WORLD TO END 2050 - women, poor hardest hit

by Nathan Natas 14 Replies latest jw friends

  • Nathan Natas
    Nathan Natas

    http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,750783,00.html

    Earth 'will expire by 2050'

    Our planet is running out of room and resources. Modern man has plundered so much, a damning report claims this week, that outer space will have to be colonised

    Mark Townsend and Jason Burke
    Sunday July 7, 2002
    The Observer

    Earth's population will be forced to colonise two planets within 50 years if natural resources continue to be exploited at the current rate, according to a report out this week. A study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), to be released on Tuesday, warns that the human race is plundering the planet at a pace that outstrips its capacity to support life.

    In a damning condemnation of Western society's high consumption levels, it adds that the extra planets (the equivalent size of Earth) will be required by the year 2050 as existing resources are exhausted.

    The report, based on scientific data from across the world, reveals that more than a third of the natural world has been destroyed by humans over the past three decades.

    Using the image of the need for mankind to colonise space as a stark illustration of the problems facing Earth, the report warns that either consumption rates are dramatically and rapidly lowered or the planet will no longer be able to sustain its growing population.

    Experts say that seas will become emptied of fish while forests - which absorb carbon dioxide emissions - are completely destroyed and freshwater supplies become scarce and polluted.

    The report offers a vivid warning that either people curb their extravagant lifestyles or risk leaving the onus on scientists to locate another planet that can sustain human life. Since this is unlikely to happen, the only option is to cut consumption now.

    Systematic overexploitation of the planet's oceans has meant the North Atlantic's cod stocks have collapsed from an estimated spawning stock of 264,000 tonnes in 1970 to under 60,000 in 1995.

    The study will also reveal a sharp fall in the planet's ecosystems between 1970 and 2002 with the Earth's forest cover shrinking by about 12 per cent, the ocean's biodiversity by a third and freshwater ecosystems in the region of 55 per cent.

    The Living Planet report uses an index to illustrate the shocking level of deterioration in the world's forests as well as marine and freshwater ecosystems. Using 1970 as a baseline year and giving it a value of 100, the index has dropped to a new low of around 65 in the space of a single generation.

    It is not just humans who are at risk. Scientists, who examined data for 350 kinds of mammals, birds, reptiles and fish, also found the numbers of many species have more than halved.

    Martin Jenkins, senior adviser for the World Conservation Monitoring Centre in Cambridge, which helped compile the report, said: 'It seems things are getting worse faster than possibly ever before. Never has one single species had such an overwhelming influence. We are entering uncharted territory.'

    Figures from the centre reveal that black rhino numbers have fallen from 65,000 in 1970 to around 3,100 now. Numbers of African elephants have fallen from around 1.2 million in 1980 to just over half a million while the population of tigers has fallen by 95 per cent during the past century.

    The UK's birdsong population has also seen a drastic fall with the corn bunting population declining by 92 per cent between 1970 and 2000, the tree sparrow by 90 per cent and the spotted flycatcher by 70 per cent.

    Experts, however, say it is difficult to ascertain how many species have vanished for ever because a species has to disappear for 50 years before it can be declared extinct.

    Attention is now focused on next month's Earth Summit in Johannesburg, the most important environmental negotiations for a decade.

    However, the talks remain bedevilled with claims that no agreements will be reached and that US President George W. Bush will fail to attend.

    Matthew Spencer, a spokesman for Greenpeace, said: 'There will have to be concessions from the richer nations to the poorer ones or there will be fireworks.'

    The preparatory conference for the summit, held in Bali last month, was marred by disputes between developed nations and poorer states and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), despite efforts by British politicians to broker compromises on key issues.

    America, which sent 300 delegates to the conference, is accused of blocking many of the key initiatives on energy use, biodiversity and corporate responsibility.

    The WWF report shames the US for placing the greatest pressure on the environment. It found the average US resident consumes almost double the resources as that of a UK citizen and more than 24 times that of some Africans.

    Based on factors such as a nation's consumption of grain, fish, wood and fresh water along with its emissions of carbon dioxide from industry and cars, the report provides an ecological 'footprint' for each country by showing how much land is required to support each resident.

    America's consumption 'footprint' is 12.2 hectares per head of population compared to the UK's 6.29ha while Western Europe as a whole stands at 6.28ha. In Ethiopia the figure is 2ha, falling to just half a hectare for Burundi, the country that consumes least resources.

    The report, which will be unveiled in Geneva, warns that the wasteful lifestyles of the rich nations are mainly responsible for the exploitation and depletion of natural wealth. Human consumption has doubled over the last 30 years and continues to accelerate by 1.5 per cent a year.

    Now WWF wants world leaders to use its findings to agree on specific actions to curb the population's impact on the planet.

    A spokesman for WWF UK, said: 'If all the people consumed natural resources at the same rate as the average US and UK citizen we would require at least two extra planets like Earth.'

