Earth In Crisis As Wildlife Numbers Plummet

[JimBraiden]

Dave,

I read his Six Degrees and was not particularly impressed -pretty much CAGW boilerplate ( pun intended) still £4.99 for the Kindle edition is not too bad- will give it a look.

 

[wonkishere]

I'll take a look at the book.
[book]

Can I suggest a book for you both:
The God Species (How the planet can survive the age of humans) by Mark Lynas.

It is not an eco-doom book. He presents a case for using new technologies to protect and nurture the biosphere, against current green orthodoxy.[/QUOTE]

I suppose that Jim and I look pretty opposite, but I'm really not the flip side of the pole, because I don't agree with a lot of people you would characterize as being part of a green movement. If you'd read what I said, you'd see that I just outlined limitations of green power, and then got a response that indicated you were still arguing with me. I'm pretty sure I just said that solar and wind aren't as efficient, with a lot more specific detail. Did anybody bother to read what I wrote?

Unfortunately, the truth is that we don't have anything to replace not only Oil, but we can' t even replace Coal, which is worse than Oil. Unfortunately, global warming, according to pretty much every scientist I know, is already doing measurable damage. For instance, the change in growing seasons is beginning to lower the amount of food for sale across the world, and that is forecasted to continue.

It isn't really possible to link global warming to what happens to species, but it isn't really possible to separate it either, because the stuff that people blame for harming different species around the planet is usually indirectly linked with things which are effected by global warming.

If global warming causes the winds to change, and one area is afficted with drought, with the rains they used to get passing to another region, and that then causes the mosquito population to explode, this can then cause a massive increase in dengue fever to travel throughout South America. It's not a new disease, but the numbers of people afflicted by it soared to new heights recently. And dengue fever effects some animals, not just humans. Guess what? Dengue fever can potentially eradicate a species if it was already on the edge.

The irritating thing about these sort of conversations, is that I already know what's going to happen. Absolutely nothing is going to happen, until several major catastrophes do. And when those catastrophes happen, people are going to conclude they have no choice but to go with cleaner alternatives, because they will have figured out that they are, in fact, cheaper. Because the other stuff causes disasters, which cost billions to clean up.

And everybody who argues the point, invariably doesn't really know much about the facts. But nobody wants to pay for any of this, because it's absolutely true that solar and wind do not replace Oil. We may still need nuclear but that won't cover us either. In order to solve the problem, we'd have to get used to living with less energy production then we have and change our lifestyle. And we aren't going to do that. We'd rather kick the can down the road and live like we can, for as long as we can.

We are all very much like an obese 300 pound man who is in danger of having a heart attack, and chooses to go eat another cheeseburger anyway. I don't suffer from the delusion of thinking that we will do things any differently.

 

[JimBraiden]

It would appear that the WWF Report has even less validity than I though.
A statistican frined of mine has drawn my attention to the Living Planet Index which is used by the WWF to calculate the decline in species numbers.
It looks at around 2100 species.
At the last count there are roughly 2 million species on the planet.

As for changing our lifestyle and using less energy- well yes we can do that.
We can return to say a late neolithic life style- of course that does mean the death of around 99% of the human race.
Or perhaps we could settle for a medieval life style- we could probably manage that with only a 75% decline in the human population.

 

[wonkishere]

It would appear that the WWF Report has even less validity than I though.
A statistican frined of mine has drawn my attention to the Living Planet Index which is used by the WWF to calculate the decline in species numbers.
It looks at around 2100 species.
At the last count there are roughly 2 million species on the planet.

As for changing our lifestyle and using less energy- well yes we can do that.
We can return to say a late neolithic life style- of course that does mean the death of around 99% of the human race.
Or perhaps we could settle for a medieval life style- we could probably manage that with only a 75% decline in the human population.

