http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061024/ts_nm/...t_wwf_planet_dc
BEIJING (Reuters) - Humans are stripping nature at an unprecedented rate and will need two planets' worth of natural resources every year by 2050 on current trends, the WWF conservation group said on Tuesday.

Populations of many species, from fish to mammals, had fallen by about a third from 1970 to 2003 largely because of human threats such as pollution, clearing of forests and overfishing, the group also said in a two-yearly report.

"For more than 20 years we have exceeded the earth's ability to support a consumptive lifestyle that is unsustainable and we cannot afford to continue down this path," WWF Director-General James Leape said, launching the WWF's 2006 Living Planet Report.

"If everyone around the world lived as those in America, we would need five planets to support us," Leape, an American, said in Beijing.
People in the United Arab Emirates were placing most stress per capita on the planet ahead of those in the United States, Finland and Canada, the report said.

Australia was also living well beyond its means.

The average Australian used 6.6 "global" hectares to support their developed lifestyle, ranking behind the United States and Canada, but ahead of the United Kingdom, Russia, China and Japan.

"If the rest of the world led the kind of lifestyles we do here in Australia, we would require three-and-a-half planets to provide the resources we use and to absorb the waste," said Greg Bourne, WWF-Australia chief executive officer.

Everyone would have to change lifestyles -- cutting use of fossil fuels and improving management of everything from farming to fisheries.

"As countries work to improve the well-being of their people, they risk bypassing the goal of sustainability," said Leape, speaking in an energy-efficient building at Beijing's prestigous Tsinghua University.

"It is inevitable that this disconnect will eventually limit the abilities of poor countries to develop and rich countries to maintain their prosperity," he added.

The report said humans' "ecological foo
tprint" -- the demand people place on the natural world -- was 25 percent greater than the planet's annual ability to provide everything from food to energy and recycle all human waste in 2003.

In the previous report, the 2001 overshoot was 21 percent
"On current projections humanity, will be using two planets' worth of natural resources by 2050 -- if those resources have not run out by then," the latest report said.

"People are turning resources into waste faster than nature can turn waste back into resources."

RISING POPULATION

"Humanity's footprint has more than tripled between 1961 and 2003," it said. Consumption has outpaced a surge in the world's population, to 6.5 billion from 3 billion in 1960. U.N. projections show a surge to 9 billion people around 2050.

It said that the footprint from use of fossil fuels, whose heat-trapping emissions are widely blamed for pushing up world temperatures, was the fastest-growing cause of strain.

Leape said China, home to a fifth of the world's population and whose economy is booming, was making the right move in pledging to reduce its energy consumption by 20 percent over the next five years.

"Much will depend on the decisions made by China, India and other rapidly developing countries," he added.

The WWF report also said that an index tracking 1,300 vetebrate species -- birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals -- showed that populations had fallen for most by about 30 percent because of factors including a loss of habitats to farms.

Among species most under pressure included the swordfish and the South African Cape vulture. Those bucking the trend included rising populations of the Javan rhinoceros and the northern hairy-nosed wombat in Australia.

So what's everyones take on this, as christians were suppose to be stewards of the Earth (Genisis) and in revelation it says that God will destroy those who destroy the Earth. I believe were all guilty of contributing to this problem but are we(society) realistically willing to radically change to try and help the environment; i personally doubt it as this would result in major job cuts and a re-examination of the use of oil and our independent vehicles; thus any politician who would attempt to make real changes would not last long as unemployed people tend not to support the party in power.- what do you think

Derek,
You wrote:



Please show me where the LORD said HE would destroy those who destroy the earth from an environmental point of view? I am sorry, but I can't find it.

In Genesis, the Bible records this:

Ge 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Ge 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Ge 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth

Yes, we are to subdue the earth and everything in it, to have dominion over it, and to be fruitful and multiply. That is the LORD GOD's commandment. We should take care of it naturally, being wise stewards of what we have been given. But I find the article by the WWF to be one denying the LORD GOD's involvement and ability to know ahead of time how larger populations would affect natural resources.

That is what I think.

Thanks.

Revelation 11:18
The nations were angry; and your wrath has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great— and for destroying those who destroy the earth. (Sorry i didn't include this in the original)

I realize that my view on the environment my differ with the traditional christians as I know that from a young age we are told that "subdue it" however this aggressive approach. But this also has many other translations
Genesis 1:28 (New Living Translation)
"Then God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground.”
Psalm 8 verse 6
You put us in charge of everything you made,giving us authority over all things
Genesis 2:15
The Lord God placed the man in the Garden of Eden to tend and watch over it.

