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.
“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:
- 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
For 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.Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It is one thing to see all the commenters here with their political blinders on piling on the subject study with the knee jerk denial of the science, but it’s amazing that no one here seems to care one wit about environmental protection in general. Your descendants will curse you.
No. You are wrong. Again.
See, it is the moral hypocrites and dictators within the world’s socialist left that are demanding policies in the name of their religion “ecology” that will force the immediate death of millions and the future death of billions due to energy starvation, illness, poor food, bad water, no sewage control and treatment, no irrigation, no fertilizer, no refrigeration or clean food storage, no roads, no canals and dams and drilling, no water, poor farms and no electricity …
See, it is YOU who forcing these deaths. And these dead will have voices to curse YOU for their deaths. It is those climate realists who see the benefits of enhanced carbon usage and the recent increase in CO2 levels that are allowing the 15 to 27 percent INCREASE in ALL plant life worldwide. Those climate realists will be praised, and it will be the so-called ecologists whom you are promoting with YOUR propaganda, your demands for more government money, and ever higher and higher government control over the lives of innocents that will be cursed. It is the innocents that YOU are demanding die who are the victims.
Well, and every person on earth who cries for freedom from YOUR oppression.
Innocents already dying in the UK at 25,000 per year due to YOUR energy policies.
Bless you.
My descendants will only curse me if I surrender to the hypocrites and morons who are lost in this episode of mass hysteria.
Real environmental degradation as a result of foolish fads and crippling sanctions imposed on the poor living now are not environmental protection.
Try environmental racketeering.
Which you oh nameless one, seem to be an ardent supporter of.
The poor developing countries emit the least pollution by far per capita and are those with the least amount of infrastructure to deal with climate impacts. So we are left with a double irony – the countries that contribute least to global warming are both the most impacted and the least able to adapt.
Those who try to delay climate action argue that “CO2 limits will hurt the poor”. This argument is usually code for “rich, developed countries should be able to pollute as much as they like”. This presents us with a moral hazard. If those who are emitting the most greenhouse gas are the least affected by direct global warming impacts, how shall we motivate them to change?
Avery Harden
matayaya says:
The poor developing countries emit the least pollution by far per capita…
Let’s see those per capita numbers.
And re: “moral hazard”. Your moral hazard seems to stop at the point that lowering atmospheric CO2 would result in massive deaths from starvation.
There is really no doubt about that: If CO2 was lowered to 1990 levels, agricultural output would decline by 15% – 20%, substantially lowering the supply of food, and thus raising its cost. The poorest of the poor would have to do without… food.
How do you justify that ‘moral hazard’? Your holier-than-thou pontificating on the evil of CO2 ignores the fact that there has been no global harm identified from its rise. Thus, CO2 is ‘harmless’. But it would not be harmless to lower it. People would die pretty excruciating deaths as a result.
I think your moral compass is broken.
So it’s the Gish Gallop now. Not worth trying to unpack your nonsense.
matayaya,
So you just made it up. As I suspected.
Typical alarmist response. When you can’t answer, you leave in a puff of pixels like a squid escaping danger…
db, so what’s the problem with my per capita comment? US is double Europe and about six times China. The point is obvious. You seem to waste a lot of time and energy on red meat stuff. I bet you missed the story today about the Nobel Prize and LED technology. LED bulbs produce four times the light of a fluorescent bulb and nearly 20 times the light of a standard incandescent bulb. LED bulbs are also more durable than either fluorescent bulbs, lasting 10 times as long, or incandescent bulbs, lasting 100 times as long. Lighting is about 25 percent of our energy use. The price continues to fall. You all are so concerned about poor people in the developing world, LED and the grid less PV will help a lot more than the central controlled coal burning you seem to promote.
matayaya says:
what’s the problem…?
I asked you to provide a cite to that statement, but you went off on another tangent. Before that, you wrote:
The poor developing countries emit the least pollution by far
Prove it.
Geez, you too lazy to click google. The World Bank and others have the numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita
matayaya,
China emits far more than anyone. But because of their immense population, their per capita numbers are lower.
And as you can see, U.S. emissions are declining.
That’s obvious. Point still stands, the average American consumes/emits twice what the average European and six or seven times the average Chinese.
Keep in mind also that we have out sourced much of our CO2 emissions to China that manufactures so much of what we consume. Bottom line, we need to continue to become more efficient and consume less, and China needs to burn less coal in the short term and eventually lower their emissions. China is choking on coal right now and know they need to clean their skies now for the health of their people today. It is only natural that people aspire to a middle class life and they need energy to do so.
