Swelling population, mass migration to cities, increasing energy use and soaring CO2 emissions squeeze planet’s resources
Twenty years on from the Rio Earth summit, the environment of the planet is getting worse not better, according to a report from WWF.
Swelling population, mass migration to cities, increasing energy use and soaring carbon dioxide emissions mean humanity is putting a greater squeeze on the planet’s resources then ever before. Particularly hard hit is the diversity of animals and plants, upon which many natural resources such as clean water are based.
“The Rio+20 conference next month is an opportunity for the world to get serious about the need for development to become sustainable. Our report indicates that we haven’t yet done that since the last Rio summit,” said David Nussbaum, WWF-UK chief executive.
The latest Living Planet report, published on Tuesday, estimates that global demand for natural resources has doubled since 1996 and that it now takes 1.5 years to regenerate the renewable resources used in one year by humans. By 2030, the report predicts it will take the equivalent of two planets to meet the current demand for resources.
Most alarming, says the report, is that many of these changes have accelerated in the past decade, despite the plethora of international conventions signed since the initial Rio Summit in 1992. Climate-warming carbon emissions have increased 40% in the past 20 years, but two-thirds of that rise occurred in the past decade.
Two planets to meet resource needs?
How about Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune?
How about the moon, Titan, and a host of other small bodies?
There’s plenty. It is only the doomists, who are holding us back from reaching it.
Good grief! Have these Malthus acolytes learned nothing of human history? I am so tired out of these people haters, bunny huggers, and fern fondlers.
“Swelling population, mass migration to cities, …”
Let’s pause here for a moment. Which of the two is the bad thing here? If it is the former, why do we care so much about preventing famine and epidemics in those regions of the world where population swelling originates? If it is the latter, mass migration to cities, then strange to hear that from WWF — supposedly a biologically-minded group. It befits them to know that cities have always worked as population sinks. That’s where the swelling populations go to become infertile, attracted by the higher standard of living and wealth, which is invariably spent towards one goal: inflicting expensive self-harm and decreasing fitness. Name one city with a population above 1M that can boast of above-replacement fertility. Anyone?
Seeing these two things joined with a comma is a clear signal of uninformed hysteria or deliberate misdirection; in either case, I am not reading any further.
This is within the guidelines. You cannot predict doom within five years because there is not enough time to solve it; but more importantly, they will remember you said it and laugh at you. Likewise, you cannot predict doom 20 or more years out, because that seems so far out no one wants to worry about it. Remember Ted Danson of “Cheers” who said in 1988 the oceans will be dead in five years or 10 at the most? so, 2030 fits in being 18 years out. Besides 2030 is a nice round number.