# Earth In Crisis As Wildlife Numbers Plummet



## Harpo (May 15, 2012)

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/earth-crisis-wildlife-numbers-plummet-031832018.html

Earth is a planet in crisis with wildlife populations declining by more than 30% in the past four decades, conservationists claim.
A new report examined how more than 9,000 populations of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians and fish are faring.
It comes in the face of record over-consumption of natural resources with serious implications for human health, wealth and well-being.
Freshwater creatures in the tropics have seen the worst declines, of around 70%, while tropical species as a whole have seen populations tumble by 60% since 1970.
In Asia, tiger numbers have fallen 70% in just 30 years.
Wildlife is under pressure from ever-growing human demand for resources, the study by WWF , the latest Living Planet report from the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) and the Global Footprint Network said.
And research into demand for water revealed 2.7bn people live in areas that suffer severe water shortages for at least one month of the year.

People are exploiting resources such as water, forests and fisheries and putting greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere at a much higher rate than they can be replenished and pollution absorbed.
The "ecological footprint" of human activity was 50% higher than the capacity of the Earth's land and oceans in 2008, the most recent year for which figures are available, with people living as though we have a planet and a half to sustain us.
Rising population and consumption means that by 2030, two planets will not be enough to meet human demand, threatening the resources including food, freshwater and a stable climate that people need to survive, the report said.
WWF-UK's chief executive David Nussbaum said the underlying cause of declines in nature was the rate of human consumption.
"If you're relying on your annual account and you overspend, you eat into your savings until there's nothing left," he said.
"At the moment we are in danger of doing that with our life support system, Planet Earth."
He said the UK was living in the eye of the storm, without yet feeling the impacts of its over-consumption, but warned the "whirlwind of consumerism is whipping up and causing all sorts of damage".
The UK is 27th in the global rankings for how the ecological footprint of how each person in the country consumes, a five-place rise from the last report two years ago.
And while wildlife populations in temperate regions such as Europe have risen by around 31% since 1970, WWF warned this only showed habitats and species bouncing back from previous lows when they had been degraded and damaged.
ZSL 's Professor Tim Blackburn said: "We are living in a planet in crisis, and the Living Planet Index is one window into how bad that crisis is."
WWF called on governments and businesses, who are meeting in Rio de Janeiro next month to discuss sustainable development, to address the situation with the same urgency and determination that they put into dealing with the financial crisis.


----------



## Vertigo (May 15, 2012)

Ooooh don't get me started on this. Talk about a bunch of lemmings and yes I know that behaviour is a myth but...

We are walking towards a cliff edge wearing a blindfold. I really think the biggest problem is overpopulation. We need population control and we need it about 100 years ago. With the standard of living we aspire to in the developed countries the planet can maybe, just maybe, sustain a population around half what it is now.


----------



## Venusian Broon (May 15, 2012)

Vertigo said:


> With the standard of living we aspire to in the developed countries the planet can maybe, just maybe, sustain a population around half what it is now.


 
Well if we can't do it, I'm sure that Nature will eventually find a way.


----------



## Vertigo (May 15, 2012)

Yes I'm rather afraid you might be right - HIV and eBola and the various animal flu mutations are likely just warm ups. You get any populations living in the sort of concentrations humans live in and germs start having a field day.


----------



## hopewrites (May 15, 2012)

I won't disagree that we and our planet are in crisis. Nor will I contradict those who warn that doom is upon us and our planet.
But I wish people, ecologists especially, would let go of the need/desire for stasis.  We live on a planet whose very foothold in success rests on change; the ability and desire to adapt to ever changing environments.
By maintaining a many-handed strangle hold over our natural predators, we are only maintaining a vacuum over our own heads.

The rest of my opinions are too super-villain-y for me to really accept that I feel that way so I'll stop here.


----------



## Huttman (May 16, 2012)

It's all so disheartening, isn't it? There are 'big economic wheels' that keep this planet spinning, and I don't think there could ever be enough little wheels that turn direction to change the motives of the big wheels to stop this greedy insanity and self destruction. I'm not trying to be pesimistic, but these stories come out every so often and we justifiably feel really bad and maybe we even make a few changes in our lives to make us feel better and not give certain corporations our hard earned cash anymore. Then the next day comes and we go out to be that cog again to fuel countless other corporational eviltees and the gears keep spinning and there's more pollution, more species coming closer to extinction and the fat kats keep getting fatter. (I like cats so I won't spell that analogy with a 'c'). The anguish of the nations not knowing the way out. 
I know it is not a very popular thing to discuss...spiritualality on the chrons here, so lets not discuss it. Let me say just one thing and if you think its hogwash, OK, nothing further will be said. There is a very interesting scripture that says 'God will bring to ruin those ruining the Earth'. Fascinating for someone 2000+ years ago to feel compelled to write such a far-fetched idea. Who could of thought of ruining the entire planet back then? I'm just trying to give hope, because we need it with stories like this.


----------



## Boneman (May 16, 2012)

Until we take steps to reduce the birthrate and hence the world's population, we haven't a chance... Nature will do it if we don't, and she'll be a lot more drastic than 'proper' measures taken now. That isn't a fascist, eugenics view it's a pragmatic, logical view. If a species has no predators and continues to expand, eventually there will not be enough resources to sustain it, and it will be decimated by famine, disease and war. We do not, and will not have, the ability to colonise the stars nearest us...  It's up to us to sort it out, starting now. Are we doing that?


----------



## Vertigo (May 16, 2012)

Sadly we all know the answer to that last question Boneman


----------



## Boneman (May 16, 2012)

It's what comes of leaving politicians in charge...

And here's the thing that will kill bllions quickest. It's only a dozen years away. 



> By 2020, water use is expected to increase by 40 percent, and 17 percent more water will be required for food production to meet the needs of the growing population. According to another estimate from the United Nations, by 2025, 1.8 billion people will be living in regions with absolute water scarcity, and two out of three people in the world could be living under conditions of water stress (UNEP 2007)


 
http://[URL="http://www.worldwater.org/data/"]www.worldwater.org/data/20082009ch01.pdf[/URL]​


----------



## Vertigo (May 16, 2012)

Yeah I always keep wondering whether it will be water, food or oil that will be first to cause major conflict. I don't mean something like the West using the pathetic excuses they put forward for invading oil rich countries like Iraq. I'm talking about a major conflict over those resources which sadly is probably going to be inevitable.