    The world's ticking timebomb

    Marine crisis:
    North Atlantic cod stocks have collapsed from an estimated 264,000 tonnes in 1970 to under 60,000 in 1995.

    Pollution:
    The United States places the greatest pressure on the environment, with its carbon dioxide emissions and over-consumption. It takes 12.2 hectares of land to support each American citizen and 6.29 for each Briton, while the figure for Burundi is just half a hectare.

    Shrinking Forests:
    Between 1970 and 2002 forest cover has dwindled by 12 per cent.

    Endangered wildlife:
    African elephant numbers have fallen from 1.2 million in 1980 to half a million now. In the UK the songbird population has fallen dramatically, with the corn bunting declining by 92 per cent in the past 30 years.

    Edited by - Nathan Natas on 7 July 2002 0:55:22

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    Hi nathan. Thanks for posting this.

    Africa is probably the longest inhabited continent, since the last ice age. It's huge deserts are a warning that mankind should heed. While consumption and technology never stays the same, it takes articles like this to bring a change in the public opinion. Change only comes when public opinion changes. I look forward to new energy technologies that will again revolutionize the western world. New energy sources will give more independence to individuals, and thus, likely greater freedom. It will change the world paradigm, as it has before.

    Genetic engineering will likely bring explosive change in food production, health, and other areas.

    SS

  • dmouse
    dmouse
    Earth's population will be forced to colonise two planets within 50 years if natural resources continue to be exploited at the current rate, according to a report out this week.

    A spokesman for WWF UK, said: 'If all the people consumed natural resources at the same rate as the average US and UK citizen we would require at least two extra planets like Earth.'

    These two statements are at odds. The first quote seems to indicate that we are already consuming enough to merit colonising extra planets by 2050 while the second indicates we will need to do so only if all countries consume resources at the rate of the more affluent (U.S. & U.K.)

    I am certainly not insouciant about the world's problems but frankly this sort of report has been doing the rounds for decades. I remember a similar book (one that the Society used to quote from a lot) that insisted that the world would be uninhabitable by 1975. (Now out of print) :)

    Have you read Bjorn Lomborg's book 'The Skeptical Environmentalist'? He describes this apocalyptic tendency as 'the liturgy' which is unnecessarily pessimistic. An ex-Greenpeace campaigner, he goes into great detail about the 'real state of the world' and reveals that most people are worried about the wrong problems. Well worth a read if you are interested in these issues.

  • Gopher
    Gopher

    The only real solution to this problem is God's Kingdom, and the destruction of wasteful mankind. (Rev. 11:18)

    Ok folks, just kidding!!

    The problems are real, but likely overstated in terms of "date estimates" and such. What will happen is mankind will experience worse problems, and come closer to doom, but then will likely adapt, re-engineer, or mandate behaviors for the preservation of mankind on this planet. Only because at that point they will HAVE to.

    Future generations, to survive, may need education not only on economic survival but also on how to responsibly use earth's resources.

    Edited by - Gopher on 7 July 2002 7:35:43

  • DakotaRed
    DakotaRed

    I have always found extremist views to be highly suspect. They cite "based on scientific studies," but don't say what studies. They condemn "Western Society," yet, they also utilize the very things they are condemning as bringing about the destruction of the earth. How many of them sit in air conditioned offices writing this stuff? Drive cars and boats? All contribute to pollution.

    On the other side of the coin, you have the other extremists claiming there is no problem and also, citing "scientific studies" that bear them out.

    There needs to be some middle ground. The claims that we are running out of resources is getting old. They have been saying that for decades, yet haven't made alternative and cleaner fuels to power all of our wants and needs. Recycling has gotten big, but they only wish to recycle what they can profit from. Here, we have to pay to have it picked up, whether or not we even place any on the curb. Then, the recyclers charge someone else for the stuff. Modern cars are burning cleaner and contribute less to pollution, but they are still reliant upon fossil fuels, the pollution source. Electric cars just shift the pollution to another area, the increased generation of electricity. LOL, you can't even have a horse drawn buggy as the horses emit rather foul pollution also.

    I feel the average Joe is concerned about resources and for the most part, is contributing to efforts to solve the problem. But, the extremist views of both sides is scaring the hell out of many. As for their date setting, did they learn that from the Watchtower?

    Lew W.

  • willy_think
    willy_think

    The title is Earth will expire in 2050, but the story is the earth will be fine, some people will expire. It's like a God d@m title of a WT article.
    what vanity man has that he thinks he can cause the death of a world. The earth will find balance with or without us.

  • Simon
    Simon

    I hate the thought that we are leaving future generations *so* many problems.

    Please don't take this as American bashing but the rest of the world see's there is a problem and is doing something, but probably too little about it. For America to ignore and turn it's back on global agreements such as Keyoto (sp) when they contribute far more than their fair share to pollution and consume more than their fair share of resources is scandallous and a great pity.

