
California’s Monarch Butterfly Population Hits Record Low - cs702
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/09/science/monarch-butterfly-california.html
======
iaw
> Gardeners, for one, can plant milkweed to support the surviving monarchs.
> And towns could help local habitats thrive by planting new trees now so that
> in 20 years, generations of monarchs have new places to winter.

Highlighting this for anyone that didn't catch it in the article.

Edit: Link to artursapek's comment on a seed supplier (in this thread but
buried under a low voted parent)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18912699](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18912699)

~~~
kevmo
TL;DR Do your part and plant some plants, people.

~~~
threatofrain
I'm surprised there aren't collective coordination apps for things like this.

~~~
ecshafer
Meetup.com probably has groups for those sort of things.

~~~
threatofrain
I thought Meetup is more so for physical meetings.

------
jobbagy
FYI: Scientist Brad Lister returned to Puerto Rican rainforest after 35 years
to find 98% of ground insects had vanished
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/15/insect-c...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/15/insect-
collapse-we-are-destroying-our-life-support-systems)

~~~
Eric_WVGG
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18909650](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18909650)

------
TaylorAlexander
“The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, a nonprofit group that
conducts a yearly census of the western monarch, said the population reached
historic lows in 2018, an estimated 86 percent decline from the previous year.

That in itself would be troubling news. But, combined with a 97 percent
decline in the total population since the 1980s, this year’s count is
‘potentially catastrophic,’ according to the biologist Emma Pelton.”

That’s the hard bit for me.

What are we doing to this planet? What will it become? The monarchs are a
blessing of a creature. Will we just watch them wither away? Can we escape our
petty dramatized politics and think of what we are passing on to future
generations? Not just high tech benefits, but mountains of plastics for
packaging, toys, and many “novelties” that are useless except for cheap
thrills.

So while many will say our system has brought great wealth for humans, it’s
important to think about which humans have seen wealth and which have seen
further destruction. And what species and vistas all of humanity lost to gain
our treasures. Those too have a cost, but not much that any of us will have to
bear. The cost is paid by someone else we’ve never met or who may never be
born yet. But sometimes, stories like this remind us of the great damage we
are doing to this Earth.

~~~
njarboe
And yet:

"Monarchs in the western part of the United States migrate for the winter to
California, where they gather mostly among fragrant eucalyptus trees, which
provide hospitable living conditions."

These eucalyptus trees, many planted in the 1800's and are now quite large and
beautiful, are under attack by many environmental groups for being non-native
and others for being a fire hazard. Maybe they did not even winter in
California until those invasive trees were planted?

Life is complicated, but in general humans have been becoming much more
respectful of the environment as we become more wealthy. The key to preserving
the wonderfully complicated ecosystems on Earth is probably to continue as
rapidly as possible with our tech improvements (and get back on pace from
where we stopped in the 1970's) and to eventually turn all of Earth into a
park, a la Bezo's plan. Don't work to shut down nuclear power tech (we have
plenty of coal to burn and that is much worse) but help it improve. Support a
safe waste storage solution instead of using that problem to shut down future
construction.

The other alternative really boils down to a belief that it would be best if
humans weren't around. Most humans rightly oppose this view and evolution will
tend to support an increase in people with that view in the long run. A
religion that has "don't have children" as a belief won't last long.

~~~
RGamma
> Life is complicated, but in general humans have been becoming much more
> respectful of the environment as we become more wealthy. [...]

You can't be serious... [https://cdn-
images-1.medium.com/max/2000/1*IOUIWy_MZuECIpZRK...](https://cdn-
images-1.medium.com/max/2000/1*IOUIWy_MZuECIpZRK9hy6Q.jpeg) ("The Great
Acceleration")

Also read The Anthropocene Review whenever you feel too optimistic about the
future.

In fact now that I read your comment again, there's virtually not a single
statement I can agree with.

Our current way of "householding" ("economy (from Greek οίκος – "household"
and νέμoμαι – "manage")") with this planet is thrashing ecosystems left and
right. This is because mankind's economy has long taken on a life of its own,
serving itself, without anyone pricing in "negative externalities" (another
way of saying we're turning Earth into a Wall-E-esque dystopia, except we're
not going to have a big space station to live on).

