Now we need 1 1/2 Planets

planeta

 

The 2014 edition of the Living Planet Report WWF shows the tremendous pressure that humanity is putting the planet. Latin America has lost 83% of the populations of fish, birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles in the last 40 years. That impact on wildlife is greater than the overall losses in the same period, which are 52%.
In less than eight months we reached Day Excess Earth, when our ecological footprint exceeds the planet’s capacity to regenerate
To maintain this trend will need at least 3 planets to stock in 2050.
GLAND, Switzerland, 19 August.- Humanity ecological exhausted today its annual budget, segúngrafico data from Global Footprint Network, WWF global organization partner. The Day the Earth Excess marks the time when our ecological footprint exceeds the planet’s capacity to regenerate what we consumed. Each year humanity comes before this date: in 2000 he reached on 1 October this year on 19 August.
“Nature is the basis of our well-being and prosperity, but we are abusing the Earth’s limited resources,” said Marco Lambertini, Director General of WWF International. “If we want to build a future for our children, we must preserve the natural capital that remains and sustainably manage their resources, our only home, planet,” he added.
From the information on the Ecological Footprint, which measures the amount of natural resources we consume the world by country, excess Day the Earth is an opportunity to raise awareness and take action against excessive consumption of natural resources.
In late September 2014, WWF launched the Living Planet Report 2014, the tenth edition of the biannual publication. The report looks at the health of the Earth and the impact of human activity on natural resources.
In 1961, when WWF was founded, mankind consumed only two thirds of the available natural resources. In that year, most countries still had positive ecological balance, ie their ecological footprint was smaller and sustainable. Currently we need a planet and a half to supply the consumption needs of humanity. If we maintain this trend, we will require at least three planets to supply us in 2050.
The forest area is decreasing, water natural resources are increasingly scarce, land quality is deteriorating and biological diversity is being undermined. At the same time, the dependence on fossil fuels creates C02 emissions that the planet is unable to absorb.
If we act now we can reverse this trend. We all have a vital role in creating a future within ecological limits. Change must begin by changing our consumption habits. If we choose to eat seafood with the MSC label and certified wood products (FSC) we will be ensuring the sustainable origin of these products. We also bet on a renewables-based model to reduce emissions that pollute the air and are affecting forests and oceans.
THE LIVING PLANET INDEX

Populations of wild vertebrates have been halved in the last 40 years.
The state of global biodiversity is worse than ever. He
Vivo® Planet Index (HPI), which measures trends thousand
populations of vertebrate species, has a decreased
52 percent between 1970 and 2010. In other
Thus, the number of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish
worldwide is, on average, half of what was done 40
years. This is a much larger decline than had been
reported earlier, thanks to a new methodology
seeks to be more representative of global biodiversity.
Biodiversity is declining in both regions
temperate and tropical, but the decline is greater
in the tropics. Between 1970 and 2010, there was a decrease of
32 percent in 6,569 populations of 1,606 species in the IPV
tempered. The tropical LPI shows a 56 percent reduction
in 3,811 populations of 1,638 species during the same period.
Latin America has the most dramatic decline-a
falling 83 percent. Habitat loss and degradation and
exploitation due to hunting and fishing are the main causes
this decrease. Climate change is the following
common threat, and it is likely to exert more pressure on
populations in the future.

IPV Land
Terrestrial species
They DECREASED 39
Percent between 1970
And 2010

Terrestrial species declined by 39 percent between 1970 and
2010, a trend that shows no sign of abating. The loss
habitat to make room for the human use of the land
especially for agriculture, urban development and
energy- production remains a major threat, aggravated por’la hunting.

IPV THE SPECIES
FRESHWATER PRESENTS
A DECREASE
AVERAGE 76
HUNDRED

The IPV of freshwater species has decreased
average of 76 percent. The main threats to the species
freshwater are loss and fragmentation of their habitats,
pollution and invasive species. Changes in water levels and water system connectivity for example through irrigation and dams hidroeléctricas- have a major impact on freshwater habitats.

IPV marine MARINE SPECIES
They DECREASED 39
Percent between 1970
And 2010

Marine species declined by 39 percent between 1970 and
2010. In the period between 1970 and the mid-80s is
He experienced the largest decline, followed by a period
stability before undergoing the next period of remarkable
decrease. The declines have been more pronounced in the tropics and
in the Southern Ocean, among the affected species are sea turtles, sharks and many large marine migratory birds such as the wandering albatross.

