• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

How Silly is Climate Change Denial?

Free episodes:

Merging climate, food, water, ocean, soil, justice, poverty, and old-growth forest crises – all which are to some degree caused by inequitable overpopulation – are destroying ecosystems and threaten to pull down our one shared biosphere.
Earth has lost 80% of her old-growth forests, 50% of her soil, 90% of the big fish – and many water, land, and ocean ecosystems, as well as atmospheric stability, as human population has soared more than sevenfold

On Overpopulation and Ecosystem Collapse | Scoop News

Mike,

We live on a planet. In some places there is abundances of resources, food, water, and other resources. In some places there is a lack of these things. The problem is not overpopulation. Getting rid of people will not put food on the tables of people living in the areas with a lack of resources. The problem is not people. The solution, however, is people. Because the solution is to be able to distribute resources from places that have an abundance to places that don't. It's just that simple.
 
Mike,

We live on a planet. In some places there is a abundances of resources, food, water, and other resources. In some places there is a lack of these things. The problem is not overpopulation. Getting rid of people will not put food on the tables of people living in the areas with a lack of resources. The problem is not people. The solution, however, is people. Because the solution is to be able to distribute resources in places that have an abundance to places that don't. It's just that simple.

And yet scientific consensus looks at the big picture and draws the correct conclusion

The global ecological system is collapsing and dying under the cumulative filth of 7 billion people INEQUITABLY devouring their ecosystem habitats. It is impossible to avoid global ecosystem collapse if humanity continues to breed like bunnies; tolerates exorbitant inequality, abject poverty and conspicuous overconsumption; and destroys the ecosystems and climate that – rich or poor – are habitat for all of us.

It is not possible to go from 1 to 7 billion people in 135 years – while still growing exponentially – without profound impacts upon natural ecosystems that provide air, water, food and livelihoods. If you don’t understand this, you are uneducated, dumb, and/or indoctrinated; you need to study ecology and get out and see the world.

On Overpopulation and Ecosystem Collapse | Scoop News

And we can see those impacts, some so large we can see them from space, deforestation, vast sediment disturbances from ocean bottom trawling

Earth has lost 80% of her old-growth forests, 50% of her soil, 90% of the big fish

Along with many of the species that depended on these ravaged ecosystems

Consequences


Atlantic cod stocks were severely overfished in the 1970s and 1980s, leading to their abrupt collapse in 1992
According to a 2008 UN report, the world's fishing fleets are losing US$50 billion each year through depleted stocks and poor fisheries management. The report, produced jointly by the World Bank and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), asserts that half the world's fishing fleet could be scrapped with no change in catch. In addition, the biomass of global fish stocks have been allowed to run down to the point where it is no longer possible to catch the amount of fish that could be caught.[9] Increased incidence of schistosomiasis in Africa has been linked to declines of fish species that eat the snails carrying the disease-causing parasites.[10] Massive growth of jellyfish populations threaten fish stocks, as they compete with fish for food, eat fish eggs, and poison or swarm fish, and can survive in oxygen depleted environments where fish cannot; they wreak massive havoc on commercial fisheries. Overfishing eliminates a major jellyfish competitor and predator exacerbating the jellyfish population explosion
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And yet scientific consensus looks at the big picture and draws the correct conclusion





On Overpopulation and Ecosystem Collapse | Scoop News

And we can see those impacts, some so large we can see them from space, deforestation, vast sediment disturbances from ocean bottom trawling

Earth has lost 80% of her old-growth forests, 50% of her soil, 90% of the big fish

Along with many of the species that depended on these ravaged ecosystems

There is no scientific consensus on overpopulation. If there was, then you would know how many people is too many people.
 
Interestingly, the people here who are pushing the overpopulation myth never consider them self to be part of the problem. The problem always lies elsewhere and with other people. I agree with what several comics have stated over the years. If you truly believe in overpopulation then start with your own house and take yourself out. Meanwhile, those of us who don't believe in it can help work on real solutions to distribute resources to people living in places that lack resources.
 
Nope. Didn't get my info from FOX and it has nothing to do with what political party one favors. The earth is now in a cooling period that began after 1997. This cooling period was not predicted by AGW proponents. However, they now claim that it actually does prove AGW! LOL

Unfortunately, many, many AGW proponents haven't got the memo that the earth's average global temperature hasn't increased since 1997 and hence is why they still proclaim that the earth is getting warmer each year.