~~~
joshuahedlund
I recommend Stephen Pinker's _Enlightenment Now_ for a data/evidence-driven
case for optimism on the environmental front. Still plenty of cause for
pessimism/alarm, but reason for hope as well. As societies progress beyond
poverty they expand their circle of concern beyond immediate survival to their
surrounding environment. In fact this entire discussion is part of that
expansion.

~~~
groby_b
[https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/jeremy-
lent/ste...](https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/jeremy-lent/steven-
pinker-s-ideas-are-fatally-flawed-these-eight-graphs-show-why)

------
bmurphy1976
I'd really like to know how fireflies/lightning bugs have been impacted. It's
anecdotal, but it seems to me there has been a precipitous fall in their
populations as well here in the midwest.

I remember childhood evenings filled with them, they were everywhere, our
grass was constantly crawling with them during the day. Now, I rarely ever see
any during the day and at night I can count all the flashes.

It's not all my imagination. My cousin lives next to a farm. They have a
couple acres they turned into a natural prairie. You can see the difference,
the prairie lights up with activity at night, the farm is dead. A flash here
or there is all you can see. Absolute stark contrast to the farm fields and
well manicured laws of their neighbors.

EDIT: I found a link: [https://www.firefly.org/why-are-fireflies-
disappearing.html](https://www.firefly.org/why-are-fireflies-
disappearing.html)

~~~
christophilus
My brother’s yard and mine positively swarm with fireflies. More than I
remember as a child. It’s because we don’t mow our yards much, and we allow
large patches of wild local prairie like plants. Our neighboring yards have
almost no insect life at all. So yes, our obsession with trim, grass lawns is
a big problem.

~~~
bmurphy1976
The weird thing is I grew up in a neighborhood with obsessively trimmed grass.
There was still no shortage of fireflies 30 years ago.

While our monoculture lawns are certainly part of the problem, it seems
there's more to it than that. They are losing on multiple fronts including our
chemical warfare on the local environment and various climate change related
issues.

------
rconti
I visited the Pacific Grove butterfly sanctuary each of the past couple of
years. It's really amazing. This year (2018), the count was way down, but they
were saying (hoping) it was a bit too early in the season yet. I guess not :-/

------
bloomingfractal
IMHO, there's no point in individual action, we need collective political
action in the form of massive government intervention, pretty much like in a
total war economy. The free market clearly has failed here:

\- Carbon tax.

\- Carbon tariffs.

\- Expropriation of all oil fields, the oil has to stay in the ground.

\- Criminal prosecution of executives and shareholders of Oil companies much
like what should have happened to the Tobacco industry.

\- Job program (right to employment) to re-train the workforce in green
technologies, specially in areas that will be affected by the aforementioned
measures.

~~~
jlarocco
Sorry, but that will never work and isn't feasible to implement.

The real problem is that billions of people want to drive and buy products
that require burning oil to produce. Oil companies are just giving people what
they want.

Shutting down oil companies before dealing with the massive demand is a recipe
for failure.

~~~
notJim
Or maybe shutting down oil companies will create the demand for an
alternative.

~~~
kamaal
A variation of that is what controlling carbon emissions is about. But no
country wants to commit to it, because no other competing country wants to
commit to it.

Basically any body who will do it, gives away the economic edge to a competing
country. On a longer run these things will add up and then you end up handing
over the thrown of geo political control to that country. Basically the
existing super power(s) can't and won't do it because, doing so will create
new super powers, and loss of their own standing in the world. And the
aspiring super powers won't do it because, obviously it's hypocritical to ask
others to cut down on emissions, when you won't do it personally yourself.

There is no reason for any developing economy to believe why the existing
super powers should have the sole right to run an industrialized developed
economy with first world benefits, while developing economies should be even
prevented from giving their people a good life.

~~~
genidoi
Brilliant - combine this with Russia economically benefiting from climate
change - emerging artic shipping routes / oil drilling opportunities from ice
melting[0] - and people wonder why climate change cynicism is on the rise.

[0] [https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/russia-to-reap-
benefits-...](https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/russia-to-reap-benefits-
from-climate-59145)

------
crushcrashcrush
I grew up in the East Bay, directly across from a regional park - Ardenwood
Historic Farm.

Used to see giant eucalyptus positively twitching alive with Monarchs.

Haven't seen a single one this year since I've been visiting my mother who
still lives in the neighborhood.

------
janvdberg
Is this one of those things where, in 50 years time, people will say: "how did
they not know" or "why didn't they do anything!"

~~~
babyslothzoo
It's likely that all matters of unsustainable behavior will eventually be
looked upon that way by a more enlightened future. Unless we continue to dumb
ourselves down with misinformation, willful ignorance, and the banishment of
uncomfortable/unpopular ideas, of course.

~~~
ForHackernews
That's assuming there's much of a future, enlightened or otherwise.

