> Consequently the two temperatures defining the core of krill distribution (7–13 °C) were 8° of latitude apart 60 years ago but are presently only 4° apart.
Krill lost 50% of their habitat in the last 60 years. This article has been added to my favorites because this is one piece of evidence that shows that climate change won’t just shift organisms north, but will result in reductions of species that will impact our ecosystems.
I realize that habitat loss is a big thing, but I also know that some krill-eating species like the big whales have rebounded over the last 60 years. Could this decline in krill be the result of the return of the whales?
Krill is a keystone species. Lose krill and the food chain collapses — at least krill is thought to hold such a role in the Southern Hemisphere. There, it is harvesting for omega 3 supplements that’s causing the decline. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/mar/23/fishing....
I think mostly the krill is used as fish and animal feed as a source of protein. Supplements are probably a small part of the consumption.
It seems like a bad idea to overfish the base food chain species. But then pretty much everything we do with the ocean is a bad idea.
The only thing that has been positive where the oceans are concerned is creating marine reserves where commercial fishing is prohibited, and enforcing that.
It seems pretty unlikely. For all whale specious the numbers are far lower than historical numbers. There is a huge amount of krill and there are a lot of other species that have been doing this for a very long time.
> Krill lost 50% of their habitat in the last 60 years.
Not necessarily.
Krill species live from surface to fairly deep waters. Surface is an important, but small part on its entire habitat.
We need to take in mind that all in this study is about the situation found when sampling an area between 0-10m deep.
For Thysanoessa for example this means that if you don't find them at the surface there is still a 390m deep layer where they could still be located. Meganyctiphanes, Nematobranchion and Thysanopoda concentrate normally in waters below 400m by day (Saunders et al, 2013). They can migrate to surface [1] at night, but can also choose to remain close to the sea bottom in much deeper areas. It depends a lot on the species, location and time of the year.
[1] More or less, surface does not mean 0m necessarily, can mean -15m or -20m also.
Reduction from 8 degrees of latitude to 4 doesn't tell us the area reduction, because the area depends on the absolute distance from the pole. It's also not linear because if the outer radius changes, the change should be proportional to the square of the radius, so potentially more than 50%, or potentially no change or even growth, if the ideal thermal area moved outwards
Or you could click on the article and see for yourself, under the safe presumption that the researchers would do a more thorough job than the lay person. From the article, figure 2:
> Mean spatial abundance of euphausiids per decade in the North Atlantic from 1958–2017 split into six time-periods 1958–1967; 1968–1977; 1978–1987; 1988–1997; 1998–2007; 2008–2017.
I had casually assumed climate change would only really impact animals high up the food chain. But to see this amount of species loss in animals at the very bottom of the food chain frightens me
If I've understood the science stories I've been reading the organisms closer to the bottom of the food chain (plankton, krill, insects, etc) outnumber us in terms of biomass, and we are incredibly dependent on the part they play in our ecosystem. The decline in these species is something to take very seriously.
I was just making a tongue in cheek comment about being frightened by loss at the bottom of the chain, but (presumably) not about the top, where we are.
Dear Nature peer reviewers, maybe could I introduce you to the 112,000 jumpback whales or the 40,000 fin whales returning to the area after its chase was forbidden just 6 decades ago? It seems a fact that would merit to be discussed in the article at least. Several big populations of whales where at the brink of extinction then. Maybe the euphausiacean population was abnormally high before, and more normal now?.
Finding preys to quit gradually the surface and search for deeper areas when its main predators gradually increase is not a strange outcome, or one that would need necessarily a climate change explanation as the main factor. The study toke samples of the first 10 meters of water only.
a) s/yourself/you to/
b) a laughably small number of whales -- even though it's more than it was -- doesn't invalidate the premise of the article. The only reason there are a few more whales than there were is the ban on hunting. The reason there aren't lot more of them is that there isn't enough food, because you, and me, and everyone else is fucking up the climate.
If the main predator of one species is increased by, lets say x500 (nobody knows the real value really) and we observe a significant reduction in the number of preys, this is the first thing that we must assure to mention in our discussion.
As research is a so slow process I'm having a hard time thinking that everybody just forgot to see the 'big whale in the room'. A logical explanation is that they put their bet in the winner horse (those that would sell better and had more options to end the publishing race). The logical, but boring explanation would be put under the rug. I could be wrong, of course, but this is not how science should work (in my arrogant opinion).
