Two earths needed every year by 2050

CocheseUGA

CAGiversary!
Feedback
33 (100%)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061024/ts_nm/environment_wwf_planet_dc

BEIJING (Reuters) - Humans are stripping nature at an unprecedented rate and will need two planets' worth of natural resources every year by 2050 on current trends, the WWF conservation group said on Tuesday.

Populations of many species, from fish to mammals, had fallen by about a third from 1970 to 2003 largely because of human threats such as pollution, clearing of forests and overfishing, the group also said in a two-yearly report.

"For more than 20 years we have exceeded the earth's ability to support a consumptive lifestyle that is unsustainable and we cannot afford to continue down this path," WWF Director-General James Leape said, launching the WWF's 2006 Living Planet Report.

"If everyone around the world lived as those in America, we would need five planets to support us," Leape, an American, said in Beijing.

People in the United Arab Emirates were placing most stress per capita on the planet ahead of those in the United States, Finland and Canada, the report said.

Australia was also living well beyond its means.

The average Australian used 6.6 "global" hectares to support their developed lifestyle, ranking behind the United States and Canada, but ahead of the United Kingdom, Russia, China and Japan.

"If the rest of the world led the kind of lifestyles we do here in Australia, we would require three-and-a-half planets to provide the resources we use and to absorb the waste," said Greg Bourne, WWF-Australia chief executive officer.

Everyone would have to change lifestyles -- cutting use of fossil fuels and improving management of everything from farming to fisheries.

"As countries work to improve the well-being of their people, they risk bypassing the goal of sustainability," said Leape, speaking in an energy-efficient building at Beijing's prestigous Tsinghua University.

"It is inevitable that this disconnect will eventually limit the abilities of poor countries to develop and rich countries to maintain their prosperity," he added.

The report said humans' "ecological footprint" -- the demand people place on the natural world -- was 25 percent greater than the planet's annual ability to provide everything from food to energy and recycle all human waste in 2003.

In the previous report, the 2001 overshoot was 21 percent.

"On current projections humanity, will be using two planets' worth of natural resources by 2050 -- if those resources have not run out by then," the latest report said.

"People are turning resources into waste faster than nature can turn waste back into resources."

RISING POPULATION

"Humanity's footprint has more than tripled between 1961 and 2003," it said. Consumption has outpaced a surge in the world's population, to 6.5 billion from 3 billion in 1960. U.N. projections show a surge to 9 billion people around 2050.

It said that the footprint from use of fossil fuels, whose heat-trapping emissions are widely blamed for pushing up world temperatures, was the fastest-growing cause of strain.

Leape said China, home to a fifth of the world's population and whose economy is booming, was making the right move in pledging to reduce its energy consumption by 20 percent over the next five years.

"Much will depend on the decisions made by China, India and other rapidly developing countries," he added.

The WWF report also said that an index tracking 1,300 vetebrate species -- birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals -- showed that populations had fallen for most by about 30 percent because of factors including a loss of habitats to farms.

Among species most under pressure included the swordfish and the South African Cape vulture. Those bucking the trend included rising populations of the Javan rhinoceros and the northern hairy-nosed wombat in Australia.

(Additional reporting by Alister Doyle in Helsinki)

The question is, what can the average person do to convince companies to be more earth friendly? When we live in a world of premade PBJ sandwiches, how are we to convince someone to do more to use less?
 
It would be a matter of using your dollars. Course, companies can usually survive if only a few people decide not to buy their product. So the trick, as usuall, would be to form a grassroots movement informing people to stop shopping certain products and or companies. Either spend their dollars at companies that have a proven record of being eco-friendly or just not buying the product period.
If the only option is to not buy a product, can you convince enough people to give up their convenience for a greater cause? Most people agree something needs to be done about many issues, but when it comes down to it they don't do anything. Time, money, family, etc all suck the energy people have to make a difference in the world, community, school district, etc.
I believe that the majority of people, while they may do a little recycling here and there, won't really make a big effort until the problem is smacking them in the face. By that time though, it may be too late.
 
Dont sorry, they'll be lots of ever more violent resource wars to keep the population in check.

Also, we need to get over ourselves enough to have food thats made of people.
 
Look at what's happening in Europe, they can't sustain their current population size, Canada would be the same without immigration.

In developed countries, this is a self-correcting problem.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']
Also, we need to get over ourselves enough to have food thats made of people.[/quote]

Soylent Green
 
[quote name='David85']I think we need a world war to get rid of 3-4 billion people.[/quote]

We don't need to get rid of them, simply sterilize them.
 
