Earth's Oceans Face Mass Extinction

[Plumb bob]

Here ya go.

Per capita the US is Number 5 (CO2).

China is Number 80..

SOURCE: World Resources Institute. 2003. Carbon Emissions from energy use and cement manufacturing, 1850 to 2000. Available on-line through the Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) at Washington, DC: World Resources Institute

CO2 Emissions (per capita) (most recent) by country

I'll see if there's something more recent.

Well Wikipedia has you at number 9 for 2007 and China at 96.

Waste has the US firmly at number 1 per capita at 720 tons (I think) per person per year.

Pollution municipal waste per capita by country. Definition, graph and map.

Where I come from comes in at number 4 which reveals the lie about NZ being clean and green...

There's more if you want it..

 

[Thalassamania]

With 5% of the world's population the US uses 23% of the world's resources (and by extension, since everything winds up in the ocean eventually) produces 23% of the word's pollution. If you show it per capita we are the worst offenders by far.

 

[MauiScubaSteve]

If we steer clear of Wikipedia, which warns that most of it's pages on related subjects are using only one source of data, there are many studies that rarely have the USA lower than 2nd worst.

Graph Showing Each Country's Share of CO2 Emissions | Union of Concerned Scientists

The page linked above claims that for '08, China and the USA topped total CO2 emissions and Australia and the USA topped per capita CO2 emissions.

Ecological footprint by country. Definition, graph and map.

The second linked page claims the USA only trails the UAE in ecological footprint per capita.

I am proud to say that I own 3 circa '90's auto's, am surrounded by all but my very first computer, nearly all the underwater camera gear I've ever purchased and lots of second hand dive gear.

 

[smellzlikefish]

Sounds like Hale hit the nail on the head. Strive to buy less, and less will end up in our water. If you do have to buy, purchase stuff that didn't have to be made especially for you (used).

 

[jva]

I have actually read the Science article in question.

It doesn't predict that our oceans face a mass extinction.

It merely attempts to identify the effects of adaptive radiations and extinctions using the fossil record, mentioning the present in terms like "today's extinction crisis". Furthermore, it concludes that:

(...) it would be unwise to assume that any large number of species can be lost today without forever altering the basic biological character of Earth’s oceans.

Species are going extinct at very high rates globally (i.e. there's a mass extinction going on), and we've known this for years, so it shouldn't be news anyway.

All too often science reporting is really terrible. (I haven't read the Sun article, so I can't comment on that.)


Reference:
Alroy J (2010). The Shifting Balance of Diversity Among Major Marine Animal Groups. Science 329:1191–1194. doi:10.1126/science.1189910