----------



## hopewrites (May 16, 2012)

Nature is trying to step in and curb our birthrates. but at every turn the scientific-medical community is there to turn her hand and parry death once more.
The increasing infertility rate is not coincidence. But thanks to "the miracles of modern medicine" infertility can be overcome (for the right price). On a personal level, yes it is a wonderful miracle, there is a lot of heart ache involved in not being able to conceive or keep for at least one trimester the children one would like to have. Having seen close friends and family go through this heart ache I know just how much of a miracle these children are and how well they are loved once they arrive.
But taking it back off the personal level, it smacks of the arrogance that humans so often manifest when "managing" natural resources. It seems to me that as a species, we have yet to learn balance. We learn it here and there in one place or another, individual balance, but not how to recognize and maintain balance before upsetting it.


----------



## Vertigo (May 16, 2012)

Agreed Hope and as a race we are astonishngly good at burying our collective head in the sand!

Oh well at least I won't be around when future generations are cursing us for what we did to the planet


----------



## JimBraiden (May 16, 2012)

Yes, a report form the totally neutral and disinterested WWF.
Best taken with a very large grain of salt.


----------



## Vertigo (May 16, 2012)

Of course they are neither disinterested or neutral, it would be plain silly for them to be so. That does not mean their report has no value. Pretty much everything in it agrees with the findings from pretty much any ecological report on the state of the planet (including the UN ones). I think you will find the only 'reports' disagreeing with it are sponsered by oil compaines, lumber companies, mining companies etc. And I know which I would trust more.


----------



## JimBraiden (May 16, 2012)

I did not say the report had no value- simply pointed out that when a multi national organisation which employes thousands of people, has an annual turnover of nearly $750 million dollars and whose raison d'etre is pushing the a message of environmental crisis publishes a paper about earth in crisis the first question that should be asked is cui bono?
As for reprts  disagreeing with it being sponsored by oil/lumber/mining companies I have not come across any- could you provide a liink or two?
And of course it should  be remembered that WWF receives funding from oil, gas and mineral companies- in fact the WWF was founded in 1961 witht he aid of a large grant from Shell.


----------



## The Procrastinator (May 17, 2012)

Be honest Jim - you are questioning the validity of the report. You are implying WWF is publishing data like this simply to validate its own existence.

It is true the crisis card has been played many times, and it will probably have a similar effect this time (not much). The bulk of consumers do not appreciate the part we play in the ecosystems of the earth, or even realise that we are not separate from them and are in fact dependent upon them. The food we eat, the air we breathe, the fibres we wear, the water we drink, all depend on natural systems, no matter how we like to think we control them.

The really interesting one will be the "lungs of the planet" - the oxygen-producing capacity of the oceans.

So far the resilience of natural systems has worked in our favour. As our population and impact accelerates this resilience will be put to the test. Unfortunately by the time it reaches the point where everyone agrees there is a "crisis" it will likely be too late. 

The question is, are we smart enough to work out what we have before it's gone?


----------



## JimBraiden (May 17, 2012)

*Well yes I am questioning the validity of the report- I am not saying it is totally invalid- just pointing out that given its source it should be viewed with a certain level of scepticism.*
*Bear in mind that the WWF has previous form when it comes to producing dubious reports.*
*The IPCC claims that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 which were revealed as nonsense were based on a WWF study.*
*And the IPCC's claims that 40% of the Amazon rain forest would become savannah because of rising global temperatures, again based on a WWF study , were also debunked.*

*
*


----------



## Vertigo (May 17, 2012)

In all fairness we are still learning this stuff. Our understanding of our planet's climate is sketchy to say the least. But this does not mean that we can't do our best to to try and figure out what's in the future for us. We will get it wrong and we will do so many more times before we are knowledgeable enough to get it right, but hopefully each time we will get closer to the truth.

The IPCC reports are generated by a bunch of scientists and to suggest they just take an existing report and rehash would it pretty much invalidate anything the IPCC produces (which may be a valid point in their case). However to blame the original reports and their source is just utterly ridiculous, especially in a desperately wooly area like this.

Of course the WWF will push the most pessimistic forecasts, that's exactly what they need to do when most of the world's governments seem to take the most blindly optimistic view most of the time.


----------



## hopewrites (May 17, 2012)

I'm suddenly reminded of the scene from Robin Hood Men in Tights "bad news in a good way"


----------



## Venusian Broon (May 17, 2012)

Vertigo said:


> Of course the WWF will push the most pessimistic forecasts, that's exactly what they need to do when most of the world's governments seem to take the most blindly optimistic view most of the time.


 
In actual fact there are quite a few areas where the IPCC has actually published 'glowing optimistic' views of certain issues. Sea level change for one. From the current real measurements that we have taken it's clear that the sources that the IPCC used, they woefully underestimated what is actually happening. 

So it's kinda balanced. 

I read somewhere today a view that, in history empires grew until the effective tax that could be derived from them was beaten by the cost in trying to derive the tax, but they fell apart because the empire tried it's damnest past the point of no-return to generate the tax. 

Unfortunately that is what I think will happen here to the natural world. We'll take it past the point of no-return and then suddenly realise we were wrong and it'll be too late.


----------



## JimBraiden (May 17, 2012)

Vertigo said:


> The IPCC reports are generated by a bunch of scientists and to suggest they just take an existing report and rehash would it pretty much invalidate anything the IPCC produces (which may be a valid point in their case). However to blame the original reports and their source is just utterly ridiculous, especially in a desperately wooly area like this.
> 
> Not quite sure what you mean here however in the case of the IPCC its  claims on the disappearing Himalyan glaciers was supported by a single reference:
> 
> ...


----------



## Venusian Broon (May 18, 2012)

_In its 2007 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecast a sea level rise of between 19 and 59 centimetres by 2100, but this excluded "future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow"._

From anyone looking at this field it was clear that this was an outdated conclusion, as the science and understanding on such a complicated and dynamic system was incomplete (although at least the report told us this) and by the time of the report it was clear that the real figure that we are likely to see was higher.



> As for sea level rises - they have been rising since the end of the last ice age but there is no evidence of acceleration and the rate of change remains below 2mm per annum.


_Global average sea level rose at an average rate of around 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year over 1950 to 2009 and at a satellite-measured average rate of about 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009. (_reference - Nicholls, Robert J.; Cazenave, Anny (18 June 2010). "Sea-Level Sea-Level Rise and Its Impact on Coastal Zones". _Science Magazine_ *328* (5985): 1517–1520"

So you see JB, there is actually real evidence of an acceleration. Now it's not conclusive and we have to be careful in interpreting it (and I fear that you will automatically disbelieve it rather than approach it constructively.)

On the plus side from my understanding, the limit of sea level increase is probably going to be in the 1-2 metres by 2100...which isn't _too _bad, and possibly not to expensive for us to deal with. (Some doom prognosticaters have publically stated 10 metres, which I sincerely hope is not the case, 'cause then the shoreline of the North sea will be outside my flat in Hackney.)


