Report: Consumption of Earth's resources unsustainable

NASA

(CBS News) The Earth's population is depleting our planet's natural resources at a rate faster than what is needed for those resources to be replenished, putting increased pressure on biodiversity and the health of ecosystems, according to a new report by the World Wildlife Fund.

The Living Planet Report 2012, a biennial report on the state of the planet, measures the planet's biocapacity - the rate at which natural resources are generated vs. human consumption, and the land area available to produce renewable resources and absorb CO2 emissions - and finds that humans are overextending their footprint on the planet.

Under the report's measurement unit of global hectares, or gha (one gha represents an average biologically productive hectare of land area needed to sustain human life), in 2008 the Earth's total biocapacity was 12.0 billion gha, or 1.8 gha per person. However, Mankind's Ecological Footprint - what was actually consumed - was 18.2 billion gha, or 2.7 gha per person.

More than half of the Ecological Footprint represents Man's carbon footprint. The remainder is comprised of cropland and grazing land, forests, fishing grounds, and developed land.

The Ecological Footprint of high-income countries is five times that of low-income countries. According to the report the 10 nations with the highest Ecological Footprint are the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Denmark, Belgium, United States, Estonia, Canada, Australia, Kuwait and Ireland.

"Living Planet" report (WWF)

The report also measures the world's populations of wildlife - 2,688 mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian and fish species from regions across the globe - using a variety of methods, from counting individual specimens via tagging and camera trapping, to surveys of nesting sites and monitoring animal movements, and finds a 28 percent global decline in biodiversity health between 1970 and 2008.

The index of species in tropical regions declined by more than 60 percent since 1970, while species in temperate zones increased by 31 percent over the same period.

WWF says biodiversity is experiencing the greatest pressures from the loss of habitat (through agricultural, industrial and urban use, damming, and other changes to river flows); overharvesting of wild species populations; pollution; climate change; and invasive species.

For example, fish - one of the planet's leading sources of protein - have been severely impacted, with a nearly five-fold increase in global catch, from 19 million tons in 1950 to 87 million tons in 2005.

In order to better safeguard the Earth's ability to sustain us, WWF advocates better management of resources and protection of habitat, across the entire system of extraction, production and consumption, through more equitable resource governance; redirecting financial flows to reward conservation, more efficient resource management and innovation; and healthy consumption patterns.

[the_egret]

If you have real interest in this subject, check out this link:

http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_gilding_the_earth_is_full.html

Very thought-provoking for those with more than a bumper-sticker slogan mentality.

[the_egret]

When I was in High School in 1951 I read a book called The Challenge of Man's Future. It discussed all the things we were in danger of running out of, which would mean grave consequences for civilization.

One of them was copper.

What it totally failed to grasp was that one Telstar satellite meant we DIDN'T need hundreds of thousands of miles of copper wire. We have not run out of copper.

I would be most concerned about water.

[littleblogger]

Shame on all of you that do not care. Apathy is what has brought this crisis to our planet. Everyone needs to care now not later and try to become the solution not adding to the problem.

[kpburd]

I care, but some of these comments are hilarious. I feel like I am reading a SNL skit.

[econmagic]

So they advocate better management of the earth's environment and resources. Great, we will all hold hands, sing coombaya!!, and it will magically happen.
Here is an actual proposal for a practical, common sense solution we should fight for. Idealism has failed folks, let us give a real solution a try.
http://zoltansustainableecon.blogspot.com/2012/05/rio-20-part-4-what-if.html

[phydeux2]

Lets just call it "The Chicken Little Report" and be honest about it.

The sky is not falling, the earth isn't dying, and whatever impact Man is having is nothing the earth can't handle. Its the height of human hubris to think we are going to kill such a massive biological system.

They mention species they track that are diminishing or disappearing. What about all the ones that are flourishing or newly discovered that aren't being tracked? Don't they count? Species come, and species go. Its only human presumption that believes no species should perish from this earth while we're around. And we could be doing more harm than good by forcibly stopping a species from dying out and making room in the food chain for something else.

I'm all for being responsible, but not to the point that we have to sacrifice ourselves because some eco-nut THINKS we might be doing irreparable harm to an ecosystem that's been around for billions of years. Perhaps they need to stop watching Sunday afternoon reruns of "The Day After Tomorrow" and taking it seriously.

[mogurseco]

This should not be news, and for anyone with a broad scientific understanding it is a conclusion that has gnawed at them for decades. 4 decades in my case. Unfortunately four decades of observation of human behavior also lead me to the conclusion that the most likely solution is barbaric wholesale planned "euthanasia" of 1/3 to 1/2 of the world population, done for the same reason that a surgeon cuts off a gangrenous limb so that the patient lives.
It will also most likely be the "Developed" nations that perpetrate this on the third world.

l am not advocating this.

I simply state that we as a species are incapable of controlling our greed both on individual and societal levels, and population collapse is therefore unavoidable.

Even if we could be "civilized" and bring this about as a painless form of randomized death, how it would be meted out would also fall prey to human nature and the influence of power and money as well.

Again I am not advocating this, but eventually this will be what someone with the power and the fatal set of skills and circumstances will set in motion when conditions become dire enough.

[Zann-Zel]

Geez, I just wonder what God's answer to this would be?
Do you think he'd say "Go Forth and Multiply!" ???
or......
Do you think maybe he'd say, hey if I create a few more homosexual people vs. a few more heterosexual people - maybe the procreation rate will slow down a bit!

[karek40]

Year Population
in Billions
1900 1.65
1910 1.75
1920 1.86
1930 2.07
1940 2.3
1950 2.52
1960 3.02
1970 3.7
1980 4.44
1990 5.27
2000 6.06
2012 7
Our population is increasing almost exponentially, we will likely have 8 billion by 2020. We would expect our resources to be used up faster as the population increases (regardless of the steps we take short of nuclear war). The picture is pretty grim for those born in the last 10 to 20 years. Oh bigger or smaller government won't solve this problem, lack of resources will eventually reduce the population.

[rightofwrong]

Regardless of your opinions on climate change, it makes sense to at least make an effort to clean up after yourself. Recycle your junk and make some money back. The simple things can make a difference.

I don't buy into the idea that our planet is fragile, but nature is often reactive to man's influence on it. If you live in a flood plane, you are gonna get flooded. You live in tornado country, you might get hit by one. Build a home on a hill in SoCal and it might slide off. Swim with the sharks and you might get bit.

[bruisedthumb]

This took a study? Thought this was basic understanding. If carbon footprint is the problem, did any one hazard a calculation of the needed changes to "equalize?"

There is value in yelling "fire" in the theater when there is a fire - there is more value in yelling "fire and the exits are in front on both sides and in back.."

How about some of our esteemed media/science types giving the latter instead of just the former

[phydeux2]

Its easier to raise the alarm and charge people $5 to find out where the exits are. Or, in the case of modern science, say the earth is dying and wait for enough grants to come rolling in to find out what's required to deal with it.