Thing is - AGW - as any scientific theory - is dynamic. This is not a 'this is the way it is' - rather, 'this is the way it looks right now with what we know'. And what we know right now is both impressive but not the whole story. We know that. I am the first one to be cautious with computer models - yet they are an impressive tool, even with the drawbacks - and no scientist discounts (wholly) what a computer model develops.

A lot has not been predicted by AGW - it's all happening far faster than anyone thought it would, for example. The snowball is rolling down the hill. Check out the science - which I have a feeling you haven't really done. There are many explanations for the possible 'flat-line' - one very important one being (among many - but is the one that I am fond) is that shifts in the ocean circulation patterns have pulled excess heat into the deep oceans - that would certainly explain the unexpectedly rapid melting of the ice packs and the loss of marine life.

For the record, I'm not implying that this cooling period will last or that we won't enter another warming period.

Well, we are in a warming period. No amount of saying otherwise will undo the fact that we have been on a warming trend for well over a hundred years - that no few handful of years (15) - when the temp stays 'the same' - will alter.

The Daily Mail enlightens us! :)

LINK: Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online

The headline is misleading - Climate Change did not 'stop' - there is weather that occurs within the whole gestalt, and then there is climate. The fact that you do not see this point tells me that you may read but you do not understand what you read regarding the science of climate versus weather.

This is what the scientists are talking about - the deniers are taking small snippets of time (weather) and extrapolating global trends in climate - one cannot do that. The scientist - when looking at climate - looks at large segments of time. Within that large time-frame there may be fluctuations - but the trajectory remains upward - as, indeed, it has been doing so of late with each year being a record breaker. We are breaking records all the time now. This is not a momentary rise on a flat-line. The temp has been rising steadily and we can correlate to emissions. Humanity is one big volcano, in a sense.

For what it's worth - one quick google got me this. If you're interested in how the science works, this should be an interesting read -

LINK: http://www.climate.gov/news-feature...s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade
 
Last edited:
There is no scientific consensus on overpopulation. If there was, then you would know how many people is too many people.

Too easy

"Science Summit" on World Population:A Joint Statement by 58 of the World's Scientific Academies

In a follow-up to several recent initiatives by assemblies of scientists and scientific academies, most notably one taken by the Royal Society of London and the US National Academy of Sciences that resulted in a joint statement, "Population Growth, Resource Consumption, and a Sustainable World, '' issued in February 1992 (see Documents, PDR, June 1992), representatives of national academies of science from throughout the world met in New Delhi, 24-27 October 1993, at a ''Science Summit'' on World Population. The participants issued a statement, signed by representatives of 58 academies. The statement offers a wide-ranging if ex cathedra-style discussion of population issues related to development, notably on the determinants of fertility and concerning the effect of demographic growth on the environment and the quality of life. It also sets forth policy propositions, with emphasis on contributions that ''scientists, engineers, and health professionals'' can make to the solution of population problems. The statement finds that ''continuing population growth poses a great risk to humanity, '' and proposes a demographic goal, albeit with a rather elusive specification of a time frame: "In our judgement, humanity's ability to deal successfully with its social, economic, and environmental problems will require the achievement of zero population growth within the lifetime of our children. '' The text of the academies ' statement is reproduced below

http://jayhanson.us/page75.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090418075752.htm
http://www.care2.com/causes/top-scientists-to-world-leaders-do-something-about-overpopulation.html#ixzz32P5gi9kr

There is no question about overpopulation, we are there; however estimates vary depending as to whom you ask and what you are looking at.
Overpopulation is determined, by the carrying capacity; “both by natural constraints and by human choices concerning economics, environment, culture (including values and politics), and demography” (Cohen). Our natural and cultural choices will determine how many people may live on earth at one time, and if we keep going as we have then we have stepped into “overpopulation.”

Look at food, water, air quality, resources as a whole will become scarcer, spread of disease, fragmented habitats caused by human populations.
As Edward O. Wilson assessed, in an essay titled The Current State of Biological Diversity, that “all remaining rain forest will either be clear-cut or seriously disturbed” at the same time that the World Bank has estimated the human population will level off at 11 billion people (Wilson, 27).

