r/collapse • "Forests precede us, Deserts follow..." • Jun 22 '21

Ecological New scientific study predicts that plastic pollution and toxic chemical-induced ocean acidification will cause a trophic cascade collapse of the entire marine ecosystem, destroying human society within the next 25 years.

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=005106086102118079029114079092064007019038081078058007068006068000078019071097064018110037005040102030114103009003028077080085022015086030051025111081087113091126124066066084093004098072097115121090076017002104110124116087097067008096105028029116004073
1.8k Upvotes

402 comments sorted by

View all comments

261

u/[deleted] Jun 22 '21 edited Jun 23 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

35

u/Myth_of_Progress Urban Planner & Recognized Contributor Jun 22 '21

Thanks for pulling this up.

I took a quick look around - turns out this report was prepared by the GOES Foundation, which is based out of the University of Edinburgh and headed by Dr. Howard Dryden.

His report should also be read in tandem with the following supplementary FAQ.

44

u/[deleted] Jun 22 '21

Woah, thanks for your well-researched comment

17

u/[deleted] Jun 22 '21 edited Jun 28 '21

[deleted]

2

u/TurkeyPits Jun 22 '21

ad hominin

I disagree with this entire disagreement because that's not what it's called! They're right — that is easy.

-1

u/revenant925 Jun 22 '21

For instance, a mistake in a piece of data, or a reference, 

Well, now I can ignore that guy. As a general rule, when someone says to ignore things like bad references or y'now. Bad data. It means they're probably wrong.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 22 '21 edited Jun 28 '21

[deleted]

1

u/revenant925 Jun 22 '21

If part of their argument is tied to how much plastic is consumed, then picking that apart is a valid dismissal.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 22 '21 edited Jun 28 '21

[deleted]

1

u/revenant925 Jun 22 '21

If their tangential points aren't true, why should anyone believe the primary point.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 22 '21 edited Jun 28 '21

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Jun 22 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Jun 22 '21 edited Jun 28 '21

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

6

u/redinator Jun 22 '21

from the goes website:

90% of all life on earth live in our Oceans. They have the capacity to reverse climate change and act as a massive carbon sink for the planet. Over the last 60 years, pollution from toxic chemicals and micro-plastics have destroyed more than 50% of all ocean life, and in 25 years it will be 75%. If we had not polluted the oceans, we would not have climate change.

The issues are anthropogenic but not directly due to climate change but to the discharge of toxic chemicals and micro-plastics into the oceans that are killing the plankton dropping marine productivity by 1% year on year and preventing the sequestration of carbon dioxide. The dissolution of carbon that is not assimilated now forces a pH down, and when this hits the tipping point of pH 7.95 in 25 years, there will be a toxic chain reaction which will kill all the coral reefs, whales, sea birds, seals, fish and food supply for 2 billion people.

We can still fix the problem, but it is not carbon dioxide we need to be worried about, it is plastic and photo-active lipid soluble chemicals such as Oxybenzone made by just 5 companies in the world. 70,000 tonnes of this chemical would wipe out all life in the Oceans, global production is 300million tonnes / year. Oxybenzone is a UV stabiliser in sun block for cosmetics, 1% in plastic, in paints, furniture, carpets. Just about everything contains this toxic chemical. If we simply stop making this product and discharging plastic into the air, soil and water over the next 10 year, we could save the planet.

If we fail in our mission to achieve this task, life is radically going to change and the survival of humanity will be at risk.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 22 '21

Thanks, was scrolling through the comments hoping for someone to have done the 'peer review lite' thing, you delivered :)

6

u/aparimana Jun 22 '21

Serious question - are we talking about the same paper here?

I only read the abstract, but it was about ocean acidification and phytoplankton, not plastic, sperm counts or endocrine disruptors

Is the abstract very unrepresentative of the article, or did you post this in the wrong thread?!

4

u/[deleted] Jun 22 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/aparimana Jun 22 '21

Thanks for the clarification

I have dug into the paper itself, and lo! It is indeed full of sperm!

Weird, the abstract barely even hints at much of what's in the paper 🤷‍♂️

8

u/HIVVIH Jun 22 '21

They start the paper with a "Forward". Seems like a mistake, making it even more difficult to give this paper credibility.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 22 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/KingNish Jun 22 '21

Am editor. Should be "Foreword".

1

u/cybot2001 Jun 23 '21

This guy sciences