World Living Beyond Its Environmental Means-WWF

[leftchick]

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=6569738§ion=news


<snip>

Urging governments to move rapidly to restore the ecological balance, the Swiss-based group said rich countries, particularly in North America, were largely to blame for the situation.

"We are running up an ecological debt which we will not be able to pay off," Dr Claude Martin, director-general of WWF International, told a news conference.

In its 'Living Planet Report 2004,' the fifth in a series, the WWF said that between 1970 and 2000, populations of marine and terrestrial species fell 30 percent. That of freshwater species declined 50 percent.

"This is a direct consequence of increasing human demand for food, fiber, energy and water," it said.

What WWF calls the "ecological footprint" -- the amount of productive land needed on average worldwide to sustain one person -- currently stood at 2.2 hectares (5.43 acres).

But the earth had only 1.8 hectares (4.45 acres) per head -- based on the planet's estimated 11.3 billion hectares (27.9 billion acres) of productive land and sea space divided between its 6.1 billion people.

"...humans consume 20 percent more natural resources than the earth can produce," WWF said.

[IrateCitizen]

1. And where, oh where, is the "liberal media" on this???

This is a crisis that makes "international terrorism" seem like a sandbox fight by comparison. Yet, our "leaders" do little or nothing about it.

We are currently in the midst of the largest mass-extinction since the end of the dinosaurs. We are literally fishing out the oceans of many species (cod and swordfish, for example). Our industrialized agricultural practices are destroying arable topsoil. We're cutting down our forests and rainforests. Our global average temperatures are rising, and severe weather phenomena are becoming more frequent.

Yet, it's all pooh-poohed away as "inconclusive" or "requiring further study". I shudder when I realize that we won't see it as "conclusive" until it's already too late to do anything about it.

[The Zanti Regent]

2. They don't care.

The millionaire PRESSTITUTES who dominate our airwaves don't care.

Bob Somerby draws up a damning indictment of them every day in the Daily Howler. His latest series details how Ted Koppel was obsessed with showing off his new toy to...Colin Powell...

More? see http://www.dailyhowler.com

[Lorien]

3. I agree completely

I keep waiting for Kerry to bring this issue up, but the GOP has effectivly neutralized it over the past decade, turning it into a touchy feely "bleeding heart" issue. It's the most important issue facing us today. IMO; what's a terrorist attack on the WTC and Pentagon compared to the complete collapse of the world's ecosystem? People escaped from the WTC, but there's no place to run when you can no longer grow food, or breathe.

[IrateCitizen]

4. Kerry won't bring it up, because Dems are just as complicit...

I recall watching the third debate when BOTH candidates spoke of the need to "increase consumption" in order to get the economy back on track.

Increase consumption? Excuse me -- if we are ALREADY stretching the earth's resources beyond their means, and at the same time encouraging other developing nations to follow the US model of economic growth (resulting in resources being stretched even THINNER), just how in the fuck are we supposed to realistically, INCREASE consumption???

The problem is, even if Kerry wanted to acknowledge this reality, he couldn't -- because not only would it require the acknowledgement that the Democrats have been just as complicit in encouraging this catastrophe along, but also because the American people enjoy living in a state of denial and would tar and feather him if he dared to challenge their bubble worldview.

Sadly, I think that like so many other things, this will not be dealt with until the crisis is in full bloom. And by then it will be too late to do anything but try to hunker down, and survive....

[Lorien]

5. And it's not just the repugs who discount this

and pay no heed to this impending disaster; look at our own "liberal" boards-will this thread have as many replies as "ABC hit "Desperate Housewives" losing sponsers"? We've been trained to ignore that which effects us the most in favor of meaningless drivel intended to ignite controversy. The corporations can continue polluting, and the citizens can remain nothing more to their corporate owned government than a "consumer". How long do we have left? 20 years? 30? it isn't long at the current rate.

[gulfcoastliberal]

7. This is why I haven't had childen

I'm 28 and feel no need nor do I desire to bring a kid into this world. As part of the reality community I see just how fucked up the current state of affairs is, particularly the ecological/environmental destruction. All the parents out there should be deeply concerned about this. It's gonna be your kids who pay the price for your inaction.

[IrateCitizen]

8. Of course, you can look at kids from another perspective...

The world will need children born to parents who teach them to be ecologically conscious and responsible if we're to have any hope of dealing with these problems. Of course, it also helps to limit yourself to one child, two at the most, because of overpopluation of the planet. If you want more kids than that, there's always adoption....

[reprobate]

14. Won't do much good when there's no air to breathe.

More than half the oxygen we need to survive is generated by the phytoplankton in the oceans. The photoplankton is dieing in unprecidented masses. There are already areas of the oceans that are oxygen depleted. Add to that the destruction of the rain forests. It's clear that homo sapiens is a species that has the flaw of self destruction in its social genes.

[IrateCitizen]

18. NONE of the actions combatting eco-destruction will help much then...

However, that doesn't mean that we should just give up either.

Hope is working for a better world in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

[BeFree]

6. How long will it hold?

That's the question: When will the fabric holding together life on this little blue mud-ball spinning in the deep dark blankness of space, rip apart?

Unless we unleash the 1,000s of nukes (likely), life on the planet will survive. But I doubt there will be many humans, one way or the other.

One could label the whole scenario as an Abortion. Abortion on the grandest scale possible. Global Abortion.