> The reason there aren't lot more of them is that there isn't enough food, because everyone is fucking up the climate.
We need to choose between the truth or the ideology. A simpler alternative explanation is that the ecosystem changed and do not have room for allowing more whales. Other that we just see the population in the middle of a recovery, not the final phase and our grandsons will see much more whales and even much less krill. Whales mature and breed slowly so they recover slowly. Ship traffic, fish nets, fish hooks, diseases or whale fishing quotes don't help. The lack of food can be related with climate warming, but also with over-fishing and plastic pollution.
What's interesting too is they could not find other instances of this happening in others, could perhaps be unique to Krill
> Another important group of zooplankton, the appendicularians, have shown a dramatic increase, nearly quadrupling their abundance since the 1960s, suggesting that, while there has been an overall increase in phytoplankton biomass in this region, there could also be a trend towards a smaller size-fraction of phytoplankton. It is unclear why the euphausiids alone among the most dominant zooplankton taxa in this region have shown a particular decline since the 1990s.
Talk to a person who spent a lot of time in nature 60 years ago and they'll tell you about water was overflowing with fish. Insects basically clouded the skies in summer. Forests and fields were full of animals and they'd regularly wake up to wild animals at their front door every morning.
It sounds like tall tales to a large number of people today, but even in my short life of only 30 years, the change is huge. I remember being a kid and windshields being covered in insects after a 30 minute drive. I remember turning a light on outside at night and the sides of the house being swarmed luna moths, hordes of bats swooping by and grabbing everything they could, and possums scattering away from the porch. I'd walk around the lake and see snapping turtles lazing about in the sun. Fish splashing in the water. Walking in streams, there'd be so many crayfish that they'd slip inside my sandals and I'd accidentally crush them.
I don't know where you live but in the northeast usa this is bullshit. In rural new england wildlife is much more prominent than it was 60 years ago. Deer used to be relatively rare. Beaver were extremely rare as were Turkeys. Forests were less dense and had smaller trees. Black bear were rare. Coyotes were extremely rare. Mt. Lions were unheard of. While we are no where near 1500 AD at most only a few promient species have been lost from the area: chesnut trees, wolves, passenger pigeons, etc. Most of the original northern atlantic forest biome is still intact. Rural new england is teeming with wildlife compared to how it was 100 or even 200 years ago when almost all forests in southern new england were cleared for fuel or agriculture. They came back. You got to get outside your bubble. The world is still full of nature. In many locations the population in rural southern new england towns was half what it was in 1820 in 1920. Nature came back when people moved west or to cities for better land and jobs. Humans are part of nature too. We are a natural phenomenon. I care about biodiversity but I get sick of seeing these uninformed opinions that some how the sky is falling everywhere. Maybe it is some places but not everywhere even in the USA even within a few hundred miles of the largest cities.
It is not because of aerodynamics. Old and new cars smash insects equally efficient and the decline of smashed insects on windscreens correlates strongly with a decline in insect population.
Can confirm - recently was in a 1970 GM car and the windshield was covered in dead bug guts at the end of the drive. On the way home, my 2008 GM had nothing.
Insects fly at different height depending on time of day and weather. Did those conditions(time of day and weather) change much between your two trips?
Same here. I think a lot of this is due to the massive increase in plastic pollution, endocrine disruptors, and insecticides wrecking the bottom part of the food chain. Even the swarms of lovebugs are noticeably thinner these days.
Correlation isn't causation, but it wasn't that long ago plastic was much, much rarer - talk to people over 60!
Or else tadpoles and tiny shrimp in a cup dipped into a pond. Grasshoppers thick in an autumn meadow. And now it feels as if the plants are okay but the animals are all gone.
The world population doubled in those 60 years. People like to eat fish. They also occupy space - many people live in big cities, where wild animals are not commonly expected at the front door.
Insects also need space to breed, which is taken away by farming, roads, buildings and pesticides.
I've noticed the same over the course of my life but recently I drove through the interior of Florida to go on a camping trip and the front of my car was plastered with dead bugs.
I don’t know, I still see bats every night in a ~250k city. And don’t get me started on all the bugs that get into the apartment. I hate when I have to kill that helicopter-sized moth.
I recently learned that another problem is that whales used to bring minerals up from the deep ocean and poop it out which provided food for plankton on the surface.
With less food the only avenues for adaptation I can see are becoming fewer or smaller.