Using less energy automatically does not take us all the way back to a medieval state, or cause the death of 99% of the population.
The last time I checked we wanted to increase our energy requirements by something like 5% next year. Every year we use more energy. If we reversed the trend, and decided to increase prices a bit, and make do with say 5% less energy next year, it would effect our lifestyle somewhat, but it wouldn't be a medieval culture by any means. We'd have pretty much the same technology we always did, but we'd have to change our lifestyle a little.
If we reduced energy use with a tax, we could use all the money gathered by that tax to build solar, wind, and geothermal sources, maybe even nuclear if we can find a state willing to build it. (That is usually the problem.)
If we don't do that, you will find that in time, our lifestyle will change even more as we have to do adapt to the new ecology. Rising sea level, a massive increase in hurricanes and typhoons, and rising food prices from droughts and changes to growth cycles will ultimate be far more damaging then what I just suggested. What I suggested is a picnic in comparison.

It isn't a choice between 99% of the human race dying, or being forced to go back to the medieval area. That's nuts.... and it's not really an effective response on your part.

 

[JimBraiden]

A 5% cut in energy consumption might not be a big deal to the developed countries- it would be a heavy blow however to those third world societies trying to improve the lot of their citizens.

As for an energy tax to support renewable energy sources most of the developed world already have then inn place- in the UK such taxes are estimated to add an additional £300/$500 per annum to household fuel bills.
Germany, Spain, Holland and Denmark all have similar schemes and the US have ploughed billions of stimulus money into solar and wind power.
And all have been totally ineffective.
Well apart from making a small group people very wealthy- in the UK the landed gentry have taken to wind power like the proverbial duck to water and are enjoying a huge surge in income by allowing the useless things to dot their rolling acres.
Spain threw away billions on solar power- destroying jobs and helping to put drive the Spanish economy into its current dire straits- my favourite story is the Spanish solar farm that was so efficient it was able to supply power at night! Turns out that because of the huge subsidies that it was paid for solar power it was actually worth its while to hook up a diesel generator and pump fossil fuel power into the grid when the sun went down.
Germany facing huge power bills and a potential energy shortage that will effect an estimated 150000 homes, is quietly dropping its subsidies for wind and solar power- a move given further impetus when the leaders of the German steel and chemical industry informed Angela Merkal that they would relocating Eastwards if their energy prices continued to rise.
And in Australia the hated Carbon tax is on track to destroy the Gillard government- opinion polls and state elections pointing to a landslide defeat for the Labour party.
But the good news is that with new technology and new natural gas resources coming on line it looks as if we have enough power to hand to keep our civilisation growing and pull the third world level with the rest of the planet.
As for rising sea levels- not happening.
Nor are hurricanes or typhoons increasing.
Nor droughts.
And food production continues to rise- most of the human race is better fed and healthier than it was even a generation ago.

 

[wonkishere]

For the benefit of other readers who might have a slightly open mind... actually, countries in Europe have made a lot of positive changes which I consider successful. Germany runs almost entirely off solar and geothermal, and they are as a matter fact, the single most economically successful country in the EU. Jim doesn't seem to have a great deal of awareness of what's going on when he says a lot of the things he does.

Food production is already down, the coral reefs are going away, and I know Jim, you don't believe me, that's fine.

I hope someday you can come to some kind of place where you're capable of being objective. Good luck with that.

 

[JimBraiden]

For the benefit of other readers who might have a slightly open mind... actually, countries in Europe have made a lot of positive changes which I consider successful. Germany runs almost entirely off solar and geothermal, and they are as a matter fact, the single most economically successful country in the EU. Jim doesn't seem to have a great deal of awareness of what's going on when he says a lot of the things he does.

Food production is already down, the coral reefs are going away, and I know Jim, you don't believe me, that's fine.

I hope someday you can come to some kind of place where you're capable of being objective. Good luck with that.

