From: J Corbally (icorb@indigo.ie)
Date: Mon Jun 24 2002 - 16:41:43 MDT
Another one from the "run to the hills, the end is nigh" dept.
>Human use exhausts Earth
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_2062000/2062729.stm
>Humans are making more demands on the Earth than it can cope with,
>scientists believe.
>We can solve this without austerity or hair shirts
>Professor Norman Myers
>They say humanity's footprint on the planet has increased by half in under
>40 years.
>Their analysis suggests that by 1999 the human economy was absorbing 120%
>of the Earth's productive capacity.
>Their paper, Tracking The Ecological Overshoot Of The Human Economy, uses
>existing data to translate human demand on the environment into the area
>needed for producing food and other goods, and for absorbing wastes.
Eeeeer, doesn't that title _presuppose_ an overshoot?
>In 1961, the authors say in their "preliminary and exploratory
>assessment", humans were using 70% of the capacity of the global
>biosphere. By 1999, that had risen to 120%.
>The assessment is based on several assumptions:
>· it is possible to keep track of most of the resources we use and
>the wastes we generate
>· most of these flows can be measured according to the biologically
>productive area needed to maintain them
>· the planet can be assessed in terms of "global hectares",
>representing the average productive hectare on Earth for that particular year
>· the natural supply of ecological services can be measured in the
>same way.
>They say there is hope of bringing human demands in line with the Earth's
>ability to regenerate itself.
>One new technology, known as Factor Four, promises to halve resource use
>yet maintain service levels in transport and housing.
>One of the authors is Professor Norman Myers, of Green College, Oxford, UK.
>He told BBC News Online: "The overshoot will continue to increase if we do
>nothing, because of rising population and rising living standards.
>But Julian Morris, of the UK's Institute of Economic Affairs, told BBC
>News Online that the PNAS paper was flawed.
>"The study attempts to do too much in too little space with too many
>assumptions and too little data," he said.
>"The claim that we have overshot the biosphere's regenerative capacity is
>a fiction based on inappropriate assumptions and poor data.
>"The study is of little value either as an assessment of humanity's impact
>on the environment, or as a guide to action."
The debate rolls on, I guess....
James...
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and
crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures
to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid."
-Q, Star Trek:TNG episode 'Q Who'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:00 MST