Posted on 10/22/2004 1:34:34 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
GENEVA — People are plundering the world's resources at a pace that outstrips the planet's capacity to sustain life, the environmental group WWF said Thursday.
In its regular "Living Planet Report," the World Wide Fund for Nature said humans currently consume 20 percent more natural resources than the Earth can produce.
Consumption of fossil fuels such as coal, gas, and oil increased by almost 700 percent between 1961 and 2001, it said. But the planet is unable to move as fast to absorb the resulting carbon-dioxide emissions that degrade the Earth's protective ozone layer.
"We are spending nature's capital faster than it can regenerate," said WWF chief Claude Martin, launching the conservation body's 40-page study. "We are running up an ecological debt which we won't be able to pay off unless governments restore the balance between our consumption of natural resources and the earth's ability to renew them."
Populations of terrestrial, freshwater, and marine species fell on average by 40 percent between 1970 and 2000, the study said. It cited destruction of natural habitats, pollution, overfishing, and the introduction by humans of nonnative animals, such as cats and rats, who often drive out indigenous species.
"The question is how the world's entire population live with the resources of one planet," said Jonathan Loh, one of the report's authors.
The study, WWF's fifth since 1998, examines the "ecological footprint" — or environmental impact — of the planet's 6.1 billion–strong population.
To calculate the average size of each person's footprint, it measures land use, pollution, energy consumption, and the level of carbon-dioxide emissions.
The impact of an average North American is double that of a European, but seven times that of the average Asian or African.
Overall, the biggest culprits are the residents of the United Arab Emirates, followed by the United States, Kuwait, Australia, and Sweden. The least damaging are residents of Afghanistan, Somalia, Haiti, Tajikistan, and Bangladesh.
Rich nations tread heavily on poorer countries, said Mathis Wacknagel, head of the Global Footprint Network, a grouping including WWF. For example, Western demand for of Asia's palm oil and soybeans from South America has fueled destruction of natural habitats in those regions.
The study also warned of increasing pressure on the planet's resources amid spiraling consumption in Asia, led by fast-growing China and India.
"We can consume energy in a way that's harmful or in a way that's sustainable," Loh told reporters. The technologies are available to enable the world's population to live within the capacity of one planet."
Governments, businesses, and consumers should switch to energy-efficient technology, such as solar power, Loh said, adding that high oil prices may help focus their minds.
"It's not a question of how much oil is left," he said. "The question we should be asking is how much fossil fuel consumption the Earth can sustain. The Earth has a limited capacity."
Kid gets up at 6 AM.
She 's VERY slow in the morning and hates being rushed.
Needs time to make her bed, get cleaned up and to vegitate in front of cartoons with her hot chocolate and cereal before she leaves.
( Bus comes at 7:15)
She's mildly autistic and it's just better to send her to bed early on a school noight and let her fiddle around the morning after.
MUCH less trauma.
"We have more Enviro-wackos than the Earth can sustain."
LOL
"There is plenty of everything for everyone on the planet. The world is abundant"
Second part right, first part wrong. The Earth is abundant but not finite. There are limitations to the use of certain resources. Fish are the best example. BUt there is also a limited amount of land, and oil and everything else.
The point is that there is enough right now. But humans would probably like to continue to live quite well as a species in the future.
We need to invest some of our finite resources into finding alternatives. As I said, there are market-based mechanisms for doing this. Some are already in place, others are not. But unqualified statements like yours just make the right look as kooky as the left.
I encourage everyone to go out and cut a tree down today. And maybe club a seal or two.
Use the tree for a good reason. Same applies to the seals.
"Do you know how traumatic his childhood was?"
I have heard lawyers use this excuse for murderes and child-molesters.
"Do you believe that 6 billion people, i.e the current population of the world, can have a decent standard of living based on the amount of resources we have"?
It depends on how you define "decent standard of living". But if you mean, enough to eat, wear and live in, combined with access to education and the opportunity to "be all that one can be" - yes it is possible, but mostly a matter of choice and governance on the part of those who don't have it. Can 6 billion people consume resources at the pace that Americans currently do - no.