~~~
babyslothzoo
True. And I think there's a strong argument to be made that humans will
destroy themselves before getting there.

------
hi41
I heard an interview where the scientist said that we need to stop mowing our
lawns. This will help the butterfly and bee population to thrive. We need to
change our township laws so that we can do that. That is a tough challenge but
something we can achieve if we work together.

~~~
cwkoss
I don't think grasses, even tall ones, are particularly useful for butterflies
and bees.

I think you may find it more effective to create some some mulched areas for
growing wildflowers and perennials like milkweed.

Mowed lawns are silly and ecologically destructive for several reasons, but I
think re:insects its more about habitat loss than any properties of the lawn
itself.

~~~
ip26
Wildflowers and perennials and so forth are by far the best- but my small
lawn, ringed by native xeriscape, is significantly more "alive" with
grasshoppers, insects, and spiders when it's long than when I mow it. Sample
size of one.

~~~
cwkoss
Sounds nice!

Yeah, I probably should have said _pollenating_ insects don't get so much
benefit from long grass.

I've also heard that 'edges' of ecosystems tend to be the most productive (as
it gets the interaction between two ecologies). Your xeriscape is probably
making your grass ecosystem healthier too.

------
calebm
I've been suspicious of things like Roundup weed killer for a while. Over the
last several years, I've stopped using residential weed killers on my
property, and I have noticed a little uptick in monarchs and fireflies
recently.

Of course, it's more annoying keeping your yard looking immaculate without
those chemicals - you have to pull weeds more, but it's not really that big of
a deal.

The "easy" path often has its downsides.

~~~
chmaynard
Don't try to make the land around your home "immaculate". Suburban lawns are a
terrible idea, especially in the Western US. Diverse plant communities are
much more attractive and hospitable to wildlife.

------
scoopdewoop
This is so sad to hear. I lived in Pacific Grove as a child about 18 years
ago. The monarchs would cover trees and entire yards, turning them bright
orange. It was the closest thing that we had to seasons. To be 27 and
realizing that this natural wonder could already be a thing of the past is
heartbreaking.

------
cronix
I'm curious about how many species that _aren 't_ visible to the naked eye are
disappearing. Most of the species that we know are in decline are those that
we can easily see and therefore easily notice. How about the microworld?
Bacteria? Other things that are critical to the life-cycle?

~~~
plussed_reader
Life requires the bio-mass to perpetuate; if people take up the share of all
bio-mass in their bodies life finds a way to unlock and reuse that material.
I'm guessing a new microorganism that will take the place of some of these
depleting species.

Or how about the bacteria that is able to break down plastic? We (still)have
to worry about the various fungus that developed and transitioned the world
out of the carboniferous period.

------
kemiller
I'm wondering if the fires may have had an impact. We found one during the
hazy days that wasn't really moving and nursed it back to health before
returning it to the wild after the smoke cleared. I know butterflies have only
a limited time in that form but I like to think it made it.

------
herf
This article says rising CO2 is making milkweed toxic, and as everyone knows
we are killing milkweed (as "weed") - with a billion stems needed to fix the
problem:

[https://relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/publ...](https://relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/animals/2018/12/monarch-
butterflies-risk-extinction-climate-change)

------
ourmandave
Oh thanks, California. Now I have to rewrite the setting of my time travelling
novel because there's no more butterflies.

------
notjustanymike
The butterflies are dying is definitely the start of a disaster / apocalypse
movie.

------
bryan11
I planted butterfly bushes and milkweed to attract more butterflies in our
area. After my city started spraying city-wide for mosquitoes, the butterflies
and bees vanished.

------
esemor
At the same time the global oil subsidies was close to a trillion dollars in
2018. If only that was spent else where...

~~~
mac01021
Where did you find this fact? I would like to find it too.