[quote name='camoor']Look at what's happening in Europe, they can't sustain their current population size, Canada would be the same without immigration.

In developed countries, this is a self-correcting problem.[/QUOTE]

It's not a question of population, but use. When people use over 3x what the earth can produce, then population becomes less of a factor. What needs to happen is to reduce the factor of consumption, that will provide results quicker.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']We don't need to get rid of them, simply sterilize them.[/QUOTE]


Getting rid of them is easier.
 
[quote name='David85']Getting rid of them is easier.[/quote]

And more satisfying.

I think these "experts" are only experts at making shitty conclusions.

1960-2000 population goes from 3 billion to 6.4.
Then they say that it'll hit 9b by 2050?

It more than doubled in 40 years. Now there are more people in a time frame 10 years larger. Something isn't adding up.
 
[quote name='Kayden']And more satisfying.

I think these "experts" are only experts at making shitty conclusions.

1960-2000 population goes from 3 billion to 6.4.
Then they say that it'll hit 9b by 2050?

It more than doubled in 40 years. Now there are more people in a time frame 10 years larger. Something isn't adding up.[/QUOTE]

Population eventually takes a slide as resources are unavailable. They have to also predict wars in that equation, too. Population will slow down as people die from malnutrition.
 
[quote name='Kayden']And more satisfying.

I think these "experts" are only experts at making shitty conclusions.

1960-2000 population goes from 3 billion to 6.4.
Then they say that it'll hit 9b by 2050?

It more than doubled in 40 years. Now there are more people in a time frame 10 years larger. Something isn't adding up.[/quote]

Are these the same experts that predicted this in 1975?

In April, 1975, in an issue mostly taken up with stories about the collapse of the American-backed government of South Vietnam, NEWSWEEK published a small back-page article about a very different kind of disaster. Citing "ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically," the magazine warned of an impending "drastic decline in food production." Political disruptions stemming from food shortages could affect "just about every nation on earth." Scientists urged governments to consider emergency action to head off the terrible threat of . . . well, if you had been following the climate-change debates at the time, you'd have known that the threat was: global cooling.

Funny how in 30 yrs we went from Global Cooling disasters to Global Warming Disasters.
 
How do you always manage to get the subject matter wrong?

This article wasn't about global warming- it was mentioned, but it was about overpopulation.

Stemcell.

[quote name='schuerm26']Are these the same experts that predicted this in 1975?

In April, 1975, in an issue mostly taken up with stories about the collapse of the American-backed government of South Vietnam, NEWSWEEK published a small back-page article about a very different kind of disaster. Citing "ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically," the magazine warned of an impending "drastic decline in food production." Political disruptions stemming from food shortages could affect "just about every nation on earth." Scientists urged governments to consider emergency action to head off the terrible threat of . . . well, if you had been following the climate-change debates at the time, you'd have known that the threat was: global cooling.

Funny how in 30 yrs we went from Global Cooling disasters to Global Warming Disasters.[/quote]
 
No Kidding, was that the point (sarcasm)? The point was all these so called experts that make these predictions continually get them wrong, yet you libs buy into the nonsense every time.
 
First, let's not forget that the WWF does have some vested interest in alarmist pro-environmental hysteria.

[quote name='Kayden']This article wasn't about global warming- it was mentioned, but it was about overpopulation.[/QUOTE]

Who schuerm26 should have referenced, from that same period, was the posterboy for overpopulation alarmism, Paul Ehrlich. His 1968 book, The Overpopulation Bomb, is so similar to this WWF release as to make me wonder whether this is the Cliff Notes version with the dates changed:

[quote name='Paul Ehrlich']The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate...[/QUOTE]
Source: Overpopulation.com

He also, to make this post a little more relevant to the OP and just to show that I did not miss the point, makes similar claims about resources, the most famous being his bet with University of Maryland economist Julian Simon:

Perhaps Ehrlich's best known blunder is a 1980 bet he made with University of Maryland economist Julian Simon. Dr. Simon, who believes that human ingenuity holds the answers to population growth problems, asserted that if Ehrlich were correct and the world truly was heading toward an era of scarcity, then the price of various commodities would rise over time. Simon predicted that prices would fall instead and challenged Ehrlich to pick any commodity and any future date to illustrate his point. Ehrlich accepted the challenge: In October 1980, he purchased $1,000 worth of five metals ($200 each) -- tin, tungsten, copper, nickel and chrome. Ehrlich bet that if the combined value of all five metals he purchased was higher in 1990, Simon would have to pay him the difference. If the prices turned out to be lower, Ehrlich would pay Simon the difference. Ten years later, Ehrlich sent Simon a check for $576 -- all five metals had fallen in price.
Source: The National Centre for Public Policy Research
*note: I do realize that this is an expressedly libertarian think tank, but they summed up the story nicely for my quoting purposes.