ETA At mass extinctions the things that survive and repopulate the Earth are the small generalists with a fast reproductive cycle. Whales are the opposite of this.
We can dance around our environmental issues all we want, we'll always reach overpopulation and overconsumption driven by cultural beliefs.
Until we act on values other than growth, efficiency, comfort, convenience, extraction, and externalizing costs, we will continue this trend.
Plenty of cultures have thrived with other values. We can too.
People insist that individual actions don't matter and that only governments and corporations can make a difference. We accept this hogwash proven wrong by history over and over to mollify our indulgence. Acting in stewardship doesn't bring deprivation or sacrifice. It brings joy, fun, freedom, community, connection, meaning, and purpose.
The greatest change we make is leading others, because it multiplies our effect, which requires leading ourselves.
Still, logic, facts, and figures don't change behavior. We change when five people around us do, loosely speaking. In that spirit, I'll share that I've dropped my emissions over 90 percent with only improvements to my life. I take two years to fill a load of trash and haven't flown since March 2016, picking up litter daily since 2017, my last electrical bill $1.40 so nearly off-grid living in Manhattan, plus plenty more. All sources of joy, more time with family and friends, more control over my career, saving money, more gratitude from people with less resources who tell me their changes improve their lives and save them time, money, and the other resources they lack.
The main Resistance (capitalized to refer to Steven Pressfield's relevant book The War of Art) comes from people with more resources than me, who say what I did before changing. Strangely, those with the most act like they can change the least. Resources that were supposed to improve our lives make us spoiled, entitled, needy, and dependent, the opposite of free and fun.
To those who insist there's no point, you can argue against me, but now that you know someone who's done it, you're 20 percent there. Find another few who have changed and you'll change too.
Change through government regulation is really only compelled individual change. If everyone changed their behavior of their own free will -- well, we wouldn't need laws at all; this would be a solution for everything!
So, on the one hand I agree with you, justifying one's own failure to change by claiming only federal action will work is mostly just laziness and selfishness papered over with a thin excuse. On the other, mass personal enlightenment will not occur nearly fast enough to solve the problem if it's even possible at all. And in the meantime you'll have unrepentant selfish people freeloading, some of them rolling coal to spite you because they take your virtue as a personal slight or because they're sadists.
By all means, everyone should take this seriously and do what they can without compulsion. I've been striving to do this since the eighties. But honestly if we want to fix the problem the only thing that can come up to scale with sufficient speed is decisions by people who control large segments of the economy, i.e. governments and corporations.
I'll add that my individual action has led through my podcast to working with CEOs, politicians including four of New York City's mayoral candidates, and leaders in sports, arts, and other areas, as well as other podcasts within the This Sustainable Life family.
My personal action is only the starting point to lead others. Mostly I do it to live by my values, but it gives me credibility to lead others too.
I've spent much of my life living in a far more sustainable fashion than most, but besides a personal reduction of guilt it didn't really have any broader impact. I think we need both: folks like yourself leading by example, as well as broad regulatory changes to compel systematic behavioral change (both individual and corporate).
Just having the former is necessary yet insufficient. As stated elsewhere: there's just too many people that are otherwise unwilling to make personal changes. The upside is that when everyone else has accepted or embraced these changes, there's strong social pressure for those dissenters to join. And you can help inspire the early adopters.
But fundamentally we really do need strong political and governmental action here.
> On the other, mass personal enlightenment will not occur nearly fast enough to solve the problem if it's even possible at all ...
> ... honestly if we want to fix the problem the only thing that can come up to scale with sufficient speed is decisions by people who control large segments of the economy, i.e. governments and corporations.
But isn't the first step toward changing things at a governmental level getting the individuals -- who vote for said government officials -- to care about the issues? If people are so resistant to even the idea of individual change (e.g. the parent comment is downvoted), it makes me think they might not care that much after all.
Take recycling for example. Basically well understood to be greenwashing by anyone whose done even a bit of research or thinking through the matter. But people who want to believe they are doing the 'right' things still insist on it. This is their way of 'making a difference' and it stops right after that. They recycle and the act of self identifying as having made a difference relieves the psychological pressure to do more or actually engage in making a real difference. Its a lazy way of psychological positioning oneself such that one is 'no longer a part of the problem'.
I'm not sure I put stock in the strategy of individual difference or 'being the change' if you will (although this might be a step beyond what you are making an argument for). I think we're in an era where our 'elected' leadership are so distant in regards of what their constituents are asking for relative to what needs to happen to make headway on an issue like climate change.