----------



## JimBraiden (May 18, 2012)

Inded we do have to be careful in interpreting  it- particularly since the satellite data only covers a period of 16 years - a very short period in geological/climate terms.
I would argue far too short a period  to base a trend on
(The same problem arises with Arctic  ice cover- we often see claims of the ice cap shrinking to its lowest point  since records began- but rarely is it mentioned that the records they refer to only go back to 1979)
In addition the start date, 1993, was an unusually low point in the long term sea level record which tends to distort the rate of increase.

A good look at the long term change in ocean levels is Bruce C. Douglas , "Global Sea Rise: A Redetermination". Surveys in Geophysics 18: 279,(1997)
It covers the period 1900- 2000 and shows a 185mm rise in ocean levels in that period.


----------



## wonkishere (May 18, 2012)

JimBraiden said:


> I did not say the report had no value- simply pointed out that when a multi national organisation which employes thousands of people, has an annual turnover of nearly $750 million dollars and whose raison d'etre is pushing the a message of environmental crisis publishes a paper about earth in crisis the first question that should be asked is cui bono?
> As for reprts  disagreeing with it being sponsored by oil/lumber/mining companies I have not come across any- could you provide a liink or two?
> And of course it should  be remembered that WWF receives funding from oil, gas and mineral companies- in fact the WWF was founded in 1961 witht he aid of a large grant from Shell.



I wasn't aware Shell funded them, that's interesting. Unfortunately, when someone does a study, it is usually either by someone with a vested interest, or someone with an opposing interest trying to refute someone else's study. In other words, everybody has a reason to lie.
I don't think that anyone seriously doubt that we aren't doing a great deal of damage right now, and it's alarming to me the extent that we just ignore studies and keep consuming.
There is a certain natural inertia to these things. For instance, we are producing massive amounts of carbon dioxide and methane which contributes to global warming, but it's an indirect effect. And were we to suddenly stop producing all this stuff, the globe would continue to warm for a very long time, twenty or thirty years by the most generous calculations. It won't all just go away immediately.
So if we wait until there are massive catastrophe's and terrible problems, and go to heroic lengths to cut our emissions, it won't really matter much. Waiting until the last minute just doesn't work.


----------



## Dave (May 19, 2012)

wonkishere said:


> I don't think that anyone seriously doubt that we aren't doing a great deal of damage right now, and it's alarming to me the extent that we just ignore studies and keep consuming.


100% Agree. Man has managed the environment for thousands of years. There is not a single landscape or ecosystem on Earth that has not had the hand on Man touched upon it, and some natural processes (Vulcanism, Meteorites) have had a more devastating effect on the Earth than Man has up until this present time. But surely that is completely missing the point? We have never before had the ability to change the world the way we can now and along with that must come some mature responsibility; some stewardship, for this planet that we only share with other living things. That isn't tree-hugging; it is just pure common sense. Long term, it also makes commercial and economic sense if people took their heads out of the sand for a moment.


----------



## JimBraiden (May 19, 2012)

Not only did funding from Shell help found the WWF but the Green movement is awash with money from fossil fuel companies.
The Sierra Club received $25 million from natural gas companies between 07 and 10.
And Rajendra Pachauri- railway engineer and head of the IPCC persuaded two Indian oil companies, Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. _and_ the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. to sponsor his Delhi based  Sustainable Development Summit.
In 05 it was Shell and in 06 and 07 BP coughed up the cash.
The irony is that the Green movement still claims that they face a sustained campaign against them funded by big oil.


----------



## JimBraiden (May 19, 2012)

Just finished reading the actual report- all 160 odd pages of it-pretty much the same old story- we are all doomed, we must change our lifestyle etc.
Funniest quote on page 8: “We can meet all of our energy needs from sources like wind and sunlight that are clean and abundant”
Which pretty much tells you all you need to know about the WWF.


----------



## HareBrain (May 19, 2012)

JimBraiden said:


> Just finished reading the actual report- all 160 odd pages of it-pretty much the same old story- we are all doomed, we must change our lifestyle etc.


 
Yes, the fact that it's been said before makes it all the more untrustworthy.

They were probably forced to spread this heinous propaganda by the big oil companies that fund them. How Machiavellian.


----------



## wonkishere (May 19, 2012)

JimBraiden said:


> Not only did funding from Shell help found the WWF but the Green movement is awash with money from fossil fuel companies.
> The Sierra Club received $25 million from natural gas companies between 07 and 10.
> And Rajendra Pachauri- railway engineer and head of the IPCC persuaded two Indian oil companies, Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. _and_ the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. to sponsor his Delhi based  Sustainable Development Summit.
> In 05 it was Shell and in 06 and 07 BP coughed up the cash.
> The irony is that the Green movement still claims that they face a sustained campaign against them funded by big oil.



Uh....

I'm stunned by what you just wrote. You think that because Shell threw these guys a few dollars, that means green groups aren't facing a sustained campaign against them funded by big oil? The fact that one company gave them money, means that others aren't spending millions on advertising and public relations to refute everything that green groups do?

I''ve seen the numbers, I've seen the studies. Your reasoning is nonsense. Oil companies do all kinds of things to prevent the spread of competing forms of energy generation. They do that with solar, wind, they'd probably do it more to prevent nuclear if it weren't for the fact that almost nobody is building nuclear power plants right now anyway. Occasionally they even spend money in token research on renewable energy R&D, but it amounts to less than 0.1% of their total R&D. Then they spend more money advertising the fact that they did the research, then they spent on the research. That's no joke.

Oil companies have a huge amount of capital tied up in resources designed to deliver (and use) oil. I believe it actually accounts to more then $50 trillian, (yes that a T) in circulation. Many of it was built recently in the form of new refineries, new freighters, and so on. If you suddenly did a massive shift away from oil, they wouldn't even be making their investment back on all this stuff they put in circulation. Of course they fight the green movement.

If you can seriously sit there and claim that Oil companies don't go after green groups, then... wow. That's one of the silliest things I've read in weeks. Do you liike, work for an Oil company or something?


----------



## Ursa major (May 20, 2012)

(Perhaps the attacks are funded by big coal....)


I have no idea if those figures mentioned by JimBraiden are correct or not. However, if they are, it would be interesting to know why such large sums of money have been handed over.


----------



## HareBrain (May 20, 2012)

Until quite recently, WWF was mostly involved in species and habitat conservation rather than spreading a general environmental message. Such work doesn't often conflict directly with oil company interests, and there's no reason they shouldn't have funded it.


----------



## JimBraiden (May 20, 2012)

*


wonkishere said:



			Uh....

I'm stunned by what you just wrote. You think that because Shell threw these guys a few dollars, that means green groups aren't facing a sustained campaign against them funded by big oil? The fact that one company gave them money, means that others aren't spending millions on advertising and public relations to refute everything that green groups do?