The quote that most sums up his beliefs, and the beliefs of many, is the following:
[quote name='Paul Ehrlich']Since natural resources are finite, increased consumption must inevitably lead to depletion and scarcity.[/QUOTE]
Source: JunkScience.com

Unfortunately, this has been proven time and again to be untrue.
 
[quote name='Fanboy']
Unfortunately, this has been proven time and again to be untrue.[/QUOTE]

As a blanket statement, this is categorically false. When a resource is overused, it goes away. It's not that hard to comprehend. Lakes are drying up all over the world from overuse. At some point, the animal's need for oxygen will be greater than the supply due to deforestation. It's a closed cycle: when one gets decimated, the other will suffer.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']As a blanket statement, this is categorically false. When a resource is overused, it goes away. It's not that hard to comprehend. Lakes are drying up all over the world from overuse. At some point, the animal's need for oxygen will be greater than the supply due to deforestation. It's a closed cycle: when one gets decimated, the other will suffer.[/QUOTE]

Not true, plant growth has increased to accomodate this. Not to say deforestation is a good thing (it's not), but nature has other ways to maintain the balance.

I think the biggest thing the alarmists on these sorts of issues don't realize is the quickest and best solution is to modernize developing and Third World countries. There's a reason why countries in Europe, Japan, and even the United States (if you don't count immigration) are not growing in population, and many (Japan, Russia) are shrinking: empowered women don't have as many kids. We should be concentrating on moving lesser-developed societies into the modern world, including non-murder birth control.
 
Like mass extinctions? :roll:

[quote name='elprincipe']Not true, plant growth has increased to accomodate this. Not to say deforestation is a good thing (it's not), but nature has other ways to maintain the balance.[/quote]
 
[quote name='elprincipe']
I think the biggest thing the alarmists on these sorts of issues don't realize is the quickest and best solution is to modernize developing and Third World countries. There's a reason why countries in Europe, Japan, and even the United States (if you don't count immigration) are not growing in population, and many (Japan, Russia) are shrinking: empowered women don't have as many kids. We should be concentrating on moving lesser-developed societies into the modern world, including non-murder birth control.[/QUOTE]

That's an interesting take that I never thought of, though I would surmise that the increased per capita demand on natural resources that would occur in modernization would outweigh the decline in birth rate.
 
While we may not be in danger of suffication, the earth's atmospheric oxygen content is decreasing. Not at a significant rate right now, but it is decreasing (Ralph Keeling, 1995)

The content was not about developing countries (which severly harm the environment) but of the developed ones. Like the article says, if everyone was as developed as we are, then we'd need five planets to support our lifestyle. If you look at the theory they present, it would suggest people in developed nations use more of the earth's resources per person than underdeveloped and developing nations do. While these 'third world' countries do use a ton of resources trying to compete with the rest of the world, we are the ones who could feasibly do something about it.

There are more registered vehicles in this country than there are people in the United Kingdom. Americans generate nearly 500 million tons of waste annually, China 1/4th that amount with over 4x the amount of people (The US ranks 10th on the HDI list, whereas China ranks 88 out of 173. Norway, which is #1, produces 365kg of waste per year/person (as of 2003) wheras Americans produce 888kg (as of 2001))

I'm not looking to pick semantics, but the issue isn't population, it's how much we use per person.
 
So your solution is to kill everyone?

Why not find alternative feul sources or stop polluting the planet?

Instead you want global genocide?
 
[quote name='AdultLink']So your solution is to kill everyone?

Why not find alternative feul sources or stop polluting the planet?

Instead you want global genocide?[/QUOTE]

Even though I know you aren't addressing me, you need to point out who you're addressing to.
 
[quote name='AdultLink']So your solution is to kill everyone?

Why not find alternative feul sources or stop polluting the planet?

Instead you want global genocide?[/quote]

Dead people would be much better, especially combined with new fuel and better tech.
 
So, the WWF says that we need to conserve our resources? But, we can't do that alone, we need some help? Oh, who will help us? I know...


foto_Hulk_Hogan.jpg
 
bread's done
Back
Top