It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Sunday called the drying up of the Aral Sea one of the planet's most shocking disasters and urged Central Asian leaders to step up efforts to solve the problem.
Once the world's fourth-largest lake, the sea has shrunk by 90 percent since the rivers that feed it were largely diverted in a Soviet project to boost cotton production in the arid region.
The sea's evaporation has left layers of highly salted sand, which winds can carry as far away as Scandin
Originally posted by ziggy1706
Well, it does mention the problem didnt start, till the russians dug trneches basically, to divert the water elsewhere. Myabe they shuol just simply refill those diversion lines, see if the lake stops disappearing. All started as soon as man interveened with it. put it back!
Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
I think the other thing you might want to investigate here as well, is that as we move into the brave new world of Carbon Credits and Green Energy, the dry lakebed of this leg would potentially be a huge source of Lithium.
Lithium is almost always found under the salty surfaces of dried lake beds, in a crust below the salt in briny ground water.
Two of the biggest sources of Lithium in the world are very remote and hard to access. The biggest output comes from Brazil, with locations in Peru and Bolivia having huge deposits, but very hard to ship out of their mountainous remote locations.
Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
I am still upset the landbridge from North America to Asia got flooded over a 100,000 years ago!
Where was the U.N. then I tell you!
[Can you imagine how many times over millions of years the topography of the earth has changed?
[It’s true as a species we are invasive and parasitical in nature, but that is the nature of the beast.
[Here in Florida the Everglades were largely drained back in the 60’s and 70’s, partially filled in, other parts diverted and since then climatologists and enviromentalists have stated that it has destroyed the natural ecosystem and watershed and will have a devastating long term impact.
Of course they eventually decided to spend billions of dollars to buy out the mostly sugar farmers who started working the reclaimed land. Of course U.S. Sugar is about the most heavily government subsidized agricultural segment that there is.
The funny thing is that the rains do keep coming, and no real shortage of water exists,
Yes, the amount of water doesn't change.But the type and quality of water does.
and the parts of the Everglades left unmolested are still naturally supporting wildlife and even new invading species.
Invading species means that an ecology has been weakened and is allowing invasive species in. And wildlife existing somewhere doesn't meant the ecology is healthy. That is like saying a game preserve in Africa that has elephants going beserk from lack of space is a a healthy ecology and everything is just fine.
They could just pay the money to the sugar growers.
So are they restoring the Everglades really for the ecosystem, or are they restoring the Everglades to give the Sugar growers one last big fat subsidy by buying out their lands and facilities for 100’s of times what they are actually worth?
[Where environmental concerns are concerns I think it’s a wise idea to follow the money.
Most environmental concerns are caused by money, poor planning, and greed. Which end up costing a lot of money to fix. Superfund sites are perfect examples of someone having to spend a lot of money to clean up someone's mess that wanted to save money. But it doesn't mean that it isn't an environmental catastrophe.
Yes I am sure that people living along this lake have seen their way of life disappear, but how many of them are there and were there, compared to how many people that are being supported by the diverted water?
Ultimately there is always a tradeoff, and if this lake proves to be anything like the everglades, restoring it, will be a big cash cow, for the very same factions who profited off of diverting it.
This was the fourth largest lake in the world. Have any idea how big that is. Just slightly smaller then the Great Lakes.
Now the Great Lakes in the US, because of their size, affect the weather of the entire US. To say there is a tradeoff is sticking your head in the sand and trying to pretend there isn't a problem.
If suddenly lake Michigan were drained, that would be an epic disaster. The loss would be in-describable, the affects on environment and jobs would be radical.
But since this is happening an another area that doesn't affect you, you write it off as no big deal.
How sad.
Originally posted by spacedonk
another article on this with more photos in the UK today:
daily mail
Originally posted by SLAYER69
Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
So you're saying that the US "California or Utah SALT Flats" could be potentially a lithium goldmine? I wouldn't try to drag this story into the whole "Climate change and Global Warming" bit. The Soviets tried to create a workers paradise and in the process destroyed some of their environment.
This is just yet another example of the Soviet Style of mismanagement. I remember reading about this situation back in the 1980s and how this would some day be an environmental disaster.
Well that day is here.
It's not like nobody knew about it then.
They didnt do anything about it.