Baseless claim from WWF: Half of global wildlife lost, says new WWF report

from the World Wildlife Fund | World Wildlife Fund issues 10th edition of ‘The Living Planet Report,’ a science-based assessment of the planet’s health

Washington, DC – Monday, September 29: Between 1970 and 2010 populations of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish around the globe dropped 52 percent, says the 2014 Living Planet Report released today by World Wildlife Fund (WWF). This biodiversity loss occurs disproportionately in low-income countries—and correlates with the increasing resource use of high-income countries.

In addition to the precipitous decline in wildlife populations the report’s data point to other warning signs about the overall health of the planet. The amount of carbon in our atmosphere has risen to levels not seen in more than a million years, triggering climate change that is already destabilizing ecosystems. High concentrations of reactive nitrogen are degrading lands, rivers and oceans. Stress on already scarce water supplies is increasing. And more than 60 percent of the essential “services” provided by nature, from our forests to our seas, are in decline.

african-elephant
An African Forest elephant (Loxodonta africana cyclotis) enters bai whilst a group of Bongo antelope (Tragelaphus euryceros) leave, Dzanga Bai, Dzanga-Ndoki National Park, Central African Republic. Credit: © naturepl.com / Bruce Davidson / WWF-Canon

“We’re gradually destroying our planet’s ability to support our way of life,” said Carter Roberts, president and CEO of WWF. “But we already have the knowledge and tools to avoid the worst predictions. We all live on a finite planet and its time we started acting within those limits.”

The Living Planet Report, WWF’s biennial flagship publication, measures trends in three major areas:

  • populations of more than ten thousand vertebrate species;
  • human ecological footprint, a measure of consumption of goods, greenhouse gas emissions; and
  • existing biocapacity, the amount of natural resources for producing food, freshwater, and sequestering carbon.

“There is a lot of data in this report and it can seem very overwhelming and complex,” said Jon Hoekstra, chief scientist at WWF. “What’s not complicated are the clear trends we’re seeing — 39 percent of terrestrial wildlife gone, 39 percent of marine wildlife gone, 76 percent of freshwater wildlife gone – all in the past 40 years.”

The report says that the majority of high-income countries are increasingly consuming more per person than the planet can accommodate; maintaining per capita ecological footprints greater than the amount of biocapacity available per person. People in middle- and low-income countries have seen little increase in their per capita footprints over the same time period.

While high-income countries show a 10 percent increase in biodiversity, the rest of the world is seeing dramatic declines. Middle-income countries show 18 percent declines, and low-income countries show 58 percent declines. Latin America shows the biggest decline in biodiversity, with species populations falling by 83 percent.

“High-income countries use five times the ecological resources of low-income countries, but low income countries are suffering the greatest ecosystem losses,” said Keya Chatterjee, WWF’s senior director of footprint. “In effect, wealthy nations are outsourcing resource depletion.”

The report underscores that the declining trends are not inevitable. To achieve globally sustainable development, each country’s per capita ecological footprint must be less than the per capita biocapacity available on the planet, while maintaining a decent standard of living.

At the conclusion of the report, WWF recommends the following actions:

  1. Accelerate shift to smarter food and energy production
  2. Reduce ecological footprint through responsible consumption at the personal, corporate and government levels
  3. Value natural capital as a cornerstone of policy and development decisions
###

Why is this a baseless claim? Read this: Where Are The Corpses?
[UPDATE by Willis Eschenbach] Reading the Living Planet Report, I came across this interesting chart …
declining and increasing speciesFor birds, fishes , reptiles and amphibians, and mammals, half or slightly more are increasing, a bit less than half are decreasing, and a thin sliver are unchanging.
Setting aside the obvious problems with the counting and the categorization, I fear I don’t find that result either surprising or alarming. Half increasing, half decreasing … and?
w.
0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

283 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 30, 2014 5:39 am

It occurred to me that the number was about total population rather than species, but I dismissed the thought. That is even more ridiculous. Over half of all the critters on the planet? In forty years? That would be absurdly obvious. Don’t they remember the bigger critters eat the smaller? Why hasn’t the whole thing collapsed? Who can ask about refutation? The assertion is absurd on its face.