Climate change is an issue several orders of magnitude more difficult than something like covid was. Effectively, we need to undo the impacts of ~150 years of industrialization. The kinds of half-way solutions and psychological anesthetics we've been able to implement thus far are the definition of nibbling at the edges. I think fundamentally, unless we see a massive political shift in how we address these issues, we're stuck nibbling at the edges.
Recycling plastic is understood to be greenwashing for most types of plastic. And arguably recycling is a gateway behavior, for some, to more substantive changes, like eating less meat or just buying less crap.
I think just as arguably as recycling is a gateway behavior to more substantive changes, its just as likely to preclude engaging in more substantive changes. There's likely a masters thesis worth of work in our disagreement, but I see things like recycling and going vegetarian as an anesthetic that prevents engaging in additional action.
Going vegetarian is an anesthetic? It's the single biggest thing a meat eater can do to reduce their carbon footprint! What do you consider effective action if going vegetarian doesn't count? If you tell people nothing they do is adequate, odds are you aren't going to win them to your cause. I'm pretty sure most vegetarians are fighting for stronger action, not sitting on the sidelines saying, "nah, I've done my bit." The vegetarians are your shock troops, not sellouts.
Yes, I think vegetarianism as an individual response to climate change is largely an anesthetic. I think individual responses in general are done as anesthetic (you feel pressure to act, and so you do something within your purview to relieve that pressure). I have lost faith in the ideal of collective individualism's ability to move the needle on these issues based on my read of the previous 60 years of history. I also think its disingenuous and irresponsible to put the onus on individuals. I think that for collective action at the scale required to address what is happening to our global climate can only happen through government mandated changes to manufacturing and setting carbon standards at the point and process of production. If we want to deal with this, the answer is that meat needs to be much more expensive, and that expense needs to be borne by the producers. All products and consumption need to represent their real impact on climate. Arguing for individual vegetarianism is nibbling around the edge at best (see below) and a analgesic at worst. The pain of there being a problem needs to be persistent and long lasting for us to address the much more central issues at hand.
In the 1970's the US rate of vegetarianism was around 1%. In 2008, the rate was around 3%. In 2015, still around 3%. There is some 2018 data that says 4% (1). These surveys have margins of error, but lets be charitable and say they are spot on. Based on these data, we could expect to see a 20% adoption of vegetarianism by the year 2210. We could expect to see a 50% adoption by around 2600.
Simply put, individual action is not enough to make even a bug-splat on a windshields difference to this issue. Individuals who make personal decisions to eat less meat may be the shock troops and I do believe those are also the ones going above and beyond to make additional change happen. However, its not adequate. Its not enough. And I am arguing that advocating for solving or addressing this issue through individual change is counter-productive, because even being ridiculously charitable regarding rates of adoption, it simple wont be enough to even nudge the needle on climate change.
If I'm reading your first paragraph correctly, you are making a claim that people who care about individual action will, generally speaking, stop at that and go no further because they think their work is done. That is a bit baffling to me and does not resonate with my personal experience. Is this a feeling or do you have anything to back it up?
Secondly, you flippantly reject recycling as greenwashing and leave it at that. Even if I accept this claim (time to stop recycling aluminum), what about other activities? Why wouldn't it be helpful to convince your friends to think about where they spend their money? Note for example how many more vegan protein options there are at the grocery store or restaurants now compared to even 5 years ago. Capitalism responds to consumer demand.
If I know that certain types of fish are way over-fished, should I just say "individual change doesn't do much until we get the government involved, so oh well, let's eat it anyway"? What about growing more of your food (perhaps a community garden) or trying to produce less waste? To me, it's better to act, and also show my friends and family my actions, so maybe one of them can do it and show their friends, and so on, so that ideas about e.g. sustainability permeate throughout society. Only then do they make it to the political domain.
All I see is criticism but no alternative given in return, so I'm curious what your view is. How do you think can we accomplish a "massive political shift in how we address these issues"? My opinion is that large-scale cultural change must start at an individual level, and it starts with individuals who actually do what they believe should be done, because people in general respond more by seeing action rather than only hearing ideas.
I think I addressed most of your issues in my response to DFHippie above, but I think I can at least address your more specific issues. To be clear, my central issue is with putting the onus on individuals to make the difference. I don't see sufficient evidence to suggest that individual voluntary collective action is capable of making a difference in regards to global carbon emissions, and I think that communicating so is not appropriate. I see it as largely misguided virtue signalling that is largely counter productive.