It must be us Americans, the exceptional nation, that leads the way. If we don’t set the example, the others won’t make as much of an effort. The responsibility is ours to lead as well because historically, since the beginning of the industrial revolution, most of the man emitted green house gases in the atmosphere are from the U.S.. China’s emission only began in earnest only 25 years ago.
matayaya
It is amazing that you know so much about every poster here. What is not amazing is your total ignorance of science.
matayaya
October 11, 2014 at 12:02 pm
Your link is for energy consumption per capita, not for pollution.
Google CO2 emissions per country, same thing.
matayaya,
China has surpassed the U.S. But you have never complained about them.
matayaya
October 12, 2014 at 6:36 am
CO2 is not pollution. It is plant food & so far the increase in its atmospheric content has been a very good thing. Besides which, per capita energy consumption & CO2 aren’t the same thing. The US releases relatively less CO2 per unit of energy than China because we rely more heavily on natural gas.
You have a lot to learn. Everything, in fact.
@Steve B 9/30 at 5:32 am
I had a debate with a WWF person on their figures for loss of African Elephants. He claimed 20,000 per year. That works out at 54/day so I called BS.
I agree, it sounds high.
This raises the question of how much of the supposed loss of wildlife is the direct result of pro-environmental policies supported by the likes of the WWF?
There is a TED talk by Allen Savory: How Can Deserts Turn Into Grasslands? In it, Savory recounts a terrible mistake he made: [Note 1]
The Green camp likes biofuels. As other people have mentioned, the clearing of, jungle, forests, and grasslands so that biofuels can be planted must be add to that reported loss in wildlife mass. Solar farm bird fryers. Unlimited hunting license granted to wind farms.
I don’t put any stock in the WWF report. No matter how good their census number are for 2010, their 1970 baseline census figures are a fiction. People have admitted that polar bear population changes were pure guesswork. If you cannot get the populations right for the largest four-footed carnivore in 20 million km^2 of tree-less tundra, what prayer do you have of getting right the census for whales, kudu, sparrows and salmon?
Besides the inaccuracies unavoidable in WWF’s census, when it comes to actions causing the loss of wildlife, the hands of groups like WWF are far from clean.
[Note 1: WUWT has a post of the Savory TED talk at A bridge in the climate debate – How to green the world’s deserts and reverse climate change WUWT March 8, 2013 ]
Down in New Zealand, we have lost a lot of bird species, however, to put it in perspective, many were unique niche species. How many small populations, from a compact niche, have shrugged off their mortal coil? with or without human encroachment – or as we pro-humans call it, survival with perks. Specialist adaptation breeds in weakness, there are Hummingbirds now locked into a relationship with a single flower, that goes and so do they.
There are specialist Climate Scientists, locked into a relationship with public funding, that goes and so do they.
Should we go all out to save these small population/compact niche species? Or find ways to preserve their genes in that most hated of preservation mechanisms, known as a zoo.
Nature killed, or will kill, all species on Earth eventually, possibly us, but that’s a 50/50 bet.
i am really wondering if this complex data could be simply put in percentage of 50% why dont they name the species directly
I have just read this extremely well done deconstruction of the money grubbing WWF report.
http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2014-10-06-wwf-alarmism-raises-even-green-eyebrows/#.VDQGZb4YI20
Every now and then the old media gets something sort of right.
Bromley October 11, 2014 at 1:28 am Edit
Quite possibly, I’ve been confused more than once.
I’m sorry, but you know this how? The reality is, if you measure accurately enough, almost no populations are stable. They are either increasing or decreasing, and stability is unusual in nature. The situation is even worse in the ocean than on the land, with perfectly healthy populations undergoing wild swings in population all of the time.
Now, you’ve made a claim (without citations or evidence) that healthy = stable. Any animal population biologist will tell you that’s a wild oversimplification. In fact, population swings are the norm. For example, round where I live, the population of rabbits increased over the last few years. This year, the population of foxes is up, and the rabbit population is down.
Does this mean that the local rabbit and fox populations are both not healthy, as you claim?
Absolutely not. It merely reflects the reality of animal populations, which is that on any given day most of them are either increasing or decreasing, but few of them are steady … as the graphic shows.
Regards,
w.
