determine.  It makes sense to me to look at it from a regional perspective.  In an idea world. every region would limit its population to what is sustainable within that region- that's how it works in the natural world with other species.  But, unfortunately, we seem to think we are above nature's parameters.  Thinking that way is a big mistake!