>My opinion is that large-scale cultural change must start at an individual level
I formerly held this belief, but I do not hold this belief currently. As far as I've seen, large-scale cultural change appears to be most readily demonstrated through forced coercion, systematic changes to the central governments, and massive advances in technology. Its a nice idea that we can all be the change we want to see and that we can change the world that way. I haven't seen evidence of it in my lifetime. Individual collective actions in the forms of protest movements have largely failed to accomplish their goals (Seattle 99, Protests against the war in Iraq/Agh, Occupy, Hong Kong, BLM). Things aren't getting better, they're largely getting worse, and those who are predisposed to take action keep focusing on types and modes of action which are demonstrated to be ineffective (advocating for people to individually become vegetarian, as opposed to finding ways of gaining power either within or over the system). People take to these modes of action because they're accessible.
I can stop eating meat. I can recycle. I can not eat some about to go extinct fish. My argument is that individual action doesn't appear to be making any difference at all. There is effectively no reduction to the amount of carbon in the atmosphere based on the % of people who have adopted vegetarianism in the previous 60 years. Arguing that people should, as individuals, go vegetarian to protect the environment, is like arguing that we should turn a fan on while the room is on fire because its getting hot in here.
I agree with you that individual change shouldn't be the only or the end goal -- anyone selling this idea is wrong or potentially malicious (e.g. corporations selling the idea of plastic recycling), and if that is your central issue, then I think we're mostly on the same page. We need to have changes at the governmental level and hold corporations responsible. Things like taxing negative externalities and legislating forms of extended producer responsibility seem like musts to me.
What doesn't sit with me is negativity toward the idea of individual action. Individual change is often simply a side effect of believing in something dearly. It's quite alien to me that one could feel strongly enough about an issue to fight for it at a political level, and at the same time not at least attempt to live and act according to those beliefs. The two go hand in hand in my world view, and I think both are needed. And those who originate and begin the spread of radical ideas, long before they make it to the political layer, almost surely were already acting according to those ideas.
So I do see -- and I think agree with -- your broader point, but unfortunately, I'm not sure how to actually gain this power within the system that you mention. What does that look like? What are the steps?
The crux of the matter is hidden in how the meaning of "caring" is defined. That's where opinions and perspectives diverge completely.
Here's a big question: How much change on a personal level are you willing to make to help curb climate change?
The trade offs and the compromises to be made are going to differ between groups and people. It all rides on social economic background, geographical location (where you live), mobility, opportunities, the life you've build for yourself.
Concrete example. Biden shutting down Keystone XL and the ensuing social upheaval:
Disregarding the details of this particular case, it's an example that exactly points at the glaring challenge ahead: how this affects people directly.
Here you have a few thousand people directly having to figure out how to cover their living expenses, find an alternate livelihood to cover the loss of their job in the short run, adjusting their plans. This not a minor inconvenience, but quite an adjustment for many months to come. One can empathize on a personal level: losing out on a job - even if it's temp work - just sucks all round.
And that's just one of many uncountable individual trade offs people are asked or forced to make by their leadership. All risking to create resentment and lose support down the line.
In that regard, serious government officials and politicians do care, it's just that they can't make life-altering policy changes without consequences. The argument "If we don't change, climate change will end up costing us much, much more" is true to an extent, but hardly an argument you can readily use lest you want to lose support. People don't just look to you to enact policies regarding climate, they also look to you for leadership that ensures their lives remain relatively stable as well.
I perceive the downvotes as affirming the point I tried to make.
My comment wasn't in opposition of action to curb climate change. Read it again and you will notice that I don't take such a position. On a personal note, I'm quite concerned about climate change and it's consequences.
Being concerned about climate change, and being concerned about the social and economic impact of policies to curb climate change aren't mutually exclusive. On the contrary, both concerns are tied together.
The questions I asked aren't just faced by the readership of HackerNews who tends to have a shared view on the world and reality. All humans face them. The world contains far more views on life, morality, equability and so on. If you want to have a debate on governance, it's best to not ignore this very fact.
So, um, how did you post this comment if you are paying $1.40 a month for electricity and presumably need to turn on at least one lightbulb for a couple days?
Do you use someone else's electricity to charge your phone or laptop?