Hey Willis,
I’m not gonna lie, when you were typing in caps lock, I just assumed you were an idiot. I was wrong, and I thank you for this well thought response.
You’re actually 100% right, animal populations are constantly fluctuating, I was being overly simplistic. My reason for this is because over a span of 40 years, these fluctuations will even out and the numbers should appear stable.
Now, I’m assuming your example involved two indigenous species because if one of them was introduced then its not a very good example of a stable ecosystem.
In a stable ecosystem, the prey numbers and predator numbers should grow and decline in tandem with the predator numbers typically lagging a year or two behind. Lets say it takes roughly 10 rabbits for 1 fox. So, over several years you’ll see the number of rabbits go something like
100 to 200 to 300 to 100 to 200 to 300 to 100,
and in that same span the fox numbers will be something like
30 to 10 to 20 to 30 to 10 to 20 to 30
That’s stable fluctuation, that’s a healthy ecosystem.
Think of it like the tide, it rises and falls but it stays within its natural bounds. In the extremely long term, high tide and low tide may see a net increase or decrease but this change should be negligible over a 40 year span.
The majority of animals once sexually mature procreate at least once a year and many of them have short lifespans, so we can actually see this natural ebb and flow in population numbers several times within the span of 40 years.
So, since animal biologists are obviously aware of the natural fluctuations of animal populations, we should still expect the majority of that graph to be blue because this kind of fluctuation is a stable fluctuation, know what I mean?
Instead, we see a graph that shows that a lot of animal populations are not exhibiting this typical fluctuation, they are actually seeing a net decrease or increase. Fluctuation is normal, but a net gain or decrease in total numbers beyond the bounds of typical fluctuation is concerning. It’s illustrative of a general trend towards a mass extinction in the not too distant future. That is to say, its not good.
“So, since animal biologists are obviously aware of the natural fluctuations of animal populations, we should still expect the majority of that graph to be blue because this kind of fluctuation is a stable fluctuation, know what I mean? Instead, we see a graph that shows that a lot of animal populations are not exhibiting this typical fluctuation, they are actually seeing a net decrease or increase. Fluctuation is normal, but a net gain or decrease in total numbers beyond the bounds of typical fluctuation is concerning. It’s illustrative of a general trend towards a mass extinction in the not too distant future. That is to say, its not good.”
For a graph that doesn’t explain anything other than generalities you sure went off the deep end. “Mass extinction in the not too distant future”? Am I missing the sarc?
Hey Markl, I don’t think I understand what you mean. I’m not being sarcastic, that’s what the graph shows. If roughly half of mammals are declining then, roughly half, will eventually disappear, resulting in less biodiversity.
I’m assuming someone involved with creating this graph has at least studied biology as much as I have, probably more, so they would consider typical fluctuation as a stable population. That sliver of blue on the graph, according to this study, are the only animal populations that are exhibiting healthy or typical fluctuations, that is to say, they are stable populations. Having a general or net decline and incline in roughly half of the animal population is a concerning statistic, that will eventually lead to mass extinction for the half that is decreasing. It makes sense, think of it as the inverse of the problem with the human population. The human population grows more in a year nowadays than it did in a decade 100 years ago.
Likewise, this is a problem that will only compound over time, the greater the disparity between the growing and declining numbers, the faster they will grow and decline. This kind of instability will eventually result in mass extinction. Will it be in 40 years or 200 years? I don’t know, but I’m sure there’s a statistician that can break down the numbers and give us a reasonable forecast. Luckily for me, I’ll be dead by the time it happens. As for my kids, well, it looks like they’re gonna see some rapid and wondrous changes but I don’t think I envy them. It will surely be elucidating but it may also be horrifying.
Bromley October 12, 2014 at 7:15 pm
I don’t read the graph the way you claim, nor do I think that the authors meant it that way..
“Declining” means if you measure now its less than when you measured the first time, and “Increasing” means the opposite. What other meaning could they have? So no, I don’t expect the blue section to be of any great size.
In any case, no matter how you read it there are slightly more species increasing than decreasing. Surely you can’t take that as a cause for alarm, no matter how they’ve drawn the lines?
All the best,
w.
I would assume and hope that the authors meant it that way. Otherwise, the graph wouldn’t really be indicative of anything. As you said, animal biologists know all about animal population fluctuation.