"The term “sustainability” and “sustainable development” became commonplace after a report by the World Commission on environmental and development… sustainable development was defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Arrow, et al).
Source(s):
Arrow, Kenneth, Partha Dasgupta, Lawerence Goulder, Gretchen Daily et al.. "Are We Consuming too Much?" Journal of Economic Perspectives 18.3 (2004): 147-72.

I stole excerpts from a paper i wrote. Its not bad, if you want to read it let me know. But it talks about the issues of over population from an environmental and social responsibility stand point

Environmental science undergrad.
What's the current scientific consensus on sustainability?

 
The key to understanding overpopulation is not population density but the numbers of people in an area relative to its resources and the capacity of the environment to sustain human activities; that is, to the area's carrying capacity. When is an area overpopulated? When its population can't be maintained without rapidly depleting nonrenewable resources (or converting renewable resources into nonrenewable ones) and without degrading the capacity of the environment to support the population. In short, if the long-term carrying capacity of an area is clearly being degraded by its current human occupants, that area is overpopulated. *35
By this standard, the entire planet and virtually every nation is already vastly overpopulated. Africa is overpopulated now because, among other indications, its soils and forests are rapidly being depleted—and that implies that its carrying capacity for human beings will be lower in the future than it is now. The United States is overpopulated because it is depleting its soil and water resources and contributing mightily to the destruction of global environmental systems. Europe, Japan, the Soviet Union, and other rich nations are overpopulated because of their massive contributions to the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere, among many other reasons.
Almost all the rich nations are overpopulated because they are rapidly drawing down stocks of resources around the world. They don't live solely on the land in their own nations. Like the profligate son of our earlier analogy, they are spending their capital with no thought for the future.

Overpopulation -- The Population Explosion, by Paul and Anne Ehrlich
 
Thing is - AGW - as any scientific theory - is dynamic. This is not a 'this is the way it is' - rather, 'this is the way it looks right now with what we know'. And what we know right now is both impressive - but not the whole story. We know that. I am the first one to be cautious with computer models - yet they are an impressive tool, even with the drawbacks - and no scientist discounts (wholly) what a computer model develops.

A lot has not been predicted by AGW - it's all happening far faster than anyone thought it would, for example. The snowball is rolling down the hill. Check out the science - which I have a feeling you haven't really done. There are many explanations for the possible 'flat-line' - one very important one being (among many - but is the one that I am fond) is that shifts in the ocean circulation patterns have pulled excess heat into the deep oceans - that would certainly explain the unexpectedly rapid melting of the ice packs and the loss of marine life.



Well, we are in a warming period. No amount of saying otherwise will undo the fact that we have been on a warming trend for well over a hundred years - that a few handful of years (15) when the temp stays 'the same' will alter.

The Daily Mail enlightens us! :)

LINK: Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online

This is what the scientists are talking about - the deniers are taking small snippets of time and extrapolating global trends in climate - one cannot do that. The scientist - when looking at climate - looks at large segments of time.

For what it's worth - one quick google got me this. If you're interested in how the science works, this should be an interesting read -

LINK: http://www.climate.gov/news-feature...s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade


I have checked out the science. AGW has failed multiple, crucial predictions that are vital to it being a reality. Do you know that? Do you know that the troposphere is supposed to be warming if AGW is real but the Troposphere is not warming? It was a prediction from AGW that is crucial. It failed.

Currently, everything is used to prove AGW is real and nothing can possible be used to disprove it. In Science, a theory has to be potentially wrong. This is called fasifiable. If something can never be viewed as wrong it wold be unfalsifiable. In Science, we are supposed to outright reject anything that is unfalsifiable. If can't ever be wrong then it can never be right and we have to toss it out. AGW is unfalsifiable. Everything is used to prove it and nothing it allowed to disprove. So why isn't it being tossed out?
 
There is no scientific consensus on overpopulation. If there was, then you would know how many people is too many people.


Can you spot the word consensus is the following quote

The InterAcademy Panel Statement on Population Growth is an international scientist consensus document discussing and demanding a halt of the population expansion. This was the first worldwide joint statement of academies of sciences, and their cooperative InterAcademy Panel on International Issues. It was signed by 58 member academies and hence ratified in 1994.

IAP - IAP Statement on Population Growth

The Problem
The world is undergoing an unprecedented population expansion. Within the span of a single lifetime, world population has more than doubled to 5.5 billion and even the most optimistic scenarios of lower birth rates lead to a peak of 7.8 billion people in the middle of the next century. In the last decade, food production from both land and sea declined relative to world population growth.
 
