[UK Guardian] Earth 'will expire by 2050' - Wild Texas Forums: Parks, Travel & Recreation

Shannon · 07-14-2002, 02:39 AM

According to an article published in the UK Observer, the Earth 'will expire by 2050'.

Quote:

The world's ticking timebomb
-------------------------------
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

Observer Worldview
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 percent during the past century.

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

Shannon · 07-14-2002, 02:51 AM

If you read the above and were asked, "Is this fact or fiction?" what would your response be?

My own response is -- It's somewhere between fact and fiction. It's statistics.

2050 isn't exactly soon, nor exactly "way out there", and based on how populations and consumption WORLDWIDE are rising, I'd say we need a wakeup call of some sort to bear in mind that for all humanity's ingeniousness, we haven't found a way to manufacture raw materials -- we're reliant on the same processes (albeit refined over generations and scientific advances) that our hunter & gatherer predecessors relied on -- the evaporation/transpiration cycle that brings us rain and purifies water naturally, photosynthesis of plants to purify the air, the breeding patterns of sea and land creatures for food (we can't "grow a cow" much faster than they grow naturally, for instance...or a huge old growth tree, the most prized in logging for its strength and amount of wood per effort expended to harvest it). Plus, the many things we have figured out how to create from raw materials are in many ways not environmentally friendly and they're not recycled so we can at least make OTHER non-environmentally friendly items from them instead of polluting more land with more and bigger landfills. And don't get me started on the environmental ravages of war, which last in the landscape long after the dead have been brought home, given a heroes welcome or proper burial and peace has been "achieved".

So, I think it's probably between fact and fiction, leaning towards the fact side of things moreso than fiction. Colonizing two planets is a stretch, particularly since there are no planets like earth within our transportation means or current knowledge. Asteroids might become a possibility someday, or capturing comet's gases, but now I'm venturing pure guesses... And there's always the moon, God help us (my dread is to have kids look up at the moon in a telescope and see a colony and landfills up there, instead of Mare Tranquillitatis and natural craters.)

07-19-2002, 11:27 AM

Interesting that there is no mention of stopping the population growth. Using/wasting vast resources is certainly a problem, but what about the population explosion? Doesn't it make sense that with fewer people there is more resources available and a higher quality of life for each individual?

Shannon · 07-19-2002, 12:10 PM

Yes and no. The overriding message I got from the report was that the world's relatively small nations (United States, Canada) consume the vast majority of the world's resources. So controlling resource use and rampant overconsumption in these areas is what's needed to prevent the eventuality the report predicts. Obviously, the world's fresh water and arible land are extremely important resources and those are extremely threatened by the populous but less consumptive regions, such as Africa.

In short, we have many opportunities to prevent the report from becoming true, but none of the options are easy. For instance, it's one thing to preach less consumption. It's altogether another thing to live it... I type this as I think about the two cars, home, multiple computers/digital cameras/film cameras, camping gear, etc. that my own 2 person household has. Multiply that by a square block, alone, and that's more resources and wealth than you'd find for thousands of miles in some regions...

07-19-2002, 12:40 PM

There is no doubt that we Americans and other western countries use more than our share of resources. There are indeed many ways to reduce consumption, but what are we willing to give up? Do we want to live like 3rd world countries so we have less impact on the land as individuals? Given the overpopulation,desertification, and famine in many 3rd world countries, I would say although each person may have a lesser impact than a westerner, combined they have a greater one.

At our current rate of growth by 2050 the world population will be something like 20 billion. At that point do you think there will be any wild animals larger than us? With 290 million or so in the US we already are unwilling to concede enough land to support 500 grizzlies or wolves.

How long can we continue to grow before we just flat run out of resources? San Antonio is a perfect example. It already has an unsustainable population as far as available water and it's still growing.

05-13-2004, 12:13 AM

I'm with you, Shannon, somewhere between fact and fiction. Unlike China where it is law that parents may have no more than two children, most of the world has no restrictions on reproduction. However, when humanity fails to regulate itself, Nature will do it for us, in the form famine, plagues, and war. In a lab, a study was done on crowding using mice in a "community". Food was maintained at a constant. Consequently, there was less food as the population of mice increased. The mice became more and more violent. The sort of violence that reduced their numbers. The weak mice that did not "fight" for their food, starved to death. With these kinds of studies going on and the fact that humanity is more complicated and more adaptable, I don't believe anyone can predict with any accuracy just when humanity will reach a point of no return. But I believe it will happen. The Malthusian Zero Sum theory is another way of looking at things. For example, the little bugs floating happily in a bottle of wine making wine producing toxins (alcohol) by eating sugar. Eventually, the little fellows overpopulates the bottle and polute themselves out of existence. In a way, the earth is like a bottle of wine, finite. The earth can only support so many and then, poof. But will it happen by 2050? Who can really say? There are other things that can wipe out humanity. There is a very large volcano under Yellow Stone Park. When it errupts, there will be a greenhouse effect that will kill everything within a year. And then, NASA tracks NEO's (near earth objects). It only takes one to destroy humanity. And if none of these things happen, there is the problem of our sun which has only so much fuel to keep burning before its last days consume the earth just prior to its supernova. Whether it is a large volcano, an astroid or comet impact, or maybe some little bug that escapes some lab, it's all a question of when.

kai · 05-13-2004, 09:48 AM

i'd say 75% fact, 25% fiction, if i had to hazard a guess.

just got done reading Affluenza by John De Graaf, David Wann, and Thomas H. Naylor. a good read. i would reccomend it if you are at all thinking about trying to reduce your ecological footprint (although, if you've already decided to do that, it might be a waste of your time... but it is interesting anyway).

also, check out Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser. It kind of goes into how much the american society has changed the world in recent years, and how our hunger for the ever increasing ecological footprint has infected particularily europe. its full of good information, although it might make you think twice about eating fast food...