I would say my awareness is a tad more aware than yours.
Here is the breakdown of Germanys energy sources:

• Oil 34.6%
• Bituminous coal 11.1%
• Lignite 11.4%
• Natural gas 21.7%
• Nuclear power 11.0%
• Hydro- and wind power 1.5%
• Others 9.0%

The others refers to bio fuels- solar makes up 6.6% of that.
Geothermal power provides less that half of one percent of Germany's power.

I do hope that is objective enough for you.

 

[JimBraiden]

An interesting article on the WWF from Der Spiegel:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/wwf-helps-industry-more-than-environment-a-835712.html

Not very nice people.

 

[Dave]

A number of different things are raised there - I'm not sure which you find not very nice:

To be fair to the WWF raising money in that way is no different to all big charities. They are all top heavy with administration, and they all spend vast amounts of money on publicity to raise even more money. If you look into the High Street Chuggers and how they are actually paid you would never subscribe, and yet charities continue to find this is their most successful way of getting funds. You would hesitate to donate even to these yearly TV telethons with pictures of poor starving kids if you saw exactly when the money was actually spent - pool tables for youth clubs vandalised within a few months. I prefer charity to begin at home and for local causes.

Nevertheless, the WWF sees the Indian tiger program as a success. Without its efforts, says a spokesman, India's tigers could "quite possibly be extinct by now."

There are more Tigers in private ownership in the USA than in the whole of the rest of the world. I think the game is already lost for the Tiger; and sadly, for most of the remaining large mammals. That doesn't mean we should give up, but I'd agree than some honesty about the situation might help. However, if the WWF were to tell the truth, no one would bother to give them a penny.

If your point is whether a campaigning political organisation should be a charity at all, then I think I agree. I would also extend that to include religious and pseudo-religious organisations. On a wider note, NGOs have far too much power and influence. Some NGOs are richer than the countries in which they operate. They are the cause of some of the problems in the world, when they are meant to be providing solutions.

 

[Vertigo]

But the good news is that with new technology and new natural gas resources coming on line it looks as if we have enough power to hand to keep our civilisation growing and pull the third world level with the rest of the planet.
Jim you do appear to be quite well informed, I'll grant you that. However that has to be one of the most uninformed burying head in sand statements I have ever seen. It wll quite frankly never happen and if it did the level of CO2 output would make todays levels seem tiny. If you believe that is a safe state of affairs then you are sadly misguided.

As for rising sea levels- not happening.
There is of course great debate about rising sea levels and there are at least as many scientists bringing forward equally convincing data that the levels are rising as there are scientists claiming they aren't. To look at only their side of the story is blinkered to say the least. Certainly the sea ice is breaking up around the Antarctic and, whilst the melting of sea ice has no impact on sea levels, once the Antarctic land ice gets going you are going to see those rises.

Nor are hurricanes or typhoons increasing.
This is well documented; there is no clear pattern of a decade on decade increase in numbers of storms but their severity is increasing:
"Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical SSTs."
Also:
"Atlantic tropical cyclone (hurricane) activity, as measured by both frequency and the Power Dissipation Index (which combines storm intensity, duration, and frequency) has increased. The increases are substantial since about 1970, and are likely substantial since the 1950s and 60s, in association with warming Atlantic sea surface temperatures. There is less confidence in data prior to about 1950."
These are both from the US Global Change Research Program http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/about/default.htm

Nor droughts.

Severe drought (or Dust-Bowlification) “is the most pressing problem caused by climate change.” As I [Joe Romm*] wrote in the journal Nature last year, “Feeding some 9 billion people by mid-century in the face of a rapidly worsening climate may well be the greatest challenge the human race has ever faced.”

As far back as 1990, NASA scientists projected that severe to extreme drought in the United States, then occurring every 20 years or so, could become an every-other-year phenomenon by mid-century if temperatures kept rising. They did.