Too easy

"Science Summit" on World Population:A Joint Statement by 58 of the World's Scientific Academies

In a follow-up to several recent initiatives by assemblies of scientists and scientific academies, most notably one taken by the Royal Society of London and the US National Academy of Sciences that resulted in a joint statement, "Population Growth, Resource Consumption, and a Sustainable World, '' issued in February 1992 (see Documents, PDR, June 1992), representatives of national academies of science from throughout the world met in New Delhi, 24-27 October 1993, at a ''Science Summit'' on World Population. The participants issued a statement, signed by representatives of 58 academies. The statement offers a wide-ranging if ex cathedra-style discussion of population issues related to development, notably on the determinants of fertility and concerning the effect of demographic growth on the environment and the quality of life. It also sets forth policy propositions, with emphasis on contributions that ''scientists, engineers, and health professionals'' can make to the solution of population problems. The statement finds that ''continuing population growth poses a great risk to humanity, '' and proposes a demographic goal, albeit with a rather elusive specification of a time frame: "In our judgement, humanity's ability to deal successfully with its social, economic, and environmental problems will require the achievement of zero population growth within the lifetime of our children. '' The text of the academies ' statement is reproduced below

http://jayhanson.us/page75.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090418075752.htm
http://www.care2.com/causes/top-scientists-to-world-leaders-do-something-about-overpopulation.html#ixzz32P5gi9kr


What's the current scientific consensus on sustainability?



Oh, really? Then why did chimp lady, Jane Goodall moan about why overpopulation is never discussed and is so politically incorrect?

Sustainbility and all the other busswords you like to use have nothing to do with alleged overpopulation.
 
Can you spot the word consensus is the following quote



IAP - IAP Statement on Population Growth

The Problem
The world is undergoing an unprecedented population expansion. Within the span of a single lifetime, world population has more than doubled to 5.5 billion and even the most optimistic scenarios of lower birth rates lead to a peak of 7.8 billion people in the middle of the next century. In the last decade, food production from both land and sea declined relative to world population growth.


And that is Checkmate. we are done here.

You can stamp your foot and proclaim nah ah till you are blue in the face. Wont make you right in the clear face of the reality you continue to deny.

But there is your scientific consensus in black and white
 
Can you spot the word consensus is the following quote



IAP - IAP Statement on Population Growth


Mike, how much research have you done? I don't think you've done any outside of the paranoid rantings of fear mongers. The earth's population is believed will peak in about 30-50 years and then will begin to decline. This is if we do nothing at this point. If we enact procedures to bring down the population even quicker we just might go extinct.

The fear mongers claim the problem is overpopulation in third world countries. So you tell me, how is limiting the population going to put food on tables when there's little food to go around there?

How about another option, this is so freaking crazy, but why don't we develop the third world countries and bring them up to the level of the Western world?
 
And that is Checkmate. we are done here.

You can stamp your foot and proclaim nah ah till you are blue in the face. Wont make you right in the clear face of the reality you continue to deny.

But there is your scientific consensus in black and white


Checkmate? ROTLMAO!

You already lost!

You can not answer how many people is too many people, which is a requirement as the definition depends on the function of the number of people.

Nice try. But you lost multiple posts ago and just keep on posting away as if by ignoring it then it will go away.
 
I'm out of here for the night. I already wasted my evening on this crap. Reply back when you can determine how many people is too many people. Also, and while you are at it, try to figure out why CO2 drives the climate now when it never did at any time in all of the earth's past climate history. See ya!
 
Ive already done it, you either missed it or ignored it because it doesnt fit you views

How many people are too many people ?

Human overpopulation occurs if the number of people in a group exceeds the carrying capacity of the region occupied by the group. The term often refers to the relationship between the entire human population and its environment: the Earth

The fact is that we are using renewable resources faster than they can renew as per

Earth Overshoot Day
In 8 Months, Humanity Exhausts Earth's Budget for the Year
EOD2013-A_web2.jpg
August 20 is Earth Overshoot Day 2013, marking the date when humanity exhausted nature’s budget for the year. We are now operating in overdraft. For the rest of the year, we will maintain our ecological deficit by drawing down local resource stocks and accumulating carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Just as a bank statement tracks income against expenditures, Global Footprint Network measures humanity’s demand for and supply of natural resources and ecological services. And the data is sobering. Global Footprint Network estimates that in approximately eight months, we demand more renewable resources and C02 sequestration than what the planet can provide for an entire year.

