Thanks for the information – I never thought to consider the poor little frogs, and flies, and fish, and deer when thinking of ways to stop human beings from being homeless and destitute
Here are the top political news stories for today.
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
Did you read my message like… at all? Humans are drastically affected too, there’s diseases, by the thousands, that we haven’t discovered underneath the permafrost, and when that stuff melts, we get to meet them in full force. Over 90% of Alaska is covered in it, and when we drill there, that stuff disappears a lot faster, endangering the cities and towns of almost all of Alaska. It’s not just the animals, it’s the people, the towns, and eventually large amounts of Alaskan land becoming destitute.
I did, but it was so boring my brain probably instantly deleted the bulk of it, explaining our current situation. Perhaps to break up the monotony you could season your emotional unloads with a dash of logic and maybe a hint of truth – then, I'm certain, my brain, which actually has an above average capacity for memory, would retain much more of it. It's sad how little control we have over such things :(
Apparently you don't know this (chuckle) but bacteria die within 24 hours on most surfaces and can't survive long OR grow in freezing temperatures ... that's how… Read more
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
Not to mention, the problem is worse than it looks, even if the disasters of mining that oil were averted, it gives us less than a decade, our consumption is going to bite us in the butt, and that’s why we need to move away from oil in all feasible forms NOW, because our supplies alone can’t last long. With what we have now, we last five years without imports, and using all that we can, we only last about a decade more, so how about we either degrow a bit, or we move the duck away at ALL COSTS. The potential problems with our “independence” can obliterate our energy… Read more
That's data for our oil reserves, not data for the oil yet processed, which could power this country for millennia – and apparently you don't know this, but the Far North of Alaska, where this oil mining would happen, is so sparsely populated that no one would be around for miles and miles and miles if permafrost ever broke – and diseases die within 24 hours if they don't infect someone. Problem solved! No one lives in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge, so I don't know how you think this permafrost argument is distantly helpful...
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
The risk goes across the state, especially to those closer to the area, as earthquakes and grind shifts tend to affect large swaths of a state, and will very much affect populated areas, maybe less, but it’s still a massive concern. Water will shift under the new lack of permafrost, drawing the disease-infected carcasses of animals (where most of the diseases lie and last for FAR longer than 24 hours) out of the area. When the land starts growing life, the diseases will be able to spread from animals, and then, humans aren’t far away from the problem, so we have a severe risk of… Read more
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
The wording here is MOST surfaces, permafrost doesn’t kill the bacteria, it often just preserves them, and we’ve found thousands of LIVE specimens inside it. Siberia has been having a lot of problems with permafrost melting already, and it’s not pretty in the slightest. Football field-sized sinkholes keeping popping up in roads and rivers out of nowhere due to the methane and carbon dioxide releases underground from melting permafrost, leading to a high possibility of humans taking a hit if it shows up under a city. They’ve had close calls of anthrax coming directly… Read more
And why is CO2 bad? They call it the "Gas of Life" for a reason – we are carbon based life forms, and so are all mammals, and all plants depend on carbon for their survival. The trunk of a tree, in fact, is 90% pure carbon that it absorbed during its lifetime. Vilify carbon, and you vilify what makes life possible on this planet.
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
I vilify TOO MUCH carbon, and even with the fringe Ceres Science report you use, the permafrost melt would double atmospheric carbon content, and worsen the PROVEN greenhouse effect. If the stuff melts, the problem of climate change (which Ceres did not refute or claim doesn’t exist) will still get worse, because even if the sun is a primary cause, carbon emissions still trap sunlight and make that problem much worse.
Join in on more popular conversations.