In fact, a major 2011 NOAA report concluded, human-caused climate change is already a major factor in more frequent Mediterranean droughts.
A comprehensive 2011 study of drought, by Aiguo Dai of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, looked at ”Characteristics and trends in various forms of the Palmer Drought Severity Index during 1900–2008.” The PDSI is “the most prominent index of meteorological drought” used in the U.S. That study concluded:

All the four forms of the PDSI show widespread drying over Africa, East andSouth Asia, and other areas from 1950 to 2008, and most of this drying is due to recent warming. The global percentage of dry areas has increased by about 1.74% (of global land area) per decade from 1950 to 2008….

Thus, I believe that our main conclusion is robust that recent warming has caused widespread drying over land. And model predictions suggest that this drying is likely to become more severe in the coming decades.

*Romm was acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy in 1997, where he oversaw $1 billion in R&D, demonstration, and deployment of low-carbon technology. He is a Senior Fellow at American Progress and holds a Ph.D. in physics from MIT.

And then take a look at the Punjab. Once considered to be one of the most fertile areas of the planet; now it seems headed for desert status. Their water table has fallen so low that the water they are bringing up now is so high in salts it is poisoning the land.

And food production continues to rise- most of the human race is better fed and healthier than it was even a generation ago.
Your use of the word 'most', whilst technically correct, does rather ignore the fact that worldwide just under 1 billion people suffer chronic hunger and around 2 billion suffer periodic chronic hunger. Yes food production has increased but at the cost of falling water tables worldwide and the exhaustion of the land. Punjab again stands as an excellent example.

Now I'm sure you could come up with lots of wonderful 'facts' to counter these statements but the bottom line is that we really don't know. Our planet's climate and ecosystem are immensely complex and our understanding of it is only beginning to scratch the surface. We only have one planet to live on and there is no doubt we are raping it whilst wearing blindfolds. We are stripping it of resources without even fully understanding the impact. To continue in the way we are is pure folly.

 

[JimBraiden]

agree- burning more fossil fuel will bring about a small increase in CO2 production- so what?
If it is a choice between a small increase in a harmless trace gas ( or to be accurate a vital trace gas for plant life) and improving the lives of millions of third world men, women and children I will go with the former.

Antarctic sea ice is increasing - not decreasing.
Some glaciers are retreating, some advancing and have been since the last major ice age ended.
And the same applies to the Greenland icecap.

As for hurricanes- yes they have increased in strength since the 70's- again a very short period in climate terms.

And speaking of Arctic Sea Ice:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/26/2819327_p2/heavy-ice-could-delay-start-of.html
"The heaviest polar ice in more than a decade could postpone the start of offshore oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean until the beginning of August, a delay of up to two weeks"

Which is odd as I can recall being told that by 2012 the Arctic Sea ice would have pretty much vanished due to CAGW.

Why?- well probably due to more energy being provided by the warming period that began then.
Or it might be that it is only since the 1970's that we have had the ability to really measure storm strength because it is only since then that we have had satellites monitoring them- before that the data is much more suspect.
We simply don't have accurate figures for storm strength pre the 1970's and even more so for the period before the 1950's.
( See claims of Arctic sea ice reaching its lowest point since records began - what is rarely mentioned is that said records only date back to 1979 when satellite coverage began- although there is ample evidence that Arctic sea ice has declined and advanced to greater degrees than current during human history)
But the fact remains that those pushing CAGW claimed that it would cause in increase in the frequency of hurricanes- but there has not been any such increase.

Joe Romm!!?? Please .

Droughts- globally, the mid 1950s had the highest drought activity and the mid 1970s to mid 1980s had the lowest.
Which is odd since the planet was actually cooling in the 1950-1970 period.
Actually most severe droughts are linked to El Nino /ENSO evetns and there is no hard evidence that they are caused by human actions.
Ask the Anasazi.

And yes too many people still suffer from hunger, but not because we are short of food but because we can't get the food to them- and because we waste an enormous amount.

The Punjab is in trouble- but overall Indian food production is rising.

The earths ecosystem is indeed incredibly complex- but also incredibly robust.
We should indeed strive to protect it so that we can better exploit it.