I''ve seen the numbers, I've seen the studies. Your reasoning is nonsense. Oil companies do all kinds of things to prevent the spread of competing forms of energy generation. They do that with solar, wind, they'd probably do it more to prevent nuclear if it weren't for the fact that almost nobody is building nuclear power plants right now anyway. Occasionally they even spend money in token research on renewable energy R&D, but it amounts to less than 0.1% of their total R&D. Then they spend more money advertising the fact that they did the research, then they spent on the research. That's no joke.

Oil companies have a huge amount of capital tied up in resources designed to deliver (and use) oil. I believe it actually accounts to more then $50 trillian, (yes that a T) in circulation. Many of it was built recently in the form of new refineries, new freighters, and so on. If you suddenly did a massive shift away from oil, they wouldn't even be making their investment back on all this stuff they put in circulation. Of course they fight the green movement.

If you can seriously sit there and claim that Oil companies don't go after green groups, then... wow. That's one of the silliest things I've read in weeks. Do you liike, work for an Oil company or something?
		
Click to expand...

*
No I don't like, work for an oil company. 
I just like, do my own thinking.
I am simply pointing out that many of the Green/CAGW supporting organisations, while attacking oil and gas companies with one hand, are only too happy to accept money from said oil and gas companies with the other hand.
And that the oft made claim that those groups and individuals who are sceptical about Green claims- and in particular about CAGW- are mounting a "sustained campaign funded by big oil" proves on examination to have no basis in fact. 
The amounts of funding given by oil and gas companies to the Sceptical side of the CAGW argument pales into insignificance when compared to the hundreds of millions they have contributed to various Green groups and causes.
And I would add that as I pointed out any report which claims that the energy needs of a developed world can be met from the "wind and the sun" has about as much basis in reality as the story of the tooth fairy- in fact come to think of it the evidence for the latter is probabaly stronger.


----------



## JimBraiden (May 20, 2012)

Ursa,

The figures are correct. As to why- well I can hazard a guess in at least one case

The Sierra Club took $26.1 million in contributions from McClendon and  Chesapeake-affiliated companies between 2007 and 2010. Cheseapeake is a natural gas company. One of its biggest competitors is the coal industry- The Sierra Club is opposed to coal power.
Begin to see a picture emerging?


----------



## wonkishere (May 20, 2012)

I'm stunned. I didn't think that it was possible for people to not be aware of all that funding. And frankly, I see no evidence that some funding given to the fund, a long time ago, when it's focus was different, is greater than the massive public relations and advertising efforts that go on now. The entire "green" movement lacks the capital to match the funding of even the five biggest oil companies. Their advertising and public relations budgets dwarf them by a massive amount.

Right now, the shale oil fields in Canada have seen a massive PR campaign, moving into the United States only now, but having started in Canada, to refute the idea that (for instance,) wildlife in Canada was being hunted by predatorial wolves, even though ecologists attributed the deaths to developed of the fields. I've seen so many of these campaigns over the year, many billions in spending, that it didn't occur to me that people like you still existed.

Well i'm guessing this is a fruitless conversation. Have a nice day.



JimBraiden said:


> No I don't like, work for an oil company.
> I just like, do my own thinking.
> I am simply pointing out that many of the Green/CAGW supporting organisations, while attacking oil and gas companies with one hand, are only too happy to accept money from said oil and gas companies with the other hand.
> And that the oft made claim that those groups and individuals who are sceptical about Green claims- and in particular about CAGW- are mounting a "sustained campaign funded by big oil" proves on examination to have no basis in fact.
> ...


----------



## JimBraiden (May 21, 2012)

I am sorry that the facts don't match you world view, Wonkshire.
But they remain the facts.
The Green movement is awash with hundreds of millions of dollars of oil and gas money.
And in the CAGW area in particular far from funding a sustained campaign against the proponents of the theory the fossil fuel multinationals have  given hundreds of milions to various Green and pro CAGW organisations.
For example ExxonMobil  has donated $100 million to Stanford university for the study of global warming.
BP is coughing up $30 million for a similar study at Princeton.


----------



## Huttman (May 21, 2012)

JimBraiden said:


> For example ExxonMobil  has donated $100 million to Stanford university for the study of global warming.
> BP is coughing up $30 million for a similar study at Princeton.


Pennies at the bottom of a large bucket of profit to give them the 'image' that they really do care.


----------



## Dave (May 21, 2012)

Huttman said:


> Pennies at the bottom of a large bucket of profit to give them the 'image' that they really do care.


All BP filling stations have a windmill on their roof. The energy they produce probably wouldn't power the lighting inside. It is good PR, that's all.

If JimBraiden is correct (and he is the only one who claims to have read this report) “We can meet all of our energy needs from sources like wind and sunlight that are clean and abundant” is a ridiculous statement. 

But neither are fossil fuels the answer.


----------



## wonkishere (May 22, 2012)

Dave said:


> All BP filling stations have a windmill on their roof. The energy they produce probably wouldn't power the lighting inside. It is good PR, that's all.
> 
> If JimBraiden is correct (and he is the only one who claims to have read this report) “We can meet all of our energy needs from sources like wind and sunlight that are clean and abundant” is a ridiculous statement.
> 
> But neither are fossil fuels the answer.



It's very true that wind and sunlight are nowhere near as efficient as oil, or many other sources of power. People who measure these things usually take an "ROE" measurement, meaning return on energy. Put simply, for every unit of energy you put into building it, how much does that technology give back?

With current technology, Solar is only running about 2:1 or better. In other words, you get about twice as much energy back as you put into it in order to make it. That will get better over time but it isn't there yet. Wind has a better return on investment, but it's harder to place wind because they can be noisy and there are issues with birds and wildlife. You can't put a windmill just anywhere. Oil is about 15:1 so it's very difficult to make enough energy with other forms to compensate for getting rid of it.

On the other hand, if you're going to be honest about analyzing these things, the question is this. How much does it cost you to clean up all of the crap that you generate when you burn oil, to remove CO2, damage to the atmosphere and so on? Until you factor that in, it's stupid to compare the forms of energy generation side by side. Solar and wind gives you consequence free energy, but less of it. Oil harms are atmosphere a great deal, and coal is even worse.


----------



## JimBraiden (May 22, 2012)

To repeat a belief that the energy needs of a modern society can be met from sun and wind is on a par with believing in the tooth fairy.
Wind for example currently supplies less than half of one percent of the world's energy.
The choice is bewtween nuclear or fossil or mass starvation.


----------



## Dave (May 22, 2012)

_To put aside the Climate Change issue for one moment_ (JimBraiden and wonkishere are at opposite poles and will never agree) Uranium is a finite resource just like fossil fuels. Nuclear Fission is only a short term answer itself, but the long term answer would come from Fusion (which may always be science fiction) or from sunlight (but you would need to think very big i.e. shadow squares in orbit with the energy collected beamed back down to Earth.) The main problems with wind and sun are that the sources are intermittent and cannot be turned on when more power is needed. Another problem with Nuclear Fission is it cannot be turned on and off quick enough either. And our current ability to store energy is extremely poor.

