p2pnet - rss feed: Living Planet Report
p2pnet.net OT News:- Humans currently consume 20% more natural resources than the earth can produce, says a new report that examines the ecological effect of modern consumption patterns on natural resources.
The ‘ecological footprint’ of a North American is eight times the size of the average African’s, and an average European draws about four times as much of the earth’s resources as the average Asian, states the WWF’s ‘Living Planet Report 2004′ launched in Brussels yesterday.
Humanity had already gone beyond the earth’s capacity by the end of the eighties and we’re now, "spending nature’s capital much faster than it can regenerate," says WWF director-general Claude Martin, quoted in an Inter Press Service Agency report.
And while the human population keeps growing, the population of ‘other’ species is plummeting.
"The depletion is caused by an increasing demand for energy and natural resources, the report says.
Particularly alarming is our energy footprint, dominated by our use of fossil oils such as coal, gas and oil, the conservation group says, according to ISP, whihc adds the ‘footprint’ is a rough estimate of what an average person produces and consumes, converted into hectares. It measures how much land and water area a human population requires to produce the resources it consumes and to absorb its wastes, given prevailing technology.
This is said to have increased 700% since 1961.
===================
See:-
eight times - A Footprint About a Fifth Too Large, Inter Pree Service Agency, October 21, 2004
October 22nd, 2004 at 12:58 am
This is such astounding data, and, sadly, very few will take the time to consider this information. Academics and subscribers to published journals will read it and if they are in the discipline, they will take it seriously. Will they adapt their lifestyles? They might, and even if they did, the total effect would not make a blip in any one graph. Numerous times, we are delivered the message, excess population and consumption is a recipe for ecological collapse. And the habits and lifestyles continue unabated. So, what is the final conclusion? Perhaps natural consequences will deal with the climbing human population. But will the earth survive as a living planet?
October 22nd, 2004 at 1:04 am
Just think how much better we would be treating the environment if we would stay at home, fire up P2P, and start sharing and downloading - instead of hauling our suvs around to the video rental, to the record shop, to the computer software store, and buying things made out of petroleum derivatives and dead trees - things that we could have instead consumed electronically.
October 22nd, 2004 at 1:50 am
Sadly, you are probably thinking of this report from a US perspective and yes you are really in a hopeless situation. And yes you probably won’t do anything to address the issues raised. But remember your sense of futility is fueled by an American ideology of capitalism that treats the environment as something to be purely exploited. Think outside the square a bit and you might just see a way out.
Regards,
Mark. NZ
October 22nd, 2004 at 3:57 am
We so need an hydrogen powered car.
Byproduct of use: water.
Of course that will just displace the energy requirement
say to the extraction of hydrogen from water.
But then you can use the solar, wind, geothermal, etc. sources of energy.
Sadly there is much profit in the oil monopoly.
October 22nd, 2004 at 8:57 am
hydrogen is not a fuel source - it’s more akin to a battery, in that it’s an energy storage medium, and a rather inefficient one at that. We’re going to need solar, wind etc to power life’s essentials - whatever the energy mix of the future, it’s unlikely that there will be sufficient surplus to continue powering personal forms of transport. Also, how on earth could we justify the energy investment required to produce all these supposedly ‘environmentally friendly’ (not) vehicles???
October 22nd, 2004 at 7:36 pm
Are you willing to deny everyone the basic right to travel?
Would you sacrifice so easily freedom for some imaginary gain by
limiting the use of CLEAN and RENEWABLE energy?
The point IS that CLEAN and RENEWABLE energy
CAN be used WITHOUT cost to the environment, right?
_Hydrogen Fuel_
Are rockets that go into space not powered by hydrogen fuel?
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blfuelcells1.htm
And what about the U.S. Department of Energy referring to hydrogen as fuel?
“A fuel cell works like a battery but does not run down or need recharging. It will produce electricity and heat as long as fuel (hydrogen) is supplied. A fuel cell consists of two electrodes—a negative electrode (or anode) and a positive electrode (or cathode)—sandwiched around an electrolyte. Hydrogen is fed to the anode, and oxygen is fed to the cathode. Activated by a catalyst, hydrogen atoms separate into protons and electrons, which take different paths to the cathode. The electrons go through an external circuit, creating a flow of electricity. The protons migrate through the electrolyte to the cathode, where they reunite with oxygen and the electrons to produce water and heat. Fuel cells can be used to power vehicles or to provide electricity and heat to buildings.”
Full text:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/RE/hydrogen_fuel_cells.html
Get that?
Or must I point out that fossil fuels are simply a storage medium as well?
One that is rather inefficient at that since it takes thousands of years to create!
Not convinced yet? Use google.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22hydrogen+fuel%22&btnG=Google+Search