Umm, yeah, I think it is a little alarming, well, concerning anyway. That said, I don’t want to sound like an alarmist haha. But ultimately, for biodiversity to continue there needs to be a variety of animal species, right? Personally, I think that, for all we know, there is still a lot that we don’t, and the more species that can survive and thrive into the future, the more we can discover about the world and ourselves. For that to continue, the numbers within individual species must never get too big (because they’ll choke out niche species) nor too small (because they’ll be susceptible to death by disease or loss of niche by introduced species).
Someone on this message board was talking about how the biggest losses are occuring within niche species. Another concern that I have (and I haven’t seen any articles addressing this) is, if the half of species that are growing in numbers happen to be the species that can thrive on the periphery of civilization (pidgeons, crows, raccoons, deer, rats, mice, squirrels, etc) while animals that can’t are the ones who are declining then how will the trends of increase and decrease ever change? If that’s happens to be the case, then that would only make this graph more concerning because the likelihood of the declining species ever recovering would be extremely small.
Bromley, I don’t understand you when you say:
You can assume all you want, but the meaning is clear. For some populations, numbers are increasing, and for others, decreasing. Few natural populations are stable over time, whether the time is long or short.
Next, you say:
Absolutely not, it is an expected statistic.
First, population for most species is like temperature, in that it is rarely stable. Just as the earth is always either warming or cooling, both in general and at any given point, in the same way populations are generally either going up or down. So we expect that at any given instant something like half the temperatures and half the animal populations will be declining, and half will be increasing. For example, when thesardine population off of Monterrey Bay went down, the population of anchovy went up. But if you think that means that sardines are on the path to “mass extinction”, you’re not following the story. Since then, the anchovy populations have declined and the sardine populations have rebounded.
So assuming that a population decrease will lead to catastrophe is a foolish long-term extension of a brief trend. Look, when we see the earth is cooling we don’t immediately think “we’re headed into an ice age” … well, I don’t, at least. Nor do I think “Help, we’re headed for Thermageddon™!” when I see the earth is warming.
Similarly, species increasing don’t make me think “they’re taking over the earth”, and species decreasing don’t make me think “they’re going extinct”. Both of those are unjustified extensions of short-term trends.
Now, is loss of biodiversity an issue in many locations? Absolutely … but rarely from the claimed causes. We’re not losing the higher primates from increasing CO2, or from habitat reduction. We’re losing them from poverty—poor people in Africa eat “bush meat”, including chimps, bonobos, and gorillas. And unfortunately, well-meaning people like yourself advocating for less CO2 have driven up the cost of electricity in the third world. Heck, Obama said under his plan electricity costs would “skyrocket”, and he was right … which means that YOU (and Obama and the rest trying to cut CO2 by increasing energy prices) are responsible for that damage and destruction, both of human and animal lives.
So I agree that biodiversity loss is a real issue in many areas … but it has nothing to do with CO2, and generally, it has everything to do with poverty. This means that the misguided fight against CO2 that you are so enthusiastic about is part of the PROBLEM, and is not the solution in any sense.
Regards,
w.
matayaya October 13, 2014 at 9:08 am Edit
Yes, and Americans consume about 30% of the world’s energy … and we also produce about 30% of the world’s energy. So if there were no Americans, average or otherwise, there would be no difference to the world’s energy situation.
Next, I do like the term “consumes/emits” … what on earth does that mean?
Next, you seem to think that the solution to Europeans consuming more per capita than the Chinese is for the Europeans to lower their consumption … ask some poverty-stricken Chinaman what he thinks of your oh-so-brilliant plan.
You have very carefully and craftily segued from pollution, which everyone opposes, to CO2, which is not pollution in the slightest. That is deceptive and not nice at all. You’ll have to sell that somewhere else, buyers for that laughable “CO2 = pollution” fallacy are thin on the ground here.
We are leading the way, by not signing on to any bogus international treaties, and by farming using modern methods, and by producing both food and energy at a rate of knots. As you point out, if the rest of the world merely followed America’s lead, we’d all be much better off.
w.
The US also makes a lot of the products upon which the rest of the world relies, although less than we could make if our energy system were not so idiotically regulated.
Willis E, you say “Yes, and Americans consume about 30% of the world’s energy … and we also produce about 30% of the world’s energy. So if there were no Americans, average or otherwise, there would be no difference to the world’s energy situation.” That’s a silly red herring.
You say, “Next, I do like the term “consumes/emits” … what on earth does that mean?” You are determined to misunderstand.