------
artursapek
Not that we're not ruining this planet, but these specific monarch statistics
might not be showing the full picture:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/adiku0/monarch_butter...](https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/adiku0/monarch_butterfly_numbers_plummet_86_percent_in/edhafdd/)

~~~
djsumdog
I've seen articles like this posted elsewhere and I've also seen scientist
chime in and be critical of the numbers posted, showing problems with the
methodology. I'm surprised I can't find many threads talking about the actual
data in this post.

------
drugme
Utterly terrifying.

------
james_s_tayler
Maybe numbers are down because it has an image problem? Monarchs haven't been
popular for a while now, perhaps try renaming it to Democrat Butterfly?

------
malchow
Drain Lake Lag, reroute water pipelines, stop controlled burns, raise the gas
tax, and float a special bond. We’ll save you, butterflies!

------
tabtab
The butterflies told a reporter that the "rent is too high in California".

------
TheSwordsman
We are so fucked...

------
ryanwaggoner
I'd like to discuss how this fits into the broader context and ask some stupid
questions. In attempt to quell some downvotes, let me state upfront that I'm
fully convinced climate change is real, human-caused, should be reversed even
if the cost is very great, etc.

That said, articles like this frustrate me because I don't think they provide
enough context for why we should care. Literally no one I know is going to
give up their creature comforts of smartphones, electric lighting, driving the
car they want to drive, eating meat, having kids, A/C, commercial air travel,
etc. just to save a species of _butterfly_.

What's the ultimate consequence if Monarch butterflies no longer exist? Is it
just early warning of other bad things? What are _those_ things?

And the big question that I don't see answered much: if we lose a bunch of
species to climate change before we get our act together, why does that
ultimately matter? Is it just sad? Is it that we don't know what will happen
if things start changing really rapidly? What _could_ happen in the worst case
scenario?

Wikipedia lists [1] a bunch of North American species that have gone extinct
in the past 1500 years. I'm surprised by how short the lists are, and how few
there are in the past decade. And no one seems to care about these species...I
don't know anyone lamenting the loss of the Eelgrass limpet or the Ash Meadows
killifish.

I'm _very_ pessimistic about our ability to get a handle on climate change in
the next 50 years. Our civilization is not built for this challenge. I hope
I'm wrong though.

But at the same time, I'm very optimistic about the biosphere for the next
1000 years. We'll switch to renewables or fusion, probably do large-scale
geoengineering to correct some damage, and we'll adjust as a species.

That doesn't mean hundreds of millions or even billions of people won't suffer
and die in the transition. We _absolutely_ should fix it before hand if we
can.

But the people claiming that humans will be extinct in 50 years because of
climate change are completely out of their minds. It sounds like a religious
argument to me, not one based on the science. Humans are cockroaches; we're
not going anywhere unless an asteroid hits the earth. And it completely
undermines the rational case to be made for why we should address climate
change.

On the non-human front, a lot of plants and animals will either go extinct or
almost go extinct but then most populations will recover. Our descendants
mostly won't care about the species we lost, just like we don't care now about
the "missing" species we lost a long time ago. We may even figure out ways to
revive extinct species.

But I'm not a biologist or climate scientist, so I may be completely wrong.
Don't tell me why I should be alarmed, because I already am. Tell me why
people who don't care about butterflies should be terrified about the prospect
of them disappearing. And whatever that story is, start telling it more, and
connecting the butterfly story to it more, because otherwise it's just noise.

~~~
sosuke
Just for the sake of extra data I am in support of the systematic extinction
of mosquitoes. There have been studies to show if they were removed entirely
it would have minimal impact on the world while at the same time saving
countless lives.

And I'm also optimistic about the biosphere for the next few million years.
The world will go on until the Sun burns every living away after going into
it's red giant stage. But that is several billion years off so we're good for
now.

At the same time I think we have the capability to care about other species
and hubris to believe we can shape our existence. So I want to change our
ecosystem to do less damage to the current biosphere.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
_At the same time I think we have the capability to care about other species
and hubris to believe we can shape our existence. So I want to change our
ecosystem to do less damage to the current biosphere._

I completely agree.

------
porpoisely
Dupe?

There's already a discussion on a general insect population decline on the
frontpage.

"Insect collapse"

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18909650](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18909650)

~~~
searine
They might be two different issues. General insect collapse is likely dude to
the overuse of broad spectrum insecticides. Monarch collapse is more likely
due to reductions in milkweed population.

Milkweed is often found on the edges of corn/soy fields so there is definitely
an add on effect, but its probably not the root cause. The solution is pretty
clear though, if you care about monarchs, plant some milkweed.

~~~
artursapek
I have a ziploc bag in my fridge with my first set of milkweed seeds...
preparing them for sowing with a month of cold stratification. I am planning
to give the seedlings out to neighbors this Spring.

Anyone wishing to do the same can buy some seeds here:
[https://www.rareseeds.com/milkweed-butterfly-
weed/](https://www.rareseeds.com/milkweed-butterfly-weed/)

~~~
mark-r
It turns out there are many varieties of milkweeds. The one I'm familiar with
here in the midwest is this one:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asclepias_syriaca](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asclepias_syriaca)

~~~
artursapek
The one I linked supposedly does well in CO, where I live.