Jimbo
September 30, 2014 5:43 am

Perhaps if they focused more attention on wildlife preservation and less on a trace gas wildlife numbers might be higher today. Just a thought.

bit chilly
Reply to  Jimbo
September 30, 2014 1:42 pm

bingo !

Jimbo
September 30, 2014 5:49 am

While high-income countries show a 10 percent increase in biodiversity, the rest of the world is seeing dramatic declines. Middle-income countries show 18 percent declines, and low-income countries show 58 percent declines.

I suspect deforestation has a part to play. You cannot deprive poor developing countries from using fossil fuels AND cutting down trees.
///////// Haiti (left) V Dominica Republic (right)
http://web.nmsu.edu/~jfsavage/re_tree_haiti/haiti-island-001.jpg
http://www1.american.edu/ted/icecases/maps/haiti-dominican%20border.jpg

John West
Reply to  Jimbo
September 30, 2014 6:02 am

Bingo! Available habitat for wildlife correlates with fossil fuel use.
Burn fossil fuels, it’s good for the environment.

wally
Reply to  Jimbo
September 30, 2014 6:25 am

Haiti is also on the dry side of the island compounding the problem.
Dave’s reference to poor people getting rich is absurd. Poor people would then increase consumption and corresponding footprint. It’s the lefty problem 5 hey like to ignore on immigration from the 3rd world and refugee resettlement.

tty
Reply to  wally
September 30, 2014 11:52 am

“Haiti is also on the dry side of the island compounding the problem.”
Ever visited SW Dominican Republic? It’s quite arid, but has a reasonably intact vegetation in contrast to nearby parts of Haite.

Edohiguma
September 30, 2014 5:50 am

The method the WWF uses is called “rolling dice”. Everyone who plays some kind of tabletop war game or something like D&D is familiar with the method. My study shows that they roll a d100 three times, and take the average from it as “proof”.

Edohiguma
Reply to  Edohiguma
September 30, 2014 5:51 am

PS:For my study I rolled a d20 5 times and took the average. So you see, it’s perfectly scientific, just like the WWF’s.

Jimbo
September 30, 2014 5:57 am

Maybe the WWF could help out bird species by not supporting wind turbines. Note they say no mention of the blades shredding capabilities.

Myth 8: Wind turbines are dangerous for birds
But actually… A recent study by the British Trust for Ornithology, Scottish Natural Heritage and the RSPB, which studied ten bird species studied at 18 wind farms, found that building wind turbines was more disruptive to birds than operating them (10). The RSPB states that wind farms with the right strategy and planning will not have ‘significant detrimental effects on birds of conservation concern or their habitats’. (11)
http://earthhour.wwf.org.uk/renewable-energy/busting-the-wind-power-myths

http://media.syracuse.com/outdoors/photo/091808windscene4mjgjpg-072ce9e7a7771863_large.jpg
http://i.cbc.ca/1.1962752.1381464979!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_620/li-turbine-620-2861173.jpg

Reply to  Jimbo
September 30, 2014 6:19 am

As long as the wind isn’t blowing wind farms are of minimal danger to birds. Thus the best place to build wind farms is where the wind doesn’t blow. It is the only way to be certain no birds will be harmed – the precautionary principle.

MrBungled
Reply to  M Simon
September 30, 2014 6:58 am

Now we’re getting somewhere! Can feel the winds-o-change blowin…..

hunter
Reply to  M Simon
September 30, 2014 12:06 pm

+1

Owen in GA
Reply to  Jimbo
September 30, 2014 6:56 am

Don’t forget the streamers at the solar plants either

Jimbo
September 30, 2014 6:05 am

The following is why intensive farming and fossil fuels are good for trees.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/9/30/1412065026532/Doughnutchartwildlife.png

September 30, 2014 6:05 am

How many tonnes of creatures are there? The annual fish catch is 90million tonnes and this is only the edible ones. So there must be 500billion tonnes of fish, shells, worms, etc. at least. Humankind only ways half a billion tonnes so we didn’t eat them all – actually, except for fish (a third of which we farm) and the rest we farm. Now imagine half of these dead! Where are the bodies? The only ones reported in any numbers recently were killed by windmills and solar tower plants. Add the billions of tonnes of land creatures…. Do these guys not think we notice the timing of all the stuff from WWF, NOAA, Unis, etc. The climate summit was a bust, the march brought ~125,000 useful idjits, many of them paid (‘to hand out leaflets’- yeah).