_Putting all of that aside_ - I'd very much doubt that any Climate Change at present is responsible for a current fall in wildlife numbers (I'm not saying it won't be in the future) but I'd have thought that it was much more due to loss of soils due to deforestation and urbanisation, cutting of wildlife corridors; damming of rivers and loss of floodplains and wetlands; mining and mining spoil waste; the pollution of air, water and land; over-fishing; and a whole host of other items that we are responsible for.

I don't understand why there is a belief that our modern civilisation is invincible. A quick look at the historical record would give a different perspective. Sorry to be morbid. We may have a lot of technology but it is just a pack of cards.

Can I suggest a book for you both:
*The God Species* (How the planet can survive the age of humans) by Mark Lynas.

It is not an eco-doom book. He presents a case for using new technologies to protect and nurture the biosphere, against current _green_ orthodoxy.


----------



## JimBraiden (May 22, 2012)

Dave,

I read his  Six Degrees and was not particularly impressed -pretty much CAGW  boilerplate ( pun intended)  still £4.99 for the Kindle edition is not too bad- will give it a look.


----------



## wonkishere (May 22, 2012)

I'll take a look at the book.
[book]

Can I suggest a book for you both:
*The God Species* (How the planet can survive the age of humans) by Mark Lynas.

It is not an eco-doom book. He presents a case for using new technologies to protect and nurture the biosphere, against current _green_ orthodoxy.[/QUOTE]

I suppose that Jim and I look pretty opposite, but I'm really not the flip side of the pole, because I don't agree with a lot of people you would characterize as being part of a green movement. If you'd read what I said, you'd see that I just outlined limitations of green power, and then got a response that indicated you were still arguing with me. I'm pretty sure I just said that solar and wind aren't as efficient, with a lot more specific detail. Did anybody bother to read what I wrote?

Unfortunately, the truth is that we don't have anything to replace not only Oil, but we can' t even replace Coal, which is worse than Oil. Unfortunately, global warming, according to pretty much every scientist I know, is already doing measurable damage. For instance, the change in growing seasons is beginning to lower the amount of food for sale across the world, and that is forecasted to continue.

It isn't really possible to link global warming to what happens to species, but it isn't really possible to separate it either, because the stuff that people blame for harming different species around the planet is usually indirectly linked with things which are effected by global warming.

If global warming causes the winds to change, and one area is afficted with drought, with the rains they used to get passing to another region, and that then causes the mosquito population to explode, this can then cause a massive increase in dengue fever to travel throughout South America. It's not a new disease, but the numbers of people afflicted by it soared to new heights recently. And dengue fever effects some animals, not just humans. Guess what? Dengue fever can potentially eradicate a species if it was already on the edge.

The irritating thing about these sort of conversations, is that I already know what's going to happen. Absolutely nothing is going to happen, until several major catastrophes do. And when those catastrophes happen, people are going to conclude they have no choice but to go with cleaner alternatives, because they will have figured out that they are, in fact, cheaper. Because the other stuff causes disasters, which cost billions to clean up.

And everybody who argues the point, invariably doesn't really know much about the facts. But nobody wants to pay for any of this, because it's absolutely true that solar and wind do not replace Oil. We may still need nuclear but that won't cover us either. In order to solve the problem, we'd have to get used to living with less energy production then we have and change our lifestyle. And we aren't going to do that. We'd rather kick the can down the road and live like we can, for as long as we can.

We are all very much like an obese 300 pound man who is in danger of having a heart attack, and chooses to go eat another cheeseburger anyway. I don't suffer from the delusion of thinking that we will do things any differently.


----------



## JimBraiden (May 26, 2012)

It would appear that the WWF Report has even less validity than I though.
A statistican frined of mine has drawn my  attention  to the Living Planet Index which is used by the WWF to calculate the decline in species numbers.
It looks at around 2100 species.
At the last count there are roughly 2 million species on the planet.

As for changing our lifestyle and using less energy- well yes we can do that.
We can return to say a late neolithic life style- of course that does mean the death of around 99% of the human race.
Or perhaps we could settle for a medieval life style- we could probably manage that with only a 75% decline in the human population.


----------



## wonkishere (May 26, 2012)

JimBraiden said:


> It would appear that the WWF Report has even less validity than I though.
> A statistican frined of mine has drawn my  attention  to the Living Planet Index which is used by the WWF to calculate the decline in species numbers.
> It looks at around 2100 species.
> At the last count there are roughly 2 million species on the planet.
> ...



Using less energy automatically does not take us all the way back to a medieval state, or cause the death of 99% of the population.
The last time I checked we wanted to increase our energy requirements by something like 5% next year. Every year we use more energy. If we reversed the trend, and decided to increase prices a bit, and make do with say 5% less energy next year, it would effect our lifestyle somewhat, but it wouldn't be a medieval culture by any means. We'd have pretty much the same technology we always did, but we'd have to change our lifestyle a little. 
If we reduced energy use with a tax, we could use all the money gathered by that tax to build solar, wind, and geothermal sources, maybe even nuclear if we can find a state willing to build it.  (That is usually the problem.)
If we don't do that, you will find that in time, our lifestyle will change even more as we have to do adapt to the new ecology. Rising sea level, a massive increase in hurricanes and typhoons, and rising food prices from droughts and changes to growth cycles will ultimate be far more damaging then what I just suggested.  What I suggested is a picnic in comparison.

It isn't a choice between 99% of the human race dying, or being forced to go back to the medieval area.  That's nuts.... and it's not really an effective response on your part.


----------



## JimBraiden (May 27, 2012)

A 5% cut in energy consumption might not be a big deal to the developed  countries- it would be a heavy blow however to those third world  societies trying to improve the lot of their citizens.