And its getting worse

Mankind is draining the earth's resources so quickly the globe would be bled dry before the end of the century at this rate, a new report shows.
Humans are living outside their means, depleting natural resources like forests, air and water 50% faster than the planet can renew, according to the 2012 World Wildlife Fund's "Living Planet Report" released this month.
If the trends aren't reversed, by 2030 we’d need more than two Planet Earths to sustain human activity, according to the study.
“If we just do business as usual…we’re just going to continue moving in this direction. At some point, the earth’s going to just give out
Two Earths would be needed to sustain human activity by 2030, report finds - NY Daily News



Ergo we have exceeded the carrying capacity.
Ergo we are overpopulated.

We can and are getting by using an environmental credit card, but thats not sustainable in the long term.

We are overpopulated because we are using renewable resources faster than they can be renewed
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The scientific consensus is that the present population growth and increase in use of resources is a threat to the ecosystem. The InterAcademy Panel Statement on Population Growth called the growth in human numbers "unprecedented", and stated that many environmental problems, such as rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, global warming, and pollution, were made worse by the population expansion.[9] At the time, the world population stood at 5.5 billion, and optimistic scenarios predicted a peak of 7.8 billion by 2050, a number that current estimates show will be reached around 2030

Overpopulation - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

overpopulation -- A Scientific Consensus, Brainfood

Population Media Center » Blog Archive – Scientific Consensus on Maintaining Humanity’s Life Support Systems in the 21st Century: Information for Policy Makers
 
Here is another factor to consider.

Its been estimated the land required to feed the average person per year is 4 acres.
All the food you buy at the supermarket to feed yourself for a year used about 4 acres of land

Total Earth's solid surface is , 57,500,000 sq mi. Now, there are 640 acres per square mile which when multiplies together =
36,800,000,000 total acres on land to be divided up.
Latest World census figures as of Dec. 10, 2008 = 6,867,020,300 people living on Earth as of today. Divide the acres of land by the number of people and you get = 5.36 acres of land for every single person on Earth.

Using todays population figure its 5.086 acres per person (the trend is less and less land per person as time goes by )

Now this figure doesnt account for land used for cities and urban areas, doesnt account for desert of mountain terrain.

And of course

Desertification is a land degradation problem of major importance in the arid regions of the world. Deterioration in soil and plant cover have adversely affected nearly 50 percent of the land areas as the result of human mismanagement of cultivated and range lands. North America and Spain have the largest percentage of their arid lands affected. Overgrazing and woodcutting are responsible for most of the desertification of rangelands, cultivation practices inducing accelerated water and wind erosion are most responsible in the rain-fed croplands, and improper water management leading to salinization is the cause of the deterioration of irrigated lands. In addition to vegetation deterioration, erosion, and salinization, desertification effects can be seen in loss of soil fertility, soil compaction, and soil crusting. Urbanization, mining, and recreation are having adverse effects on the land

And of course if we decide every last acre of land is exclusively ours...........

Habitat loss is possibly the greatest threat to the natural world.
Every living thing needs somewhere to live, find food and reproduce. This is known as its habitat. In order for a species to be viable its habitat must have sufficient territory, necessary food and water and a range of necessary physical features. These features can include tree cover, rocky hills or deep pools, as well as the organisms and ecosystems that are needed to complete the life cycle.
Habitat loss is when land cover, or its aquatic equivalent, is changed, usually as a result of changing use by humans. Whenever we humans take over natural areas for our own use, we are encroaching on the habitat of another creature and progressively we are doing this at an alarming rate.
The world's forests, swamps, lakes and other habitats continue to disappear as we make way for agriculture, housing, roads, pipelines and all the other hallmarks of industrial development.
Human activity is responsible for the loss of around half of the forests that once covered the Earth. Although these can recover and can even be sustainably harvested, their rate of loss is about ten times higher than the rate of regrowth.
Europe's wetlands are traditionally an important habitat for countless numbers of creatures, but around 60% have been damaged, even though they are often an essential provider of clean drinking water.
Taking just one example: because of rainforest habitat loss it is estimated that at least 120 out of the 620 living primate species (apes, monkeys, lemurs and others) will be extinct within the next 10 to 20 years.
Habitat loss is generally more serious for the larger animals because they need a greater area in which to have a healthy breeding population. Tigers, mountain gorillas, pandas and Indian lions are good examples, but habitat loss does not just affect animals.
A recent study has indicated that more than 40 species of fish currently found in the Mediterranean could disappear in the next few years. Tropical orchids that thrive in the rain forests are at serious risk as are numerous species of birds from a wide variety of habitats. In fact the only species that are not truly affected by habitat loss are creatures that benefit from human activity such as cockroaches and rats.