Pete Brown
Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 30, 2014 7:32 am

Gary – I’m not sure that the alleged absence of dead biomass is the right challenge here, if indeed that is your point. As a matter of fact, ALL animals die. Going back to 1970, I would imagine pretty much all of the creatures that were alive at the time are now dead, with the possible exception of a particularly hardy donkey or two, maybe a couple of elephants, and a large number of rich western humans, who might have a life expectancy of 45+ years. Otherwise they’re all soil.
The rate of dead biomass accumulated over time will in fact only have reduced if populations have declined over time. So you could be asking; Where is the absence of the dead bodies, or Where is the reduction in the rate of accumulation of dead bodies, but on the whole I think the better approach is to count the live bodies…

Stephen Richards
September 30, 2014 6:07 am

will not have ‘significant detrimental effects on birds of conservation concern or their habitats’
There’s those words again. “Significant” Means they kill birds. So why does the RSPB support them at all ? Because of the pognon (bribery).

September 30, 2014 6:10 am

That was last week, next week it will be 48 percent of terrestrial wildlife, 72 percent of marine wildlife and 98 percent of freshwater wildlife – unless we get more funding. Lots more.

H.R.
September 30, 2014 6:10 am

I have x-ray vision, I can fly, and bullets just bounce off of me.
See… I can make stuff up too. WWF doesn’t have a monopoly on fibrication.

Tim
September 30, 2014 6:11 am

Shuuure…I would totally believe a multi-billion dollar activist group with a global political agenda any day. No problem.

Shona
Reply to  Tim
September 30, 2014 12:25 pm

I couldn’t get past the political gumpf about bad westereners eating too much. I don’t believe anythingbthey say any more. As far as I can see noone is doing any actual research. Or maybe the guys counting polar bears on satellite pics. But that’s about it.

Steve Jones
September 30, 2014 6:12 am

This story has been run on the BBC. As is the usual way with these things, the arch-activist who ‘wrote’ the article merely carried out an uncritical cut and paste job. The comments following the article tell you everything you need to know about the mindset of the people who swallow this clap-trap.

Tim
Reply to  Steve Jones
September 30, 2014 7:05 am

The mindset of these people has probably been well researched. The PR experts are aiming at this Target Market because it’s in the gullible-majority category. IQ is optional..

bertief
September 30, 2014 6:13 am

Maybe this is stating the blindingly obvious, but isn’t the answer to raise living standards for humanity as a whole? That means ditching renewable ‘energy’ entirely would be a really good start. Bring on the molten salt reactors . .

David Ball
Reply to  bertief
September 30, 2014 6:29 am

Excellent and blindingly obvious to only a select few, unfortunately.

Latitude
September 30, 2014 6:18 am

…a major slap in the face to all the people that have worked to increase these same populations

September 30, 2014 6:21 am

Love this line:

“We’re gradually destroying our planet’s ability to support our way of life,” said Carter Roberts,

He is honest. Alarmists are only doing that gradually because they are being met with resistance.

wally
September 30, 2014 6:30 am

I don’t see killing people for food in their proposed solutions.
Sheesh. And they call themselves wildlife advocates.