This just in:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/26/2819327_p2/heavy-ice-could-delay-start-of.html

"The heaviest polar ice in more than a decade could postpone the start of offshore oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean until the beginning of August, a delay of up to two weeks,"

Odd- I seem to recall being told that Arctic sea ice would have pretty much disappeared by 2012 due to CAGW.

 

[Vertigo]

agree- burning more fossil fuel will bring about a small increase in CO2 production- so what?
If it is a choice between a small increase in a harmless trace gas ( or to be accurate a vital trace gas for plant life) and improving the lives of millions of third world men, women and children I will go with the former.

I think you underestimate the amount of energy production required to bring the underdeveloped countries in line with the developed. This would not be a small increase. And until we understand our climate better a little caution might save those same people from even worse to come. Besides do you really think the developed countries will give that energy to the undeveloped world. Come on...

Antarctic sea ice is increasing - not decreasing.

Yes, but... http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...tarctica-sea-ice-paradox-science-environment/

Some glaciers are retreating, some advancing and have been since the last major ice age ended.

Yes but most are retreating: "Since 1980, a significant global warming has led to glacier retreat becoming increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that some glaciers have disappeared altogether, and the existence of a great number of the remaining glaciers of the world is threatened.
And the same applies to the Greenland icecap." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

As for hurricanes- yes they have increased in strength since the 70's- again a very short period in climate terms.

But a longer period to conisder than your one year of thick arctic ice in the last decade that you mention below.

And speaking of Arctic Sea Ice:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/26/2819327_p2/heavy-ice-could-delay-start-of.html
"The heaviest polar ice in more than a decade could postpone the start of offshore oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean until the beginning of August, a delay of up to two weeks"

Which is odd as I can recall being told that by 2012 the Arctic Sea ice would have pretty much vanished due to CAGW.

See comment above. And yes not all global warming predictions from the last decade are going to be correct. Did you really expect them to be?

But the fact remains that those pushing CAGW claimed that it would cause in increase in the frequency of hurricanes- but there has not been any such increase.

And it seems like someone has been saying that the time period we are talking about is too small for such things to be measured significantly. You can't have it both ways. First you claim that evidence for change is over too short a period of time to be considered and then complain that predicted changes haven't happened in the same short period of time.

Actually most severe droughts are linked to El Nino /ENSO evetns and there is no hard evidence that they are caused by human actions.
Ask the Anasazi.

"El Niño has become more frequent, persistent and intense during the last 20-30 years. We don't know whether this is a natural variation or the effect of increasing greenhouse gases."
But of course 20-30 years is such a short period of time that maybe we should wait another century or two before we do anything.

And yes too many people still suffer from hunger, but not because we are short of food but because we can't get the food to them- and because we waste an enormous amount.

The Punjab is in trouble- but overall Indian food production is rising.

Agreed but that is largely due to improved farming techniques and GM crops. However with water tables falling across the globe That growth is unlikely to continue:
"With river water in key farming regions rather fully exploited, the world has turned to underground water sources in recent decades to keep expanding the irrigated area. As a result, the climbing demand for water has now exceeded the natural recharge of many aquifers. Now water tables are falling in scores of countries that contain more than half the world’s people. These include China, India, and the United States, which together account for nearly half of the global grain harvest. And as the gap between steadily rising demand and the sustainable yield of aquifers grows, water tables are falling at an accelerating rate."

The earths ecosystem is indeed incredibly complex- but also incredibly robust.

This is a higly qualitative statement. How robust is robust? We cannot know just how robust the Earth's ecosystem is because it has never been subject to anything remotely close to the exploitation of the last century. We simply do not know how robust it is in the face of these changes and as it is the only planet currently available to us it seems a rather dangerous attitude to assume it can survive our current levels of exploitation without going critical.

It strikes me that mankind is undergoing the biggest experiment it has ever undertaken and the subject of that experiment is our only home. Maybe that sits fine with some people but it makes me more than a little uncomfortable.