As for an energy tax to support renewable energy sources most of the  developed world already have then inn place- in the UK such taxes are  estimated to add an additional £300/$500 per annum to household fuel bills.
Germany, Spain, Holland and Denmark all have similar schemes and the US  have ploughed billions of stimulus money into solar and wind power.
And all have been totally ineffective.
Well apart from making a small group people very wealthy- in the UK the  landed gentry have taken to wind power like the proverbial duck to water  and are enjoying a huge surge in income by allowing the useless things  to dot their rolling acres. 
Spain threw away billions on solar power- destroying jobs and helping to  put drive the Spanish economy into its current dire straits- my  favourite story is the Spanish solar farm that was so efficient it was  able to supply power at night! Turns out that because of the huge  subsidies that it was paid for solar power it was actually worth its  while to hook up a diesel generator  and pump fossil fuel power into the  grid when the sun went down.
Germany facing huge power bills and a potential energy shortage that  will effect an estimated 150000 homes, is quietly dropping its subsidies  for wind and solar power- a move given further impetus when the leaders  of the German steel and chemical industry informed Angela Merkal that they would relocating Eastwards if their energy prices continued to rise.
And in Australia the hated Carbon tax is on track to destroy the Gillard government- opinion polls and state elections pointing to a landslide defeat for the Labour party.
But the good news is that with new technology and new natural gas  resources coming on line it looks as if we have enough power to hand to  keep our civilisation growing and pull the third world level with the  rest of the planet.
As for rising sea levels- not happening.
Nor are hurricanes or typhoons increasing.
Nor droughts.
And food production continues to rise- most of the human race is better fed and healthier than it was even a  generation ago.


----------



## wonkishere (May 28, 2012)

For the benefit of other readers who might have a slightly open mind... actually, countries in Europe have made a lot of positive changes which I consider successful.  Germany runs almost entirely off solar and geothermal, and they are as a matter fact, the single most economically successful country in the EU.  Jim doesn't seem to have a great deal of awareness of what's going on when he says a lot of the things he does.

Food production is already down, the coral reefs are going away, and I know Jim, you don't believe me, that's fine.

I hope someday you can come to some kind of place where you're capable of being objective. Good luck with that.


----------



## JimBraiden (May 28, 2012)

wonkishere said:


> For the benefit of other readers who might have a slightly open mind... actually, countries in Europe have made a lot of positive changes which I consider successful.  Germany runs almost entirely off solar and geothermal, and they are as a matter fact, the single most economically successful country in the EU.  Jim doesn't seem to have a great deal of awareness of what's going on when he says a lot of the things he does.
> 
> Food production is already down, the coral reefs are going away, and I know Jim, you don't believe me, that's fine.
> 
> I hope someday you can come to some kind of place where you're capable of being objective. Good luck with that.



I would say my awareness is a tad more aware than yours.
Here is the breakdown of Germanys energy sources:


Oil 34.6%
Bituminous coal 11.1%
Lignite 11.4%
Natural gas 21.7%
Nuclear power 11.0%
Hydro- and wind power 1.5%
Others 9.0%
The others refers to bio fuels- solar makes up 6.6% of that.
Geothermal power provides less that half of one percent of Germany's power.

I do hope that is objective enough for you.


----------



## JimBraiden (Jun 2, 2012)

An interesting article on the WWF from Der Spiegel:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/wwf-helps-industry-more-than-environment-a-835712.html

Not very nice people.


----------



## Dave (Jun 2, 2012)

A number of different things are raised there - I'm not sure which you find not very nice:

To be fair to the WWF raising money in that way is no different to all big charities. They are all top heavy with administration, and they all spend vast amounts of money on publicity to raise even more money. If you look into the High Street Chuggers and how they are actually paid you would never subscribe, and yet charities continue to find this is their most successful way of getting funds. You would hesitate to donate even to these yearly TV telethons with pictures of poor starving kids if you saw exactly when the money was actually spent - pool tables for youth clubs vandalised within a few months. I prefer charity to begin at home and for local causes.



> Nevertheless, the WWF sees the Indian tiger program as a success. Without its efforts, says a spokesman, India's tigers could "quite possibly be extinct by now."


There are more Tigers in private ownership in the USA than in the whole of the rest of the world. I think the game is already lost for the Tiger; and sadly, for most of the remaining large mammals. That doesn't mean we should give up, but I'd agree than some honesty about the situation might help. However, if the WWF were to tell the truth, no one would bother to give them a penny.

If your point is whether a campaigning political organisation should be a charity at all, then I think I agree. I would also extend that to include religious and pseudo-religious organisations. On a wider note, NGOs have far too much power and influence. Some NGOs are richer than the countries in which they operate. They are the cause of some of the problems in the world, when they are meant to be providing solutions.


----------



## Vertigo (Jun 3, 2012)

JimBraiden said:


> But the good news is that with new technology and new natural gas resources coming on line it looks as if we have enough power to hand to keep our civilisation growing and pull the third world level with the rest of the planet.
> Jim you do appear to be quite well informed, I'll grant you that. However that has to be one of the most uninformed burying head in sand statements I have ever seen. It wll quite frankly never happen and if it did the level of CO2 output would make todays levels seem tiny. If you believe that is a safe state of affairs then you are sadly misguided.
> 
> As for rising sea levels- not happening.
> ...


 
Now I'm sure you could come up with lots of wonderful 'facts' to counter these statements but the bottom line is that we really don't know. Our planet's climate and ecosystem are immensely complex and our understanding of it is only beginning to scratch the surface. We only have one planet to live on and there is no doubt we are raping it whilst wearing blindfolds. We are stripping it of resources without even fully understanding the impact. To continue in the way we are is pure folly.


----------



## JimBraiden (Jun 3, 2012)

agree- burning more fossil fuel will bring about a small increase in CO2 production- so what?
If it is a choice between a small increase in a harmless trace gas ( or  to be accurate a vital trace gas for plant life) and improving the lives  of millions of third world men, women and children I will go with the  former.

Antarctic sea ice is increasing - not decreasing.
Some glaciers are retreating, some advancing and have been since the last major ice age ended.
And the same applies to the Greenland icecap.

As for hurricanes- yes they have increased in strength since the 70's- again a very short period in climate terms. 

And speaking of Arctic Sea Ice:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/26/2819327_p2/heavy-ice-could-delay-start-of.html
"The heaviest polar ice in more than a decade could postpone the start of  offshore oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean until the beginning of  August, a delay of up to two weeks"

Which is odd as I can recall being told that by 2012 the Arctic Sea ice would have pretty much vanished due to CAGW.

Why?- well probably due to more energy being provided by the warming period that began then. 
Or it might be that it is only since the 1970's that we have had the  ability to really measure storm strength because it is only since then  that we have had satellites monitoring them- before that the data is  much more suspect.
We simply don't have accurate figures for storm strength pre the 1970's and even more so for the period before the 1950's.
( See claims of Arctic sea ice reaching its lowest point since records  began - what is rarely mentioned is that said records only date back to  1979 when satellite coverage began- although there is ample evidence  that Arctic sea ice has declined and advanced to greater degrees than  current during human history)
But the fact remains that those pushing CAGW claimed that it would cause  in increase in the frequency of hurricanes- but there has not been any  such increase.

Joe Romm!!?? Please .

Droughts- globally, the mid 1950s had the highest drought activity and the mid  1970s to mid 1980s had the lowest.
 Which is odd since the planet was actually cooling in the 1950-1970 period.
Actually most severe droughts  are linked to El Nino /ENSO evetns  and  there is no hard evidence that they are caused by human actions.
Ask the Anasazi.