Alan Robertson
September 30, 2014 6:37 am

I hope that WWF’s claim gets published far and wide. The more people that read their claims, the better. WWF can take all the rope they need…

September 30, 2014 6:40 am

The commenters here are making two big mistakes:
1) confusing the number of species on Earth with the total population among those species on Earth. Willis’ article is not relevant to the latter question, which is what the WWF claim is about.
2) dismissing the WWF claim by simply saying “where are the corpses?” is a nonsense response in my view. Regardless of whether there is population loss going on, every year many millions of animals die or are preyed upon. Where are those corpses? Gone, of course. Eaten in the normal course of nature and returned to the earth. The question is whether they are being successfully replaced. Populations of a species will dwindle over the years if more of them are dying than are being born and raised to adulthood.
The WWF claim is about animal populations declining, mainly in third-world areas where pressure on the environment is highest. It is up to WWF to support the claim with facts (not estimates). And it is up to WUWT to back up its assertion that the WWF claim is baseless, which is has not done in this article or in Willis’ old article about extinctions.

Owen in GA
Reply to  TBraunlich
September 30, 2014 6:59 am

Those who make extraordinary claims must show iron-clad proof of those claims

Reply to  TBraunlich
September 30, 2014 7:14 am

Do you find their claim of a 28% decline since 1970 jumping to a 52% decline within two years (from 2008 to 2010) credible?

Jimbo
Reply to  TBraunlich
September 30, 2014 9:31 am

TBraunlich
I saw an alien craft land nearby yesterday.

And it is up to YOU to back up your assertion that Jimbo’s claim is baseless

This is your position.

phlogiston
Reply to  TBraunlich
September 30, 2014 10:00 am

TBraunlich September 30, 2014 at 6:40 am
Both those “mistakes” pale into insignificance compared to your monstrous mistake of taking a single word uttered by the compulsively mendacious WWF seriously. These brown shirted greens are incapable of honesty and only after power.
Half the worlds organisms just suddenly died and no-one noticed? This infantile idiocy one would expect from a 2 year old.
The general public – leaving aside the air-headed chattering class – are not going to believe this excreta for a moment. Quite soon they are going to show up on your front door asking for their money back.

lee
Reply to  TBraunlich
September 30, 2014 11:27 pm

We have here a bird population that is considered by our scientists to only now exist in two locations, hundreds of kilometres from here.
However there is at least one colony near where I live.
I haven’t informed the scientists as I’d rather them live in peace, rather than ‘scientificced’ to death.

Reg. Blank
September 30, 2014 6:50 am

Presumably this excludes the human population (increased by 100% since 1970) and anything farmed/pets.

September 30, 2014 6:57 am

New push to supply World’s Wildlife with U.S. Taxpayer funded portable GPS systems.

Brock Way
September 30, 2014 7:00 am

Accelerate shift to smarter food and energy production
Reduce ecological footprint through responsible consumption at the personal, corporate and government levels
Value natural capital as a cornerstone of policy and development decisions
Huh…not a word about reducing population, clearly the single most important variable in the whole equation. Curious, huh? It almost makes you wonder why population control is never mentioned. Almost.

September 30, 2014 7:01 am

What a shame we have been let down by our media once again just regurgitating the press release and not looking at the report. You don’t have to look far to find serious problems.
Even if you take their methodology seriously (especially as it seems heavily based on prior WWF work and uses what I perceive to be as a bizarre weighting mechanism), check page 146. The percent change globally is compared between 1970-2008 and 1970-2010. The former is -28% and the latter is the touted -52% figure.
I simply don’t find that leap in two years credible and if this was my data I would immediately assume this is a mistake and something was wrong in the methodology.

lee
Reply to  Katabasis
September 30, 2014 11:35 pm

Obviously where their ‘ proxy of abundance’ kicked in.

September 30, 2014 7:03 am

The obvious conclusion to the article is that economic development is good for people AND the environment.

Coach Springer
September 30, 2014 7:13 am

My first reaction was: What? Is this the Lancet? Garbage In. Garbage Added. Garbage Out.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Coach Springer
October 1, 2014 5:52 am

Double secret garbage out…

Coach Springer
September 30, 2014 7:21 am

We are not outsourcing anything but the Left’s restriction on development. We should be outsourcing. – As in letting Africa live off of it’s resources in ways more like us instead of their best and practically only alternatives being burning their plants and eating their wildlife.

Verified by MonsterInsights