So yes were are in charge of the Earth, but I don't think that means that we should try and use up its resources as fast as possible. Partially because I view the environment the same way i view the poor, which we know it is good for christians to help the poor. Here is my take: USA is way beyond there means of consumption having a negative savings rate for the last year (meaning the average american is spending more than he or she is making); this over consumption drives the demand curve of products up causing transistional economies to try and produce goods that are demanded by the Western countries. (transistional economies like China because of cheap labour) however as they are not as developed as the West there industry is extremely inefficient causing a lot of pollution (recently turning the yellow river red or vis versa i forget in china). This economic explosion has been great for the Chinese economy, however, the environmental damages may be irreversable, as deserts are rapidly expanding on once fertile land moreover, China's waterways are extremely polluted. Without water and food no economy can grow, especially the former. Also this is causing millions of health problems.Therefore hopefully the reader can see the trying to do something for the environment doesn't mean becoming a hippy and tree hugger but just by limiting consumption levels. High levels of consumption has resulted in major debt for the Unitied States, (would have a debt even without the war in Iraq) who has financed most of this debt? China, Japan, Singapore- This is why the United States can not pressure China too much on issues like human rights.

I also believe that this plays right into the end times: For one limited resource has always been a source of wars, thus as resources are stretched (because of overconsumption and population growth) you'll see more wars and rumour of wars. Also with earthquakes in various places; the massive amount of fossil fuels that we are taking from the earth will probably cause the plates to move, because all that area under the earth where oil was is now empty. Think of it this way there is a baseball and were taking out the inside thread, obvioulsy sooner or later something is going to happen

Also I believe God cares about the environment: Note I'm taking these following verses not in full context but hopefully one gets my point.
Deuteronomy chapter 20 verse 19
'When you are besieging a town and the war drags on, do not destroy the trees. Eat the fruit, but do not cut down the trees. They are not enemies that need to be attacked!'

I guess in a way were having an 18th century debate all over again where right at the start of the industrial revolution a man named Malthus said war famine death are good for the earth as they balance the earth's population; obvioulsy he did not forsee the great imporvements in technology, and maybe i can't see them either but because our whole economy is driven around polluiton I think that the world is heading in the wrong direction- not a big surprise.

Conslusion: Overconsumption drives pollution, and I don't think God wants us to consume as much as we are, given the current state of income distrubtion throughout the world.

Revelation 11:18 speaks of 'destroying those who destroy the earth.'

It is the nations that are angry and it is the nations that say that God should do that, but it is John who is on the island of Patmos that 'sees' a new heaven and a new earth coming down from heaven.

'To destroy' in the original language means exactly what is happening now with the people. They are decaying and rotting in their diseases. Man cannot go against his nature and his nature is coming up with all of thesed stupid inventions that can make life more comfortable, make more money, build more houses, store more people, *cough, cough*

Hi Derek,


I think the whole article is a Malthusian argument shoved to the forefront this time by the WWF. No system or species sustains exponential growth forever. And I have to disagree with Malthus, who's view was tainted by the time and place he lived in.


My criticism is summed up this way from an article on Malthus in Wikipedia:

Economists of the 19th century were well aware that improvements in the division and specialization of labor, increased capital investment, and other factors had rendered Malthus's warnings ever more implausible. Even in the absence of any improvement in technology or increase of capital equipment, an increased supply of labor may have a synergistic effect on productivity that overcomes the law of diminishing returns. As American land economist Henry George observed with characteristic piquancy in dismissing Malthus, "Both the jayhawk and the man eat chickens; but the more jayhawks, the fewer chickens, while the more men, the more chickens." Many 20th century economists, such as Julian Lincoln Simon, have also criticised Malthus's conclusions. They note that despite the predictions of Malthus and the Neo-Malthusians, massive geometric population growth in the 20th century has not resulted in a Malthusian catastrophe, largely due to the influence of technological advances (see below) and the expansion of the market economy, division of labor, and stock of capital goods. Such arguments are echoed by skeptical environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg. Malthus is thus regarded by some such as British physicist John Maddox as little more than a failed prophet of doom.


This has been an interesting discussion. Thanks, and blessings in JESUS name!

If the current trends continue, we or they will probably have decimated the whole globe by nuclear war and the survivors will nothing to live off of. They will just be praying for another planet. Just one.

gr82bsaved: Great points which I completely agree with, the key to proving malthus wrong was the unforseen advances in technology and there affects. I believe that we sit at another crossroads today, ceterius paribus (all other things remaing the same) the earth's resources will be used up by 2050. However, we don't have to go into panic mode because there will be further technological advancements that will probabley help out the Earth. This is why I previously said that someone doesn't have to be a hippy or a tree hugger to help out the environment. Consequenlty I think that technological advancements will be benefical but the Earth will never be the same as it was before; if no action is currently taken.

Thanks for your input.

Derek

My God! We have no resources except oil! And what can you do with that? Run cars? You can't eat rocks!

They will just be praying for another planet. Just one.

Maybe we should start colonizing the moon like steven hawkins suggests. haha. You won't find me on it because God said he was going to come to the Earth for his second comming, what would happen if we were all on the moon, we'd miss Jesus. haha

My God! We have no resources except oil! And what can you do with that? Run cars? You can't eat rocks!


Haha, I laughed when I read this because i imediatley thought that no we can't eat rocks but we can drink from them, of course refering to Moses in the desert. But it is true resources are depleting at a rapid rate.