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT
We are using more
that Earth can supply

For over 40 years, the pressure of humanity on
Nature has exceeded what the Earth can replenish.
We need the regenerative capacity of 1.5 Earths
to provide ecological services that we use every year. He
“Ecological overshoot” it is possible for now because we can
cutting trees faster than the time required
to mature, catch more fish than the oceans can
replace, or emit more carbon into the atmosphere than forests
and oceans can absorb. The consequences are reduced
the amount of resources and accumulation of waste at rates
greater than what can be absorbed or recycled. Such is the case of
increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon.
The Ecological Footprint sum of all goods and services
ecological demands and competing for humanity
space. It includes biologically productive land (or
biocapacity) needed for crops, grazing land
and urbanized land; fishing areas and production forests.
It also includes the area of ​​forest required to absorb
additional emissions of carbon dioxide the oceans no
They can absorb. Both biocapacity and Ecological Footprint
They are expressed in the same unit: global hectares (gha).
The carbon emitted by burning fossil fuels
It has been the dominant component of the Ecological Footprint
humanity for over half a century, and continues to increase.
In 1961, carbon accounted for 36 percent of our footprint
Total organic; in 2010 it reached 53 percent.

Technological advances, agricultural inputs and
irrigation have shot the average yields per hectare
productive areas, especially agricultural land,
increasing the total biocapacity of the planet to 9,900
12,000 million global hectares (gha), between 1961 and
2010. However, during the same period, the population
human world increased from 3,100 million to nearly 7,000
million, reducing per capita biocapacity available
3.2 gha to 1.7 gha. Meanwhile, the per capita Ecological Footprint
It increased from 2.5 to 2.7 gha per capita. Such that although
biocapacity has increased globally, there is less to
distribute. Given the projection of world population
will reach 9,600 billion in 2050 and 11,000 million
2100, the biocapacity available to each of us
It is further reduced and this will be an increasing challenge to maintain
biocapacity increases with the degradation of soil,
freshwater shortages and rising energy costs.
In 2010 the global Ecological Footprint was
Hag 18,100 million, ie, 2.6 hag
per capita . Total biocapacity
Earth was 12,000 million hag,
ie 1.7 gha per capita

The size and composition of the Ecological Footprint per capita
each country is determined by the goods and services used
by an average person in this country, and the efficiency with which
the resources including fossil fuels are used for
provide these goods and services. Not surprisingly then
most of the 25 countries with the Ecological Footprints
largest per capita, are those of low income; in
virtually all these countries, carbon was the component
greater than its footprint.
Contributions to global ecological overshoot range from
nations. For example, if everyone on the planet they had
the average Footprint of a resident of Qatar, need
4.8 planets. If we had the lifestyle of a resident
US characteristic, need 3.9 planets. The
figure for a typical resident of Slovakia and South Korea would
2 to 2.5 planets, respectively, while a resident
typical of South Africa or Argentina would need 1.4 or 1.5 planets,
respectively.
Nationally, the carbon footprint
It represents more than half Footprint
Ecological 25 percent of countries
which were followed

UNEQUAL DEMANDS,
UNEVEN CONSEQUENCES

Low-income countries have
smaller footprint, but suffer
the greatest losses of ecosystems
For over half a century, most countries
Footprints have maintained high income per capita higher than the
biocapacity available per capita, depending mainly
biocapacity from other countries to sustain their lifestyles.
People in countries with low and middle incomes have seen
little increase in their per capita Footprints, already relatively low.

LOCAL NEEDS

When comparing trends in countries with IPV
different levels of average income, observed large
differences. While high-income countries seem
presenting an increase (10 percent) on biodiversity,
middle income countries have decreased (18
percent), and low-income countries, a decrease
dramatic and obvious (58 percent). However, these figures
mask a loss of biodiversity on a large scale before
1970 in Europe, North America and Australia. Also reflect
the way in which high-income countries import their
reality resources-exporting biodiversity loss
and its impact on low-income countries.
Trends in low-
incomes remain catastrophic,
for both biodiversity
for people

The route to the
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

So far no country has achieved a high
level of human development with a footprint
But some sustainable globally
moving in the right direction
For a country to achieve sustainable development in the context
global, you must have a per capita ecological footprint no larger than
biocapacity available per capita on the planet, while
It maintains a standard of living adequate. This means a trace
per capita less than 1.7 hag most -which could be replicated at the level
World unfinished global excess. This could be defined
as a value of 0.71 or greater according to the Human Development Index Inequality-adjusted (HDI) of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Currently, no country fulfills these criteria.
However, some countries are moving in the direction
correct. The route of the necessary progression varies between countries.
Some countries have increased
human development significantly while
very little increase its footprint, while others have
reduced footprint while maintaining high levels of
development.
The highest human development in the
high-income countries has been achieved
at the expense of an Ecological Footprint
big. Split and reverse this relationship
It is a key global challenge

PLANETARY BOUNDARIES

Define safe limits for life on Earth
Through the available information and various indicators,
we deepen and broaden our understanding of
living planet, to have a global vision and a
centered vision region, theme or specific species. The
Humans have benefited immensely from the conditions
environmental extremely predictable and stable
the last 10,000 years-the geological period known as
Holocene, which allowed human settlements
finally evolve and develop in societies
contemporary modern. But the world has entered a period
-the new “Anthropocene” – in which human activities are the
greater factor of global change. Considering the pace and
the scale of change, we can no longer exclude the possibility
reaching critical points that could change abruptly and -of
irreversible conditions of life on Earth.

