Impending Environmental Disaster

[Timber Loftis]

According to the WWF. Of course, their view is very biased. I don't think they've ever had a stance that anything dealing with the environment is in good shape. But, read on. Some interesting statistics.

Today's BNA Reporter:

WWF Report Cites 'Alarming' Degradation
In Sustainability, Soaring 'Ecological Debt'

GENEVA--The human race is "plundering the planet at a pace that far outstrips its capacity to support life," the environmental organization Worldwide Fund for Nature International warned in a new study made public Oct. 21.
In its latest Living Planet Report, WWF said the human race is now consuming 20 percent more natural resources than the planet can produce. Populations of terrestrial, freshwater, and marine species declined by an average of 40 percent between 1970 and 2000, the environmental organization added.

WWF described the 40 percent decline as a "critical blow to the vitality and resilience of the world's natural systems."

The organization also said that under a projected "slow growth" scenario, the amount of natural resources consumed by the human race will reach 2.3 times the planet's biological capacity by 2050 unless efforts are made to reduce demand.

"We are spending nature's capital faster than it can regenerate," declared WWF Director-General Claude Martin. "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."

WWF argued the only way to reduce the "ecological debt" is through declining human demand for natural resources. Actions that could help ensure sustainability include encouraging full cost pricing for all goods and services, from energy to water; making transport pricing reflect the full cost of road and air travel; implementing comprehensive waste reduction systems and introducing design requirements that reduce energy use; and providing fiscal incentives to reduce consumption, minimize waste generation, and promote renewable and efficient energies.

The survey is the fifth Living Planet Report to be issued by WWF. The report includes a Living Planet Index measuring overall trends in populations of wild species around the world, as well as an "Ecological Footprint" measuring people's natural resource consumption.

The report, based primarily on statistics from 2001, presents a more comprehensive view on the state of the planet's health by including more species and population trends than in the previous report issued in 2002, WWF said.


U.S. Among Biggest Consumers

The United States is one of the biggest resource-consuming countries on the planet, according to the WWF survey. The U.S. ecological footprint--the total area required to produce the food, absorb the waste from energy consumption, and provide space for infrastructure for each of the country's inhabitants--stood at 9.5 hectares (23.47 acres) per person in 2001, well above the 2.2-hectare (5.44-acre) global average. The only country exceeding the United States of the 148 nations surveyed was the United Arab Emirates, where the footprint averaged 9.9 hectares (24.46 acres) per person.
In comparison, the average ecological footprint for Western Europe stood at 5.1 hectares (12.60 acres) per person, while in Africa, Asia, and the Latin American/Caribbean region, the average stood at 1.2 hectares (2.97 acres), 1.3 hectares (3.21 acres), and 3.1 hectares (7.66 acres), respectively.

WWF said the earth's biocapacity, that is, the planet's biologically productive areas, stood at 11.3 billion hectares (27.92 billion acres) in 2001, or an average of 1.8 acres (4.45 acres) per person. If other countries were to reach the consumption level of the United States, it would "clearly be an unsustainable situation," declared Jonathan Loh, one of the authors of the report.

The environmental organization also said the U.S. ecological footprint per inhabitant increased by an average of 7 percent between 1991-2001 compared to 5 percent in Western Europe, and 6 percent in Asia and Latin America/Caribbean. On the other hand, Africa's ecological footprint fell 5 percent. The global average during the same period shrank 2 percent.

In another worrying trend, China's ecological footprint per habitant jumped 14 percent between 1991-2001, a decade of extraordinary economic growth, although the country's overall average remained at a relatively low 1.5 hectares (3.71 acres) per person.

[shamrock_uk]

I find the 'ecological footprint' a very interesting way of measuring the impact we have.

Whilst I'm not a climate change expert, we only have to look at the weather in the last 3 - 5 years to see that something's changing. Or even the three Ironworks Hurricanes in such a short period of time. It seems that we're definitely experiencing more extremes these days.

In any case, you can juggle climate statistics round all day, but it seems just common-sense to believe that reducing the amount of toxic crap we pump into the air is a desirable goal...

[ 10-22-2004, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Timber Loftis]

Well, it's not that simple. CO2 only became "toxic crap" in the last 15 years. When I was in school, it was simply that innocuous invisible compound that we breathe out, and that trees breathe in.

[Lucern]

That article sounds on par with much of what ecologists have learned in the past decades, especially regarding mass extinction due to habitat destruction.

WWF argued the only way to reduce the "ecological debt" is through declining human demand for natural resources. Actions that could help ensure sustainability include encouraging full cost pricing for all goods and services, from energy to water; making transport pricing reflect the full cost of road and air travel

And this is where the seemingly ethical thing to do can be most easily accomplished by being inhumane. There wouldn't be such a huge imprint if there weren't so many of us, or if some of us (Americans and those who live like us) didn't live like we did. It seems to me that such price-adjusting would decrease humanity's footprint by reducing demand on those who can afford it and starving the rest.

It would be hard to swallow if regional economy became a more severe selective pressure on humans than it has in the past, to put it in evolutionary terms.

[ 10-22-2004, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: Lucern ]

I find anyone who would listen to the World Wrestling Federation on ECO matters to be of questionable intelect

On a more serious note, yep the US is the largest consumer...it also happens to be (by a large margin) also the largest PROVIDER....but of course no one wants to give credit where it's due....just want to rag on the big guy.

[johnny]

And tell Nostradamus i want his mother out of my appartment by sunday, enough is enough.

[Lucern]

Or perhaps the world's ecosystems are collectively the ONLY provider and humans are taking so much out of the pot that the provider can't keep up with demand. US agriculture and other natural resource providers are essentially middle-men.

I saw more than enough blame to go around in that article for all nations with people.

Population aside, how people live is important to determining their impact on the environment. The US gets singled out because of our disproportionate impact by population. Imagine the black hole of resource consumption China and India could eventually become - multiples of our population living at the same level. Sustainable human population would be a moot point by then.

And Johnny - though I disagree emphatically at any implication that this is prophesy or wild speculation - LOL that was funny.

[Aerich]

Originally posted by MagiK: I find anyone who would listen to the World Wrestling Federation on ECO matters to be of questionable intelect

Are you aware that the now-WWE had their spandex sued off by the World Wildlife Foundation over the acronym?

LOL No Aerich I wasn't aware of that! [img]smile.gif[/img]