And yes too many people still suffer from hunger, but not because we are  short of food but because we can't get the food to them- and because we  waste an enormous amount.

The Punjab is in trouble- but overall Indian food production is rising.

The earths ecosystem is indeed incredibly complex- but also incredibly robust.
We should indeed strive to protect it so that we can better exploit it.

This just in:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/26/2819327_p2/heavy-ice-could-delay-start-of.html

"The heaviest polar ice in more than a decade could postpone the start of  offshore oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean until the beginning of  August, a delay of up to two weeks,"

Odd- I seem to recall being told that Arctic sea ice would have pretty much disappeared by 2012 due to CAGW.


----------



## Vertigo (Jun 3, 2012)

JimBraiden said:


> agree- burning more fossil fuel will bring about a small increase in CO2 production- so what?
> If it is a choice between a small increase in a harmless trace gas ( or to be accurate a vital trace gas for plant life) and improving the lives of millions of third world men, women and children I will go with the former.


I think you underestimate the amount of energy production required to bring the underdeveloped countries in line with the developed. This would not be a small increase. And until we understand our climate better a little caution might save those same people from even worse to come. Besides do you really think the developed countries will give that energy to the undeveloped world. Come on...



> Antarctic sea ice is increasing - not decreasing.


Yes, but... http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...tarctica-sea-ice-paradox-science-environment/



> Some glaciers are retreating, some advancing and have been since the last major ice age ended.


Yes but most are retreating: "Since 1980, a significant global warming has led to glacier retreat becoming increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that some glaciers have disappeared altogether, and the existence of a great number of the remaining glaciers of the world is threatened.
And the same applies to the Greenland icecap." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850



> As for hurricanes- yes they have increased in strength since the 70's- again a very short period in climate terms.


But a longer period to conisder than your one year of thick arctic ice in the last decade that you mention below.



> And speaking of Arctic Sea Ice:
> http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/26/2819327_p2/heavy-ice-could-delay-start-of.html
> "The heaviest polar ice in more than a decade could postpone the start of offshore oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean until the beginning of August, a delay of up to two weeks"
> 
> Which is odd as I can recall being told that by 2012 the Arctic Sea ice would have pretty much vanished due to CAGW.


See comment above. And yes not all global warming predictions from the last decade are going to be correct. Did you really expect them to be?



> But the fact remains that those pushing CAGW claimed that it would cause in increase in the frequency of hurricanes- but there has not been any such increase.


And it seems like someone has been saying that the time period we are talking about is too small for such things to be measured significantly. You can't have it both ways. First you claim that evidence for change is over too short a period of time to be considered and then complain that predicted changes haven't happened in the same short period of time.



> Actually most severe droughts are linked to El Nino /ENSO evetns and there is no hard evidence that they are caused by human actions.
> Ask the Anasazi.


"El Niño has become more frequent, persistent and intense during the last 20-30 years. We don't know whether this is a natural variation or the effect of increasing greenhouse gases."
But of course 20-30 years is such a short period of time that maybe we should wait another century or two before we do anything.



> And yes too many people still suffer from hunger, but not because we are short of food but because we can't get the food to them- and because we waste an enormous amount.
> 
> The Punjab is in trouble- but overall Indian food production is rising.


Agreed but that is largely due to improved farming techniques and GM crops. However with water tables falling across the globe That growth is unlikely to continue: 
"With river water in key farming regions rather fully exploited, the world has turned to underground water sources in recent decades to keep expanding the irrigated area. As a result, the climbing demand for water has now exceeded the natural recharge of many aquifers. Now water tables are falling in scores of countries that contain more than half the world’s people. These include China, India, and the United States, which together account for nearly half of the global grain harvest. And as the gap between steadily rising demand and the sustainable yield of aquifers grows, water tables are falling at an accelerating rate."



> The earths ecosystem is indeed incredibly complex- but also incredibly robust.


This is a higly qualitative statement. How robust is robust? We cannot know just how robust the Earth's ecosystem is because it has never been subject to anything remotely close to the exploitation of the last century. We simply do not know how robust it is in the face of these changes and as it is the only planet currently available to us it seems a rather dangerous attitude to assume it can survive our current levels of exploitation without going critical.

It strikes me that mankind is undergoing the biggest experiment it has ever undertaken and the subject of that experiment is our only home. Maybe that sits fine with some people but it makes me more than a little uncomfortable.


----------



## JimBraiden (Jun 5, 2012)

No I don't expect the developed world to give the energy to the  underdeveloped countries- I expect them to buy them on the open market  or find and exploit them for themselves- as China, India and others are  doing.

Antarctic sea ice is increasing- and thanks for the link to the National  Geographic report but it is I am afraid badly out of date- see the  reference to Steig et al's paper in nature- a paper later pretty  thoroughly refuted/discredited- take your pick ( What Steig er al had  attempted was to take data for West Antarctica and try to spread It  across the whole continent- and as it later transpired the data itself  was highly suspect)- see O’Donnell, R., et al., 2011._Journal of Climate_-  the bottom line being that there has been no discernible continental  wide warming in the Antarctic in the last or  so years and sea ice has increased by an average of .97% per decade.

Glaciers- yes most are currently in retreat- and 500 years ago most  were  advancing- there is an amusing item in the ecclesiastical records  of the Diocese of Bern recounting how the Arch Bishop was called upon to  carry out an exorcism on a glacier that was advancing into rich  pastures belonging to a local noble. Alas the score was Glacier 1,  Archbishop 0
As for Greenland- again the picture is not quite what Wiki says ( by the  way I would exercise great caution in using Wikl as a reference source  for information on climate change- last year they had to suspend one  William Connolly for repeatedly  misediting and deleting any data which  contradicted the CAGW orthodoxy)
The most recent  studies show that the rate of ice melt is lower than  originally thought and is more probably part of a natural cycle that man  made;
 Bjørk, A. A., et al., 2012. is worth a look.

As for the Arctic- yes I agree that the current high levels of sea ice  do not a trend make- I only mentioned it because one of the more oft  repeated claims for CAGW is that the Arctic sea ice is in an  unprecedented and unstoppable decline. However  there is ample evidence   in both the paleo record and the historical records of various navies  and scientific bodies that both those claims are untrue ( one of the  most amusing news items of last year was the expedition led by Josk  Wishart which we were told by various papers and news outlets including  the Guardian and the BBC  "had  rowed to the North Pole"  thus proving the effect of CAGW- turned out they had managed to row to  the position of the North Magnetic Pole in 1996- some 700 kilometres  south of the current position of the Magnetic North Pole nad almost 1200  klicks short of the geographic north pole.