[jokerman93]

9. Bush says we'll all be dead by then anyway

It breaks my heart and I speculate. The seemingly willful corporate/governement obfuscation of the current worldwide ecological crisis seems almost diabolical. I can only speculate about a kind of willful "genocide of neglect" going on here by those who expect to insulate themselves and their lineages in a protective bubble of stolen wealth.

Are we at this point by design, or is this evidence of our species as a failed evolutionary pathway?

[Gregorian]

10. Yeah, whatever.... Let's go shopping.

We're all living like kings. Better than kings could ever live, before.
Combine that with the multiplicity of beings on the planet, and you have your recipe for disaster.
I see several mindsets that allow this to happen:
There's the "Just me" concept. It comes from not being able to see or think beyond one's own nose. Or house.
Then there is the standard of living below which one won't live. I am selling my house. I had a buyer lowball an offer. And with that offer came her list of reasons. There was paint, and flooring, and $10,000 for a new kitchen. A paved driveway for $20,000. Now the money is one thing, but think of the btu's. Just think of the btu's to manufacture that stuff. The shipping for kitchen cabinets. The asphalt for a third mile of driveway. This is the same house that the previous owner happily lived in, and raised two kids. So why isn't it good enough for the clown who made the offer?
I'll tell you why. It's partly because people don't know what goes into "stuff". Does it really take an engineering degree to understand? No. It just takes a bit of education. But we would never educate our people on the subject of consumption. We blab about the history of wars, in our classrooms. And how Christopher Columbus did something that led to some stupid bullshit. And I also believe that with all of the people, and the crap quality of life now, which is primarily due to all of the CARS, making noise, and keeping us separate from one another, we tend to use our houses as our world's.

I got a photograph from my dad yesterday. My grandparents were Armenian. They grew up in a place that had no electricity. No hot water. No bathroom. And to see how we live now, compared to those pictures, makes it all so obvious.

We are living beyond our means. Our standard of living will have to decrease, or we all sink together, as the tides rise.

[trogdor]

12. paving, schmaving!

I don't have 1/3 mi. of driveway, but I do have about 170-180 feet, part of which is two lanes wide. Last winter I swore I was going to have it blacktopped, but I reconsidered and ordered a truckload of fresh gravel, which I spent the remainder of the summer spreading with a shovel, a wheelbarrow, and a steel rake. I think I'm going to keep it that way.

Edit: I kind of wonder what kind of ecological damage I would be doing if I did have blacktop put on my driveway. I like my well water just fine without the sort of stuff that would probably seep into the ground by paving my driveway. Anybody have more input on this?

[IrateCitizen]

16. Re: well water and blacktop paving

Given the size of your driveway, the effects of bituminous paving on your driveway would be extremely minimal to non-existant.

The primary problem with paved surfaces isn't as much toxins and chemicals in the surfaces themselves as it is the runoff problems they create. Large paved areas have a much faster "surge" time during storm events, as 100% of the water flows off the surface rather than a portion being absorbed into it, along with the fact that pavement is much smoother than grass, so the water flows faster.

WRT toxins, the main problems arise with paved areas when you have contaminants that are spilled on the paved surface (i.e. oil leaks), and these contaminants are then washed into the adjacent watersheds during precipitation events. Furthermore, if you're talking about underground aquifers (wells), the soil will likely filter out any/all of these contaminants prior to any water seeping down to your well aquifer.

[Trillo]

15. The Homeless don't live as consumers,

they live more like scavengers. Local governments do a lot to prevent scavenging behaviors, and re-indoctrinate them to the life of consumption. Where is the land, and the will, available for those who wish to live as gatherers?

[Zorra]

11. And Bu$h is the most environmentally destructive WH Resident in history.

[Supersedeas]

13. how might "The Good Stewart" reply to this?

[Sin]

17. I wonder

It says we consume 20% are they factoring oil into figuring that out. I just wonder if amount of acres for food production would be greater per person if there was a shorten supply of were limited.
Or to put it another way were only running at the capacity we are
with oil. Guess this is just the inner peak thoughts coming out.
very interesting stuff thanks for the post :)

[IrateCitizen]

19. Oil really isn't a big consideration on this...

What they are talking about more are necessities for life -- clean freshwater supplies (for drinking), clean air (for breathing), and arable soil (for producing food).

Oil and other fossil fuels are actually a resource that contributes to the degradement of all three of the above resources, and fossil fuels are not essential for life (although our lives would change drastically without them). They produce pollutants which degrade our air and drinking water, and they encourage industrialized agricultural practices that are heavily dependent on chemicals while stressing the topsoil to the point that it begins to degrade into non-arable soil or simply erodes away.

[Sin]

21. Ahhh i see

What you say about oil is quite true.
I would just hate to see the what would happen on the human level
if the would would revert to post industrial levels.
its just sad to see this world get destroyed at sutch a break neck pace. Its bound to come to a head sooner rather then later.
I hail from Pottsville Pa its a nice area but if ya look close enuff you can still plainly see the scars left by are industrial jump and coal harvesting past and present. only some places it is returning to norm. While others will never be the same. :(

[HysteryDiagnosis]

20. humans consume 20 percent more natural resources<<

Sort it out by nation and we get the booby prize.

http://dieoff.org/page120.htm
PUTTING THE BITE ON PLANET EARTH:
Rapid Human Population Growth is Devouring Global Natural Resources

Sort it out pollution and we are just a runner up --> www.scorecard.org