About a year ago I was sitting in the waiting room of a physical therapy clinic when a man struck up a conversation with me. After a bit of chatting he led the conversation into the direction of the environment and the issue of Global Warming which he didn't believe was an issue at all. Rather than make some weak attempt at navigating my way through lists of facts or statistics I simply pointed out that perhaps it would be wise to play it safe just in case. Even though the chances of getting into a car wreck are slim, I automatically put my seat belt on when I get into the car because I want to prevent myself from flying through the windshield. It's called prevention. Wouldn't it be better to play it safe rather than putting oneself, and others, in the position of feeling loads of regret and sadness for what is lost??? We're talking about our lives after all...Clean Air, Clean Water things that we absolutely need for survival. It ain't no joke...Would it be so difficult for every individual to make some conscious changes in their lives for the betterment of all living things? The assumption that Global Warming is a non-issue may effect all of us, is that fair to those of us who put forth the effort? There is a term that is generally used in the realm of economics called the Free Rider - those who don't feel compelled to take responsibility for their actions or lack of action, but who do enjoy the benefits as provided by those who do take action. The few women (some of who died before reaping the benefits that they fought so hard for) who literally fought, struggled, indured ridicule and abuse so that ALL women could enjoy the right to vote while so many sat by and did nothing (free riders). Sadly, there are many examples of the majority benefiting from the hard work of the minority. Unfortunately, when it comes to the environment, the majority really matters. The minority can not do it alone...
Please set aside your opinion on the matter (because, like me, you're probably not a scientist or God) and do what's right just in case.
12:31 29 October 2008
NewScientist.com news service
New Scientist staff and Reuters
NewScientist.com news service
New Scientist staff and Reuters
We face an ecological credit crunch far greater than the global financial crisis, warn leading environmental groups.
In the latest Living Planet Report, WWF, the Zoological Society of London and the Global Footprint Network say the Earth's natural resources are being depleted so quickly that the equivalent of two planets would be required to sustain current lifestyles by the mid-2030s.
"We are acting ecologically in the same way as financial institutions have been behaving economically – seeking immediate gratification without due regard for the consequences," says Jonathan Loh of the Zoological Society of London, comparing the cost of human pollution, deforestation, over-fishing and land conversion to the recent credit crunch.
"The consequences of a global ecological crisis are even graver than the current economic meltdown," he says.
'Bold action' needed
The report finds that more than three quarters of the world's population lives in countries whose consumption levels are outstripping environmental renewal. It warns that reckless consumption of "natural capital" is endangering the world's future prosperity, with clear economic impacts, including high costs for food, water and energy.
WWF's international director-general James Leape says world leaders must put ecological concerns at the top of their agenda and ensure the environment is factored into all decisions about consumption, development, trade, agriculture and fisheries management.
"If humanity has the will, it has the ways to live within the means of the planet, but we must recognize that the ecological credit crunch will require even bolder action than that now being mustered for the financial crisis," he says.
Emissions from fossil fuels are among the top culprits for placing excessive demands on the planet cited by the three environmental groups. Yet, these could be regulated by a successor to the Kyoto protocol, due to be agreed by member nations of the UN at the end of 2009.
The report's conclusions echoed those of the UN Environment Programme's fourth Global Environment Outlook (GEO), published a year ago.
Planetary debt
According to the Living Planet Report, the world's global environmental "footprint" now exceeds the planet's capacity to regenerate by 30%. Last year's GEO-4 report said the human population needs 1.4 Earths to sustain the average lifestyle.
In 2002, WWF and its Living Planet Report partners found that humanity was overusing the Earth's resources by 20% and that we would need two planets by 2050 (see Humanity's massive overdraft with Earth).
The Global Footprint Network records the date humans go into planetary debt each year by using up the resources that Earth can regenerate in one year. In 2008, "Earth Overshoot Day" came on 23 September.
According to the latest report, the US and China have the largest national footprints. The picture is different, though, when China's population of 1.3 billion is taken into account: per capita, the US and Australia rank among the five countries with the largest footprints, along with the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Denmark.
The lowest five nations are Bangladesh, Congo, Haiti, Afghanistan and Malawi. The only regions to remain within their "biocapacity" are non-EU Europe, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean.
No comments:
Post a Comment