And no I don't expect all the global warming predictions made in the  last decade to be correct- but when the vast majority of them prove  false you do need to ask yourself how valid the theory itself is.
Speaking of Global Warming Predictions you may remember claims that the penguin population of the Antractic was declining due to Man Made Global Warming?
Well it turned  out that the perceived decline in the penguin population was man made but had nothing to do with climate change:
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110112/full/news.2011.15.html
It seesm  that tagging a penguin damages its health and shortens its lifespan- so the more you tag the more die and voila penguin population decline which must of course be caused by climate change.


----------



## Arkose (Jun 5, 2012)

I'm trying to understand something here. The reason that Climate Change doesn't exists is because Antarctica ice is growing and not receding? 

If I fully give that Antarctica ice is growing does that mean man made effects on the environment are not happening?


----------



## JimBraiden (Jun 5, 2012)

Arkose said:


> I'm trying to understand something here. The reason that Climate Change doesn't exists is because Antarctica ice is growing and not receding?



No- in fact the increase in  Antarctic Sea ice cover is clear evidence that Climate Change exists.

One might say that change is in fact climate's defining factor.


----------



## Arkose (Jun 5, 2012)

So what is the whole argument about? The word "warming," or that human race can not have negative impacts on the environment?


----------



## JimBraiden (Jun 5, 2012)

The extent of the impact.

And the extent to which groups like the WWF and Grenpeace benefit by  pushing exaggerated claims about the damage caused by human actions.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 6, 2012)

JimBraiden said:


> agree- burning more fossil fuel will bring about a small increase in CO2 production- so what?
> If it is a choice between a small increase in a harmless trace gas ( or  to be accurate a vital trace gas for plant life) and improving the lives  of millions of third world men, women and children I will go with the  former.



Small increase? Harmless trace gas? Improving the lives of millions? I think you have the situation in reverse. 

Perhaps you should go back and start re-reading the science literature over the past 20+ years which has been detailing the steady picture of global warming caused predominantly by the increase in CO2 levels.

The effects are certainly not harmless, and certainly not improving the lives of anybody! 

The claim that climate sciences have been taken over by some weird leftist agenda is just plain insulting to the world of science. Funny how areas of science become targets for being discredited when there are billion-dollar multinational interests at stake.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Jun 6, 2012)

things like deforestation also have a tangible, negative impact on human beings. e.g. 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703435104575421170100705034.html


----------



## The Procrastinator (Jun 7, 2012)

Jim, you might like this website; the people on here are fond of detail too. The page I'm linking to is about Antarctic sea ice / land ice but you will probably find the entire site of interest.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

Now - can we please separate the “climate change” discussion from the “damage caused by human actions” discussion.  No matter what your opinion of climate change is, the two are not the same by a long shot, and conflating them obscures the issue of species decline and the "crisis" raised by the OP.

I'm not sure if it’s possible to exaggerate the damage caused by human actions when you look at the stuff we are actually doing right now and have actually done. I'm talking large scale habitat destruction, habitat fragmentation and alteration, and the introduction of invasive pest species of plant and animal; I'm talking water use and changes in water systems (such as irrigation), and the massive introduction of refined chemicals into natural systems (one example is the pesticides routinely used to protect grain seeds, which have recently been discovered to persist into the mature plant and its pollen, and damage bee populations). 

I for one see a very clear link between our actions now and in the recent past and the accelerating decline in other species. I also see a clear link between our growth in population and the decline in other species.

I don't need the WWF to tell me this is happening, because I am interested in the other lifeforms that live on this planet (particularly Australia, where I live) and have been following the issue for many years. In Australia, for instance, there has been a marked decline in small bird species in the larger cities/ more populated regions, a marked decline in woodland bird species in general, and a marked decline in small mammal numbers. More plants, reptiles, amphibians, birds and mammals are being added to the threatened species lists every year. These declines can be laid squarely at our door, thanks to our introduction of destructive feral species such as the cat, the fox and the goat (and lack of serious efforts to control them) and our interference with habitat, disrupting food sources, changing bushfire behaviour, and more particularly, destroying nesting habitat for small creatures (and thinking that we're cleaning things up by doing so - then wondering where the fairy-wrens have gone.) 

In the case of Australia, we have massive alteration of habitat since white settlement (just over 200 years ago) - a huge agricultural industry (largely for export), a huge and growing mining industry, fertilisers, pesticides and fungicides getting into soils and water systems, and a rapidly expanding human population in a relatively small area (90% of Australians now live in an urban environment, and this is mostly concentrated on the eastern seaboard from Brisbane-ish down to Melbourne).  It’s an awful lot of change in a short span of time.  Add that to the fact that 75% of Australia is either arid or semi-arid, water resources are scarce, and that the areas of higher and more reliable rainfall tend to match the areas where people live, or want to live – it’s hardly a surprise that our native species are going backwards. Australia is one of only 17 nations globally classed as “megadiverse” – these 17 nations carry about 70% of the world’s biodiversity. It ranks very highly in terms of species endemism in plants and is ranked number one for endemic species of bird, reptile, amphibian and mammal. To add insult to injury we are one of only two "developed" nations on the megadiverse list - the other is the US. And yet our species are in decline.

That's Oz, that's my backyard. Globally I have no doubt there are similar troubles, perhaps for different reasons. For instance I spotted these articles in the paper today:

Global Environment Outlook Grim says UN

Ravenous Consumption Threat to Third of Vulnerable Species

Now I understand Jim Braiden's point that some of these claims should be taken with a grain of salt, and the language could be more measured. But equally, anyone who looks at what we are really doing to habitats globally and locally - what it really takes to support the lifestyles to which we have become accustomed - where the resources come from, what is really involved in producing the food and fibres we demand, the technologies we take for granted - anyone who makes themselves aware of this and thinks it can go on growing like it is forever - that person is an idiot.

End rant for the moment.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Jun 7, 2012)

Well said, TP.


----------



## Arkose (Jun 11, 2012)

I agree TP. I feel that since there is some science against global warming that it gives people an excuse to not believe all the overwhelming evidence on negative human impacts on the environment. Specially when all both sides do is argue which side is more credible, the WFF funded side or the cooperate/energy funded side. I would like to point out that alot of research is done outside of these two groups that support a higher rate of increase in temperatures than we have on record. 

I have not seen any research that has proved that the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico (the size of some countries) doesn't exist or isn't growing. How about the Colorado River delta, with all its endangered species, not receiving any water during periods of the year because all the water is allocated to cities and farming? I could also mention the destruction of 80% of all U.S. wetlands that cleans water, provides habitat, and lessens flooding impacts*. Let alone world impacts like the Dead Sea, China rivers, Sahara Desert growing from deforestation, and distinctions by poaching. 

*Note: Flooding in the U.S. is as bad as it is because of our destruction of wetlands.


----------

