https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47203344
Climate change ---Natural process, nothing humans can do either way. We're just along for the ride. Note the climate changde long before the Industrial Revolution, and before humans were much of a presence on the planet. It is only the desires for lucre and power that have a few running around saying they have the solution to a problem that they cannot solve if you just give them your freedom, your money, your life. (It's a scam)
Mass loss of species. Again, the panic. Reality is that 99+% of all species which ever existed are extinct. Google the Permian extinction, not to mention that little bit of fireworks at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary. Those are just two of the most massive extinction events in the planet's history, and like the other mass extinctions, they occurred without human help.
Topsoil erosion. First, I ask where this is going on? In the US, after the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, shelter belts were planted, many of which still exist. Farmers understand that good practices (contour plowing, strip cropping on severe inclines, crop rotation, among others) all conserve their means of production. Now more farmers go out of business through tax laws (Inheritance taxes, esp), predatory loans, and old age than fallow land. Why? Because the causes of topsoil erosion were identified, nutrients were replaced (with the exception of some micro nutrients) by application of fertilizers or use of cover crops and crop rotation which put the nitrogen back into the soil. We've been learning more about agronomy since George Washington was experimenting with it at Mount Vernon and before. So, I'll wager the slash and burn farming of the third world is likely more a problem than first-world agriculture. Just a point, that topsoil eroded is not destroyed, but relocated. It's sad if that means it is being lost to use because it is sediment in a waterway somewhere, but it still exists. More farmland (which is nice to build on, too) is likely lost to development here in the US than erosion.
Forrest Felling Not so you would know it, at least not in the US. Most of the timber harvested here is farmed timber, the rest judiciously protected by one law or another and agency policy. Keep in mind, trees have life spans, too, and an age at which they are best for harvest. The building materials companies and paper mills have vast acreages of trees grown for their purposes, harvested on a schedule, with replacements planted afterwards. Elsewhere, yep, trees are felled for everything from the lumber to firewood to clearing land for agriculture. But here, right in the USA, trees have been protected to the point where infestations of critters like the pine bark beetle have spread and killed massive acreages, acreages which were not harvested, but left to provide wildfire fuel. Not good forest policy, and something which has created problems from California to the East.
Good forestry policy would provide for the harvesting of mature trees and clearing of undergrowth, the planting of new trees to replace those harvested, and would, in the interim, provide a varied habitat for forest animals to thrive in. Meadows provide grazing for game and other animals, which in turn feed the predators, including humans so inclined to hunt. The problem is that you cannot preserve a dynamic system in stasis, which is what current policy attempts, to the detriment of the ecosystem.
Acidifying oceans--Just how much acid would it take to vary the pH of 70% of the earth's surface by one tenth? How much of that comes from natural sources? Volcanoes emit roughly 10% of thee SO2 globally, the rest comes from smelters, Flaring H2S in the oil and gas industry, and the use of fuels containing sulfur. While those low level (human emissions) may well rain out as sulfurous acid (H2SO3), formed in atmosphere, the volcanic emissions and some human ones actually cause a reduction in temperature. Mt. Pinatubo was credited for reducing global temperatures by almost a degree Fahrenheit, because those emissions went well up into the atmosphere and reflected sunlight.
Note, that fuels standards required a large reduction in sulfur, and similarly, smoke stack emissions from point sources (Power plants and smelters) have been a regulatory moving target for a couple of decades, reducing such emissions by some 90% in the past decade and a half. At least in the US, flaring of Natural Gas at well sites has been seriously discouraged by regulations, and while H2S is commonly flared at gas processing facilities, that is a safety concern (the gas is highly toxic). So man made low level emissions of acid causing atmospheric chemicals have been on the decline. Similarly, unless you are the EPA releasing mine water, the amount of leachate from tailings piles from mining activity has been more stringently controlled, human contributions to acid rain and acid in ocean water have been significantly reduced. The caveat, of course, is that 'developing' countries are given a pass on emissions controls, while the USA has done significantly more to counter any ill effects that may occur. It makes no sense to require the USA to reduce its smokestack emissions to little more than steam, and let the Chinese and others produce emissions at a far greater rate. We've done our part, let the rest of the world do theirs.
If other nations need to clean up their act, let them.