"Have you read "The Deep Hot Biosphere" by Thomas Gold."
No, I will take a look and see if I can find it.
"Do you know who Malthus was ?"
I'll tell you what. You keep your money, you get the Mojo and I'll get your baby (sound of lips smacking).
Like I expected: "This here planet's gettin' a little uppity. Let's strip mine it until it cries uncle."
No, actually fish are NOT an example. Fish are a renewable resource. The problem with fish is the method by which they are taken is indiscriminate and wasteful.
The only "finite" resource that I know about is/are fossil fuels.
And the "problem" is already fixing itself, as incomes rise and education increases, birth rates fall.
This was the second person I was thinking of. Well, technically the first...as you know Henny penny was neither real nor a person.
Dr. Paul Ehrlich also came to mind.
Is Vince ready to unveil wrestlings newest start: "The Mean Green Machine"?
Right. If you can stand to sustain a debate for very long with an enviro-whacko, you'll soon find out that they would very much like to see the human population curtailed radically. They won't usually come out and admit it (at least to an opponent) frankly.
Ayn Rand stated that the left hates all humanity because individual leftists hate themselves.
(steely)
First, I I meant to write, "infinite".
Second, I think we agree but are talking past each other.
I did not mention the difference between renewable and non-renewable resources. Just limitations.
As you pointed out, there is a total absolute limit on the amount of oil avaiable for human use on the earth.
Fish, on the other hand reproduce and will continue to do so forever.
The limits on the amount of oil we use will be reached at some point, or another resource will replace it.
However, getting the oceans to produce the maximum number of fish requires responsible stewardship (a.k.a. privatization).
My point is that despite the abundancy of the planet there are abolute limits (within the current confines of technology)because the planet is finite. Many of those limits we can identify fairly well. If we go beyond those limits we will all be poorer as a result.
The problem with your argument is the "within the limits of current technology" phrase. We have NO IDEA what the limits of the planet are (and why should we be bound by the limits of the planet, anyway), as we have no idea what the limits of technology are. "Eco-fanatics" assume that there will BE no technological advances (and they are doing their damndest to see that there ARE none). Unfortunately, the historic record says they are completely wrong.
To take your "fish" example--to increase the supply of fish, FARM THE OCEANS. This "will" take an increase in technology (actually, not so much an increase in technology in the sense of "new science" as a re-allocation of economic resources).
Instead, the eco-nutcases want us to implement global socialism, kill off 90% of humanity, and go back to oxcarts and windmills (but, of course, only for the "peasants"---the "intelligentsia"/"nomenklatura" won't give up their private jets to ride in those oxcarts).
Once again, I think you should recognize that we agree with each other here.
In terms of fish farming however, it is really necessary to understand that currently the oceans produce food for humans without any effort other than to harvest it.
If it is necessary to allocate capital in order to "farm" the oceans i.e. create conditions by which fish are raised and fed, then the costs for the same amount of fish may well go up.
The oceans really do provide a service by farming themselves. If we don't harvest it sustainably, we lose out on this service.
In terms of technology, necessity is the mother of invention.
When we are talking about our planet, precaution is appropriate and prudent. But, not hysteria.
WE should see the agenda of the left for what it is though. It is not about the planet, it is about power.
HIGHLY unlikely. The more likely result is that productivity will go up so much that prices will go DOWN.
The equivalent situation today is the harvesting of "wild rice" vs. standard rice farming. Which has the highest cost?? Answer---wild rice harvesting.
I can't agree with you on that. Producivity will only increase if there is more food available to the fish. If more food is made available that means it comes from somewhere - perhaps agriculture. Then we are just transferring one food source to another and providing ourselves a service. Unlike the current situation in which mother nature does it for free.
Regardless, the only real solution is to privatise the fisheries.
You forgot to mention have a bowl of beans with the next meal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.