 

[JimBraiden]

No I don't expect the developed world to give the energy to the underdeveloped countries- I expect them to buy them on the open market or find and exploit them for themselves- as China, India and others are doing.

Antarctic sea ice is increasing- and thanks for the link to the National Geographic report but it is I am afraid badly out of date- see the reference to Steig et al's paper in nature- a paper later pretty thoroughly refuted/discredited- take your pick ( What Steig er al had attempted was to take data for West Antarctica and try to spread It across the whole continent- and as it later transpired the data itself was highly suspect)- see O’Donnell, R., et al., 2011.Journal of Climate- the bottom line being that there has been no discernible continental wide warming in the Antarctic in the last or so years and sea ice has increased by an average of .97% per decade.

Glaciers- yes most are currently in retreat- and 500 years ago most were advancing- there is an amusing item in the ecclesiastical records of the Diocese of Bern recounting how the Arch Bishop was called upon to carry out an exorcism on a glacier that was advancing into rich pastures belonging to a local noble. Alas the score was Glacier 1, Archbishop 0
As for Greenland- again the picture is not quite what Wiki says ( by the way I would exercise great caution in using Wikl as a reference source for information on climate change- last year they had to suspend one William Connolly for repeatedly misediting and deleting any data which contradicted the CAGW orthodoxy)
The most recent studies show that the rate of ice melt is lower than originally thought and is more probably part of a natural cycle that man made;
Bjørk, A. A., et al., 2012. is worth a look.

As for the Arctic- yes I agree that the current high levels of sea ice do not a trend make- I only mentioned it because one of the more oft repeated claims for CAGW is that the Arctic sea ice is in an unprecedented and unstoppable decline. However there is ample evidence in both the paleo record and the historical records of various navies and scientific bodies that both those claims are untrue ( one of the most amusing news items of last year was the expedition led by Josk Wishart which we were told by various papers and news outlets including the Guardian and the BBC "had rowed to the North Pole" thus proving the effect of CAGW- turned out they had managed to row to the position of the North Magnetic Pole in 1996- some 700 kilometres south of the current position of the Magnetic North Pole nad almost 1200 klicks short of the geographic north pole.

And no I don't expect all the global warming predictions made in the last decade to be correct- but when the vast majority of them prove false you do need to ask yourself how valid the theory itself is.
Speaking of Global Warming Predictions you may remember claims that the penguin population of the Antractic was declining due to Man Made Global Warming?
Well it turned out that the perceived decline in the penguin population was man made but had nothing to do with climate change:
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110112/full/news.2011.15.html
It seesm that tagging a penguin damages its health and shortens its lifespan- so the more you tag the more die and voila penguin population decline which must of course be caused by climate change.

 

[Arkose]

I'm trying to understand something here. The reason that Climate Change doesn't exists is because Antarctica ice is growing and not receding?

If I fully give that Antarctica ice is growing does that mean man made effects on the environment are not happening?

 

[JimBraiden]

I'm trying to understand something here. The reason that Climate Change doesn't exists is because Antarctica ice is growing and not receding?

No- in fact the increase in Antarctic Sea ice cover is clear evidence that Climate Change exists.

One might say that change is in fact climate's defining factor.

 

[Arkose]

So what is the whole argument about? The word "warming," or that human race can not have negative impacts on the environment?

 

[JimBraiden]

The extent of the impact.

And the extent to which groups like the WWF and Grenpeace benefit by pushing exaggerated claims about the damage caused by human actions.

 

[Brian G Turner]

agree- burning more fossil fuel will bring about a small increase in CO2 production- so what?
If it is a choice between a small increase in a harmless trace gas ( or to be accurate a vital trace gas for plant life) and improving the lives of millions of third world men, women and children I will go with the former.

Small increase? Harmless trace gas? Improving the lives of millions? I think you have the situation in reverse.

Perhaps you should go back and start re-reading the science literature over the past 20+ years which has been detailing the steady picture of global warming caused predominantly by the increase in CO2 levels.