    I hate to imagine my kids growing up in an alien world without the Forrests, Glaciers, Tigers, Elephants and thousands of other things that we take for granted.

  • DakotaRed
    DakotaRed

    Simon, Americans aren't as unconcerned about things as it appears. After all, it is the average person who really makes any contribution, more so than the government. But, I don't think man could ever actually destroy the planet. The earth itself would eleminate us and repair itself over a peroid time.

    But, I also agree that it is going to take global cooperation by the people even more than by the governments.

    One thing that really bothered me was when I had to take a course for my Department of Ecology certification a few years ago. We all agreed that cars need to be cleaned up and the State of Washington seemed to have a good idea about checking emmissions. However, they initially started off allowing waivers for the first five years for those that do not pass. 9 years later, the waivers are still being granted and the state just takes the money. What use is it if you still allow a dirty car on the road? By and large, though, most owners that failed the test and brought the cars to us wanted them fixed. In fact, I haven't recommended one single waiver.

    The other point that irked me was that they go after car owners so heavily in the first place and leave industry pretty much alone. When questioned, the reply we got was that industry has more lawyers to fight the requirements. Although they could do more, I feel that many businesses are trying to clean their acts up, mostly due to public pressure more than government intervention.

    Lew W

  • JanH
    JanH

    I know a bit about the real studies done about nature and environmental issues, and I see that summery as extremist, alarmist and bordering on being totally nonsensical.

    It's simply nonsense that we "run out of resources." I have read books written 150 years ago that said essentially the same thing: we are running out of coal (what ran the industrialised world back then) and when we do, it will be The End of the World. Well, we didn't run out of coal. Moreover, we don't bother too much about coal these days, since it has long ago been replaced by oil. Moreover, the price of coal is so low that many of the remaining resources are not being exploited due to being uneconomical. It is the same thing with oil. The oil prices are being kept artificially high by the OPEC cartel; if a free market guided the oil prices we'd see a constant drop in oil prices in the foreseeable future. And beyond that, oil may be no more important than what coal is today.

    Minerals and other resources are not about to run out. If they were, we'd see sharply increasing prices (which would justify real research to colonize other parts of our solar system), but what we see is the opposite.

    Here's an interesting story about the past failures of alarmists:

    "In 1980, economist |Julian Simon| and biologist Paul Ehrlich decided to put their money where their predictions were. Ehrlich had been predicting massive shortages in various natural resources for decades, while Simon claimed natural resources were infinite.

    Simon offered Ehrlich a bet centered on the market price of metals. Ehrlich would pick a quantity of any five metals he liked worth $1,000 in 1980. If the 1990 price of the metals, after adjusting for inflation, was more than $1,000 (i.e. the metals became more scarce), Ehrlich would win. If, however, the value of the metals after inflation was less than $1,000 (i.e. the metals became less scare), Simon would win. The loser would mail the winner a check for the change in price.

    Ehrlich agreed to the bet, and chose copper, chrome, nickel, tin and tungsten.

    By 1990, all five metal were below their inflation-adjusted price level in 1980. Ehrlich lost the bet and sent Simon a check for $576.07. Prices of the metals chosen by Ehrlich fell so much that Simon would have won the bet even if the prices hadn't been adjusted for inflation. "

    Read it all here: http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/People/julian_simon.html

    It is interesting to note that early editions of the WTS "Truth" book quoted these alarmists predicting massive food shortages by 1975 (!). Of course, nothing like it happened. The above quoted article just predicts the same thing, again, but pushed sufficiently far into the future so they will not be held personally aountable for the failures.

    It's not diffiult to see the similarities between alarmist environmentalists and apoalyptic sects.

    - Jan

  • Jim_TX
    Jim_TX

    I know that many of the resources are being depleted like this report says.

    It is only logical that this is so. Look around folks. If you can't see it - then you may need glasses.

    Two years ago, while looking into a more fuel economical vehicle, I 'discovered' bio-diesel.

    I made, and used about 50 to 60 gallons that summer - and ran a diesel VW Rabbit Pickup on it.

    It works very well, and uses waste vegetable oil (or fresh oil) as it's main component.

    It also pollutes far less than regular diesel - or gasoline (petrol for you folks across the pond), and even takes on a nice odor... reminiscent of what was fried in the oil.

    Some said it reminded them of barbecue. (The oil was donated free by a local Mexican food restaurant, and I suspect that the lard was used to fry chips in.)

    I haven't been able to make any bio-diesel lately, as my situation has changed, and I do not have access to the same facilities for making it. I _DO_ intend to change that in the future though, and start bio-diesel production again.

    The problem with anything that regular folks may come up with that helps the eco-environment - tends to be either 'illegal' or so costly, that it is not economically feasible for the little guy (or gal) to even consider using it.

    This would have to change at a governmental level - before we can start getting serious about conservation.

    Regards,

    Jim TX

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit