Environmental 'Doomsday Prophecy' Debunked in New Study

CNSNews ^ | 9/6/02 | Marc Morano

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

A "doomsday prophecy" that says mankind needs at least 1.2 more planet Earths to maintain its present standard of living is based on a weak scientific foundation, according to a new study.

The 43-page analytical study, "Assessing the Ecological Footprint: A Look at the [World Wildlife Fund's] Living Planet Report 2002," was released by Bjorn Lomborg's Danish Environmental Assessment Institute, and it was timed to coincide with the Earth summit here.

The report refutes computer models used in the "doomsday prophecy."

Lomborg, the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, blames his conversion from a committed member of the Green movement to a skeptic on the Green's distortion of eco-science.

An associate of Lomborg, Olivier Rubin, told CNSNews.com that said the World Wildlife Fund's "dire predictions" about the Earth were "generated by excluding technological progress and human creativity from a model that already has inherent mathematical tendency to overshoot and collapse."

But Gordon Shepherd of the World Wildlife Fund defended the Living Planet report, calling Lomborg's analysis "complete nonsense."

The Fund's Living Planet report maintains that the Earth is currently in a "global overdraft" and "the only sustainable solution is to live within the biological productive capacity of the earth."

Unless sustainability is adhered to, "severe ecological backlashes undermining future population and economic growth" will occur, the Living Planet report says.

'Deficit spending of the worst kind'

Since the Living Planet report was released, the worldwide media and the international environmental community have cited it frequently.

Time magazine, in its special August 26 Earth Summit edition, based the following assessment on the Living Planet report: "The amount of crops, animals and other bio matter we extract from the earth each year exceeds what the planet can replace by an estimated 20%, meaning it takes 14.4 months to replenish what we use in 12 [months] - deficit spending of the worst kind," the magazine said.

Others have also expanded upon the initial "1.2 extra planets" estimate. The exaggerated number of Earths hit a high at the Earth summit this week, when former Governor of California Jerry Brown said mankind needs \ldblquote another five planets" for ecological survival.

According to the Danish institute's analysis, the Living Planet report holds that a doomsday scenario will unfold if current development trends are not reversed. Under that scenario, future global life expectancy would be 25 years; global per-capita gross domestic product would fall to a level equaling that of present-day Sudan; and education levels would fall by 2050.

Rubin called the World Wildlife Fund's report remarkable for it's pessimism. "The WWF presented some very ominous predictions for the mid-century generations," Rubin said.

'Disparity in consumption'

The Living Planet Report's recommendations to avoid catastrophe include redressing the "disparity in consumption between high and low income countries" and controlling population growth through the promotion of "universal education and health care," in order to avoid ecological disaster

"We have no doubt that the information is correct...from a scientific and technical point of view," said Gordon Shepherd of the World Wildlife Fund.

Shepherd did concede, however, that more data is necessary to project accurately into the future.

"There is a paucity of information available, and if governments stopped listening to attacks from people like Lomborg, we would have more data," Shepherd told CNSNews.com .

'Eco-centric'

But Rubin countered that Living Planet projections are of an "arbitrary nature," and the supposed need for 1.2 more planets is "a one-dimensional figure that relies on an extremely eco-centric sustainability understanding."

Rubin believes the whole focus of the report on present-day deprivation is misguided.

"At present it could seem that we focus so much on the problems ahead that we fail to address the problems facing vast parts of humanity every day - the lack of access to food, water, sanitation and education," Rubin said.

"We are simply not spending enough of the Earth's sustainable capacity to accommodate present basic needs. The world's poor and hungry have a legitimate right to demand that we try," Rubin said.

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

"The WWF presented some very ominous predictions for the mid-century generations," Rubin said.

I'm wondering, is NWO part of WWF. And, regardless, on whose side are Sting and Hulk Hogan these days?

[nobdysfool]

The Living Planet Report's recommendations to avoid catastrophe include redressing the "disparity in consumption between high and low income countries" and controlling population growth through the promotion of "universal education and health care," in order to avoid ecological disaster

And we all know how that "disparity" will be redressed, don't we? It won't be raising the standard of living for the poorer countries, it will be lowering the standard of living for the rich countries by redistributing the earned wealth of the rich countries by taxation and confiscation, and giving it to the poor who didn't earn it and won't use it correctly, because it will be concentrated in the hands of a few dictators and tyrants.

Redistribution of wealth is always at the heart of these environmental wacko schemes. And it's always my "wealth" they want to redistribute.

[Goodlife]

If we had 2 planets, we'd need 2.4 planets.

[Free the USA]

Index Bump

[mvpel]

Let's just settle Mars. It has the same land area as the earth.

[Made In The USA]

Preserving green space is very important to our "chillun's" future. We should immediately, and I mean IMMEDIATELY, begin taking every scrap of garbage in our landfills and send them to Saudi Arabia for storage in the desert. Just trying to be helpful....

[Prodigal Son]

It has the same land area as the earth.

LOL! It took me a few seconds of head scratching to make that one work out- the lack of oceans on Mars didn't pop into my head right away...

[yoe]

'Eco-centric' pretty well describes the masses of the ill-informed at this last summit meeting in Johannesburg where none of the United Nations agencies have achieved the first iota of reducing the multitudes of starving and diseased people, they have in fact made the plight of these people worse by not teaching them to help themselves, just handing them, the lucky ones, more global welfare. Here are some snippets explaining the wasted time, money and modern resources for the political gain for a few.

During this century, we experienced a temperature rise of approximately half of these values. Crop yields quintupled. Life span doubled, in part because of better nutrition. Winters warmed. Growing seasons lengthened. The planet became greener. Increasing carbon dioxide had something to do with each and every one of these. There is simply no logical reason to assume that doing the same, this time in 50, instead of 100 years, will have any different effect in kind. That kind of improvement in the quality of human life could hardly be caused by a "pollutant."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/climate/

In February 2000, the Administration sent its fiscal year 2001 budget request to the U.S. Congress. It includes about $4 billion in programs related to climate change. The proposal includes about $1.6 billion in fiscal year 2001 for tax incentives, research and development, and other spending for the Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI). CCTI includes tax incentives for energy efficiency improvements and renewable technologies for buildings, light-duty vehicles, and electricity generation. Other funding covers research, development, and deployment for energy-efficient and renewable technologies, more efficient generating technologies, and carbon sequestration research.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Environuts.