The effects are certainly not harmless, and certainly not improving the lives of anybody!

The claim that climate sciences have been taken over by some weird leftist agenda is just plain insulting to the world of science. Funny how areas of science become targets for being discredited when there are billion-dollar multinational interests at stake.

 

[Nerds_feather]

things like deforestation also have a tangible, negative impact on human beings. e.g.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703435104575421170100705034.html

 

[The Procrastinator]

Jim, you might like this website; the people on here are fond of detail too. The page I'm linking to is about Antarctic sea ice / land ice but you will probably find the entire site of interest.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

Now - can we please separate the “climate change” discussion from the “damage caused by human actions” discussion. No matter what your opinion of climate change is, the two are not the same by a long shot, and conflating them obscures the issue of species decline and the "crisis" raised by the OP.

I'm not sure if it’s possible to exaggerate the damage caused by human actions when you look at the stuff we are actually doing right now and have actually done. I'm talking large scale habitat destruction, habitat fragmentation and alteration, and the introduction of invasive pest species of plant and animal; I'm talking water use and changes in water systems (such as irrigation), and the massive introduction of refined chemicals into natural systems (one example is the pesticides routinely used to protect grain seeds, which have recently been discovered to persist into the mature plant and its pollen, and damage bee populations).

I for one see a very clear link between our actions now and in the recent past and the accelerating decline in other species. I also see a clear link between our growth in population and the decline in other species.

I don't need the WWF to tell me this is happening, because I am interested in the other lifeforms that live on this planet (particularly Australia, where I live) and have been following the issue for many years. In Australia, for instance, there has been a marked decline in small bird species in the larger cities/ more populated regions, a marked decline in woodland bird species in general, and a marked decline in small mammal numbers. More plants, reptiles, amphibians, birds and mammals are being added to the threatened species lists every year. These declines can be laid squarely at our door, thanks to our introduction of destructive feral species such as the cat, the fox and the goat (and lack of serious efforts to control them) and our interference with habitat, disrupting food sources, changing bushfire behaviour, and more particularly, destroying nesting habitat for small creatures (and thinking that we're cleaning things up by doing so - then wondering where the fairy-wrens have gone.)

In the case of Australia, we have massive alteration of habitat since white settlement (just over 200 years ago) - a huge agricultural industry (largely for export), a huge and growing mining industry, fertilisers, pesticides and fungicides getting into soils and water systems, and a rapidly expanding human population in a relatively small area (90% of Australians now live in an urban environment, and this is mostly concentrated on the eastern seaboard from Brisbane-ish down to Melbourne). It’s an awful lot of change in a short span of time. Add that to the fact that 75% of Australia is either arid or semi-arid, water resources are scarce, and that the areas of higher and more reliable rainfall tend to match the areas where people live, or want to live – it’s hardly a surprise that our native species are going backwards. Australia is one of only 17 nations globally classed as “megadiverse” – these 17 nations carry about 70% of the world’s biodiversity. It ranks very highly in terms of species endemism in plants and is ranked number one for endemic species of bird, reptile, amphibian and mammal. To add insult to injury we are one of only two "developed" nations on the megadiverse list - the other is the US. And yet our species are in decline.

That's Oz, that's my backyard. Globally I have no doubt there are similar troubles, perhaps for different reasons. For instance I spotted these articles in the paper today:

Global Environment Outlook Grim says UN

Ravenous Consumption Threat to Third of Vulnerable Species

Now I understand Jim Braiden's point that some of these claims should be taken with a grain of salt, and the language could be more measured. But equally, anyone who looks at what we are really doing to habitats globally and locally - what it really takes to support the lifestyles to which we have become accustomed - where the resources come from, what is really involved in producing the food and fibres we demand, the technologies we take for granted - anyone who makes themselves aware of this and thinks it can go on growing like it is forever - that person is an idiot.

End rant for the moment.