I think there is a lot we can do to curb our consumption patterns. First of all, i would focus on lowering utility bills. my water bill each month is roughly 25 dollars. acording to my saws statement, its roughly half what my neighbors use. there are 19000 people in my nieghborhood alone (according to the association newsletter, which may be a typo- i find it hard to believe- its the size of my home town in a much smaller area). thats what, maybe 5000 homes? (i'm not sure of that figure, but bear with me- we'll call it 'my section of town') if they all used even 1000 gallons per month per household less, thats a water savings of about 5,000,000 gallons of water. per month. 60,000,000 gal per year. but will people do that? if it cost enough to use it they would. perhaps if they were more educated on the issue they would try as well, i dunno. i see a lot of people that are not using water wisely when i go out to walk my dog. i'm going to start reporting them to saws i think (you can actually do that, but thats like tattling, and i'm not sure i really want to go that route- its just not cool. but sometimes people need a wakeup call).

energy star appliances are great, as well. thats become kind of mainstream. I think most people that i know, when they buy an appliance, they get the most energy star compliant one that they can afford. I've had a bag of spinach in my fridge for 3 weeks now, and its still good. I chose my fridge well. i have one of those low water usage washers (which is good because its very quiet and where it is located in this house that could have been an issue). I try not to use the dryer unless i have to- i hang the clothes on a line in my backyard (well, not today- too wet) whenever i can. the clothes smell better and last longer. the dryer doesn't heat up the house and kick on the AC. I have a feeling its against my associations rules, but i'm willing to fight it if they come down on me. the only way anyone would find the laundry line in my backyard is if they were invading my privacy in the first place.

i try to use the grill to cook as much as possible. it doesn't heat up the house that way - i have an inefficient electric stove, and rather than replace it, i just try to avoid it. the stove stays with the house, but I, unfortunately, do not.

solar powered attic exhuast fan- that seems to have helped a lot, plus i don't worry about moisture and mold in the attic anymore. a great initial cost than a regular attic gable fan, but it took a half hour to install, and there was no need for an electrician or to wire anything. i litterally slapped it up there a year ago, and all but forgot it.

the compact flourescent bulbs in every single lamp help keep the house cool and reduce electric costs. plus, they last longer.

i'm trading in my huge truck for a little itty bitty civic that gets 38 mpg highway. i'll save about $100 per month in gas. at $1.80 or so a gallon, thats about 55 gallons of gas, per month. 660 gallons of unleaded fuel per year. just saved by me. how many excursion, expedition, suburban and full size pickups do you see everyday? what would happen if even half of them traded in their large gas guzzling vehicles for a more fuel efficient vehicle? hybrid SUVs are coming out this fall (ford escape, toyota hylander). Jeep liberty is releasing a deisel version this summer that gets in the mid 20-s for gas mileage. I also think some full size trucks are coming out as hybrids this fall. if we could convince people to switch over to those as well, it'd make a big difference. and that isn't even considering the difference in pollution and noise.

there is also the slow food movement "Slow Food U.S.A. is an educational organization dedicated to stewardship of the land and ecologically sound food production; to the revival of the kitchen and the table as centers of pleasure, culture, and community; to the invigoration and proliferation of regional, seasonal culinary traditions; and to living a slower and more harmonious rhythm of life. "

along those lines are the organic farmers of our country. some right here in san antonio. (incidently, i just read this morning that the "... the Bush administration has pulled the plug on policing organic labels on non-agricultural products." ... "As if this isn't scary enough, the USDA announced controversial new directives on national organic standards on April 28 that basically state: "ignorance is bliss." The Organic Consumer Association reports, "as long as the farmer and the organic certifier don't know the specific ingredients of the pesticides applied to the 'organic' plants, the crops can be sold as 'organic.'" http://www.utne.com/webwatch/2004_148/news/11215-1.html )

There is Community Supported Agriculture right near san antonio. basically, the program works by individuals buying a portion of a certain farmers crops for the year, paying on a weekly/monthly basis (or you can pay with labor - like 2 hours a week to get produce for a family of 4), and getting weekly installments of fresh produce. it depends on the farmer, but from what i've seen its usually organic food. this cuts out the transportation costs of shipping your food thousands of miles to get to the grocery store. The fuel and pollution costs are very high to transport food, and the energy usage of the grocery store is nothing to laugh at either. plus, there is no packaging to deal with. it cuts out the middle man, and you know exactly where your food came from and what conditions it was produced under.

if i planned on living here any longer, i'd replace all my windows. all of them. they are horribly inefficient. i swear they built the house with the cheapest windows possible, and they get condensation on them. they also heat up really quick and heat up the room.

i've taken a lot of steps to try and reduce my footprint. and i've found its cheaper in both the long and short run. compared to my friends, i don't live any differently. except i dont buy things from the pampered chef, or go out to dinner very often, or go to the mall. but i am much happier than when we made 5x as much money and spent most of it immediately. my frustration level is lower, i'm calmer, and i'd like to think i'm healthier and forming a foundation for my kids to be healthier when i have them. if i have them. but if were going to crash and burn in 2050, why bother?

sorry that was SO long... did anyone make it to the end?