You say, “Next, you seem to think that the solution to Europeans consuming more per capita than the Chinese is for the Europeans to lower their consumption … ask some poverty-stricken Chinaman what he thinks of your oh-so-brilliant plan.”
Those in poverty should always have the freedom to strive for middle class life. No one will get in the way of that. It is not a contradiction for us in the West to reduce our fossil fuel energy consumption and still live high quality lives. Our energy production can become more efficient and cleaner. The poor in China will also benefit from a cleaner and more efficient energy source.
You say, “You have very carefully and craftily segued from pollution, which everyone opposes, to CO2, which is not pollution in the slightest. That is deceptive and not nice at all. You’ll have to sell that somewhere else, buyers for that laughable “CO2 = pollution” fallacy are thin on the ground here.”
Addressing pollution addresses CO2, addressing CO2 addresses pollution. If you are determined to blow off AGW so flippantly, well, not much way to have a discussion.
You, “We are leading the way, by not signing on to any bogus international treaties, and by farming using modern methods, and by producing both food and energy at a rate of knots. As you point out, if the rest of the world merely followed America’s lead, we’d all be much better off.”
You probably would say the international agreement from the 80s to limit CFCs was bogus. The ozone hole is healing as a result of that international agreement. You are gambling that AGW is bogus and we will continue to be able to feed much of the world. California is being challenged in its ability to continue its’ food production. Not saying the California drought is AGW related but it is an example of the prediction of rainfall patterns becoming more hit and miss, deluge vs drought. I’d rather buy some insurance and not gamble my grandkids future on the off chance that you might be right. If I am wrong and we seriously had acted to reduce emissions to address AGW, at the worst, we end up with a more efficient and cleaner energy system; that’s not so bad. If you are wrong and have your way, and we do nothing; we are up the creek.
I think pursuing clean efficient energy is good for the economy. The world is waking up to the reality of dirty energy and change is happening. Having all your eggs in the basket of fossil fuels will become a money losing proposition.
There is no evidence of man-made global warming. If you imagine that there is, please present it. Thanks.
The US has beaten the limits which Kyoto would have imposed upon it by relying more on natural gas.
But so far, more CO2 over the past ~70 years has led to the greening of our planet. To whatever (unmeasurable) extent it might also have contributed to warming earth, that has also been a good thing.
“Green energy” by contrast has been a titanic waste of resources & has caused many human deaths, along with the slaughter of millions of birds & bats, to the benefit of insect pests.
matayaya October 13, 2014 at 12:46 pm
Are we supposed to just believe your claim about crimson fish? Do you have evidence or backing for this idea? Why is the fact that the energy we use is obtained through American expertise and tools and procedures and work and sweat immaterial to you?
No, you are working hard to be vague. What we consume and what we emit are very, very different things, which makes your claim unintelligible.
Say what? That’s not true in the slightest. People like Obama pushing policies that will make electricity prices “necessarily skyrocket” are working hard to get in the way of people moving out of poverty. The World Bank is working like crazy to keep the Indians in poverty, by denying funding for coal fueled power plants. Wake up and smell the coffee. Anything that raises energy prices impoverishes, weakens, and even kills the poor.
Our energy production has indeed become more efficient and cleaner over time. At present, it’s one of the most efficient, due to constant improvements. This has been driven by the normal market forces, and no thanks to CO2 activists, who have made energy generation LESS efficient.
Regarding China, I’m not clear what you mean by a “cleaner and more efficient energy source” … cleaner than what? More efficient than what?
Say what? Again, that’s not anywhere near true. We can address pollution by reducing particulate matter (black carbon), and it will have NO EFFECT on CO2 levels.
On the other hand, we can also address CO2 by putting in CO2 capture units on the stacks … which again will have NO EFFECT on pollution levels.
In fact, this is one of the huge problems, that the fight against CO2 does virtually nothing about real pollution—sulfates, black carbon, and such.
Like I said, you’ll have to sell that line of goods elsewhere. Here, when you try it, people will just point and laugh.
“Blow off AGW”? Sorry, you’re being vague again. While I certainly blew off your opinions, and justifiably so IMNSHO, where did I “blow off AGW”?
In fact, I haven’t even mentioned AGW once in this post, which means you are attempting to put words in my mouth … bad commenter, no cookies. Trying to put words in someone’s mouth is not much way to have a discussion. If you disagree with something I said, QUOTE IT EXACTLY. I can defend what I’ve said, but I can’t defend myself against your fantasies of what I’ve said.
w.