Read more at http://www.earthtimes.org/encyclopaedia/environmental-issues/habitat-loss-degradation/#KkgkjYlyqicjq5Qh.99

I therefore contend that if human expansion costs us even a single species, then we are overpopulated. In order to make room for more humans, other species including some with the potential to evolve to sentience given enough time have to be wiped out.

If in order to make more room for our species, we need to steal the habitat of others causing their extinction as a result, then the answer is to check our growth, not steal our fellow terrestrial's homes. We must leave room for them

Its for this reason alone i contend we are already overpopulated, expanding the population of our species at the expense of other species, causing them to be wiped out and made extinct is a great shame on us.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A pioneering analysis of the world's ecosystems reveals a widespread decline in the condition of the world's ecosystems due to increasing resource demands. The analsysis, by the World Resources Institute (WRI) warns that if the decline continues it could have devastating implications for human development and the welfare of all species. The analysis examined coastal, forest, grassland, and freshwater and agricultural ecosystems. The health of the each ecosystem was measured, as based on its ability to produce the goods and services that the world currently relies on. These goods/services include production of food, provision of pure and sufficient water, storage of atmospheric carbon, maintenance of biodiversity and provision of recreation and tourism opportunities. The analysis shows that there are considerable signs that the capacity of Earth's ecosystems to produce many of the goods and services we depend on is rapidly declining.

Half of the world's wetlands were lost last century.
  • Logging and conversion have shrunk the world's forests by as much as half.
  • Some 9 percent of the world's tree species are at risk of extinction; tropical deforestation may exceed 130,000 square kilometers per year.
  • Fishing fleets are 40 percent larger than the ocean can sustain.
  • Nearly 70 percent of the world's major marine fish stocks are overfished or are being fished at their biological limit.
  • Soil degradation has affected two-thirds of the world's agricultural lands in the last 50 years.
  • Some 30 percent of the world's original forests have been converted to agriculture.
  • Since 1980, the global economy has tripled in size and population has grown by 30 percent to 6 billion people.
  • Dams, diversions or canals fragment almost 60 percent of the world's largest rivers.
  • Twenty percent of the world's freshwater fish are extinct, threatened or endangered.

Worldwatch Institute has released State of the World 2001. A loss of political momentum on environmental issues has coincided with signs of accelerated ecological decline; for example, the breakdown of global climate talks. The Arctic ice cap has already thinned by 42%, and 27% of the world's coral reefs have been lost. Natural disasters, due mostly to environmental degradation, have cost the world $608 billion over the last decade - as much as in the preceeding 40 years combined. Climate models show the Earth's temperature rising by as much as 6 degrees above the 1990 level by 2100. The impacts would be acute water shortages, declining food production, and the spread of deadly diseases like malaria and dengue fever. Due to population growth, people have had to settle in flood-prone valleys and on unstable hillsides, where deforestation and climate change have increased their vulnerability to disasters such as Hurricane Mitch. More clean, renewable energy is needed. For example, Iceland is pioneering an effort to harness geothermal and hydropower to produce hydrogen fuel for automobiles and fishing boats. And three oil companies are moving "beyond petroleum" to alternative energy investments. There needs to be stronger enforcement of treaties, and for increased North-South cooperation` with the help of environmentally and economically influential E9 countries: China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Brazil, Russia, Japan, South Africa, and the European Union, together which account for nearly three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. alone uses more than one third of the world's transport energy. While on the good side, global production of CFCs dropped by 85% between 1986 and 1997, on the other hand, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 100,000 underground storage tanks in the United States are leaking and that nearly 60% of wells sampled in agricultural areas in the US in the 1990s contained synthetic pesticides. World meat consumption has climbed from 44 million tons in 1950 to 217 million tons in 1999, an increase of nearly fivefold. This growth is roughly double that of population growth

WOA!! World Ovepopulation Awareness
 
Back
Top