You did one load of trash in two years. That's great. I suppose that means you received zero packages in the mail, and bought zero things in any store that might have packaging?
Because Bill Gates is rich, you have no excuse not to be rich. Obviously it is possible. Now that you know one person who is rich, you are 20% of the way there!
Did spodek claim to be doing everything humanly possible to reduce their carbon footprint? If this is so, why not just cut to the biggie: "So have you killed yourself yet? Why not?"
We can make things better without making them perfect. We can value the environment without this being our sole consideration in all decisions.
Yes, it's entirely possible to generate your own electricity, use discarded electronics and not order anything new for a year. I've lived near those conditions so I know it's not particularly difficult if you're smart and healthy.
On the other hand, I have no idea how I could possibly do that if I was blind. Perhaps it can't be done.
So, I'll try and bite in with as much charity as I can muster. The main sentiment I want to push back against is in your final three paragraphs.
To summarize:
-- You, individually, have made significant motions to reduce your impact in the form of reducing emissions, picking up trash, reducing waste, and reducing energy consumption.
-- The 'Resistance'* you identify comes from people with more resources than you. You argue that those pretend they can do very little to change.
My summary of what you are arguing for in terms of how difference can be made is focused on individual action and change. My impression of your argument is that we, either alone or as a set, are or can be responsible for making the differences that will or could result in a significant difference regarding climate change.
I think its disingenuous and irresponsible to put the onus on individuals. Most people on this planet are in a daily struggle to survive and the idea that they have the agency to make the kinds of changes you say that they need to make is presumptuous and frankly, classist. Most families and individuals on this planets are have 80-90% of their waking hours filled with activities that barely sustain them at above struggling conditions. They have 0 additional bandwidth to make the kinds of changes you are describing because even a few mistakes or wasted actions will cause their lives to tumble into collapse where they end up homeless or destitute and begging on the streets. And yes, while living in a hedgerow behind the walmart will result in an overall lower rate of population and over consumption, I don't think global impoverishment is a viable strategy towards reversing climate change.
The second issue with this way of thinking is that as easily as some one changes their actions or behavior for the better, this can just as easily be reversed.
A third issue, is that focusing on individual action only addresses the terminal node in a chain of consumption, the visible obvious bit. What it fails to address is the 'under-the-hood' components of a chain of consumption, when its the 'under-the-components' that represent much/ most of the real environmental impacts of over consumption.
Nibbling around the edges of issues is not going to result in the kinds of change we need. The kinds of change we need have to be baked into the cake of how we engage with society, which means they'll have to be somewhat central to how society is constructed. Fundamentally, I would argue, the unit of organisation or incorporation needs to be addressed. Organisations and corporations need to be attached to the outcome of their behaviors in the same ways that individuals are. A massive overhaul of how we organize institutionally needs to make anything other than a middling difference.
A final point I'll make is that we've put the onus on individuals to make their own difference for the past 60 years and the effects of this strategy are self evident. Individuals simply can not collectively make the kinds of difference required to move the needle with an issue as entire or existential as climate change. Individuals have been engaging in the kind of change implementation strategy you are describing for 60+ years. Consumption and pollution haven't gotten better they've gotten worse.
My proposal to address this: Corporations and institutions need to be able to quantify and address the externalities of their productions before any profits can be made. For changes to be effective we need governments and we need the ability to create regulation which is central to they way our societies operate. Putting the onus on individuals is a short term, ineffective strategy, both in theory and in practice. It puts additional pressure on people who can barely handle it, and is easily reversed. It does nothing to address the vast majority of externalities related to consumption (the ones not visible at the supermarket shelves). It provides a psychological relief valve for people to think that they've 'done enough' and precludes the need for them to invest in institutional change. Addressing change as an individual is nibbling at the edges of something that needs to be addressed systematically at the core of how societies operates. Citing the individual as the unit over which change can or should operate is at best an anesthetic and at worst, prevents the ability to implement change at an institutional level.
*I think you should define what you mean here. I'm not gonna go chase down that definition for some keyboard fencing. Also its your interpretation of that word that matters.
> Consequently the two temperatures defining the core of krill distribution (7–13 °C) were 8° of latitude apart 60 years ago but are presently only 4° apart.
Krill lost 50% of their habitat in the last 60 years. This article has been added to my favorites because this is one piece of evidence that shows that climate change won’t just shift organisms north, but will result in reductions of species that will impact our ecosystems.