The planetary boundaries framework identifies processes
regulating environmental stability of the planet. Based on
best available science, attempts to define safe limits for each
process. Beyond these limits, we are entering a danger zone
where it is likely that abrupt negative changes occur.
Although it is impossible to determine with certainty points
exact turning, seems to have already transgressed three boundaries
Planetary: biodiversity loss, climate change and
change in the nitrogen cycle, with visible effects and welfare
of humanity and our demand for food, water and energy.
The concept of planetary limits suggests the existence of
world as we know it, and from which we have benefited during the Holocene, now depends on our actions as planetary guardians.

FLASHES
PROMISING ~
Power generation need not be harmful to the
environment. This welder working on a project
Hydroelectric community in Mutwanga Republic
Republic of the Congo, which depends on the water park
Virunga National. The project, established by the Authority
Wildlife of the Congo, will provide electricity
25,000 people. It will also supply power
schools, a hospital and an orphanage; also generate
employment and business opportunities. In parallel,
Local communities will have a greater incentive to
tending forests and wetlands of the park, which
guarantee water supply. Unlike many
hydroelectric, inappropriate and poorly planned developments,
worldwide, the impact of this project
ecosystem will be minimal.
Worldwide, projects like this show
that development and conservation can go hand in hand, and
the protection of natural capital can lead to a
genuine progress in social and económico.El lake was at the center of the activities of Soco International PLC, based in the UK, inits search for oil wells. Earlier this year, the company agreed to withdraw from the Virunga National Park,
after an international campaign led by WWF.
Few countries are rich in resources and biocapacity
natural that the Democratic Republic of Congo. Without
But their inhabitants have one of the Ecological Footprints
lower the Planet, and the country is among the last in the
Human Development Index Inequality-adjusted
(HDI) Programme of the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP).
Oil extraction in Virunga, to help
feeding unsustainable lifestyles of countries
higher, income gains could represent short
term for the few. But it is unlikely that fosters
True development: in the Niger Delta, indicators
Poverty and inequality have worsened since
discovery of oil in the area. In the long term,
only way that the Congolese supply their needs and
improve their prospects it is through the sustainable management and
the intelligent use of natural capital país.nservación.
Mountain gorillas are among the 218 species
of mammals found in Virunga, with 706
species of birds, 109 species of reptiles, 78 species
amphibians and over 2,000 species of plants. But
oil concessions have been made in 85 per cent of
park, jeopardizing the long-term future of these
populations. Drilling for oil can
degrade habitats, making the park loses its status
protection and longer listed as a World Heritage Site
Site, which would increase increasingly
vulnerability of wildlife.
Globally, the loss and degradation of habitats,
hunting and climate change are the main threats
global biodiversity. Since 1970, they have contributed to a
52 percent decrease in Vivo® Planet Index
that is, the amount of mammals, birds, reptiles,
amphibians and fish with which we share the planet, has been
halved.

Why should we care
Environmental changes affect us all
For many, worth protecting themselves and the planet Earth
the fragile web of life of which we are all part. A sense
of awe and deep respect for nature it is rooted
in many cultures and religions. Instinctively, people
related to the well-known proverb: We have not inherited
the Earth from our ancestors; we have borrowed from
our children. But we have not proven to be good stewards
our only planet. The way we supply now
our needs are compromising the ability of future
Exactly generations to meet the opposite of his own
sustainable development.
The welfare and prosperity of mankind-indeed,
our own existence depends on the health of ecosystems
and the services they provide, from drinking water and
habitable climate, to the food, fuel, fiber
and fertile soils. Progress has been made in recent years
to quantify the economic value of natural capital and
dividends that flow from there. These valuations argue the
need to conserve nature and sustainable living
from an economic point of view, though any assessment
of ecosystem services is a “gross underestimate of
infinity “, since without them there could be life on Earth.

FOOD, WATER AND ENERGY
Our demands are
linked to the health of the biosphere
Given the prediction that, in 2050, the human population will
increased by 2.000 billion, the challenge of providing the amount
food, water and energy needed by all is a perspective
daunting. Currently, nearly one billion people spend
hunger, 768 million live without clean water and 1,400 million not
They have access to a reliable supply of electricity. The change
climate and the depletion of natural resources and ecosystems
will exacerbate the situation. While the world’s poorest
will remain the most vulnerable, the issue of security
food, water and energy affects us all.
Food security, water, energy and health
ecosystem are closely related. This interdependence
means that efforts to ensure appearance may
easily destabilize the other for example, attempts to
increase agricultural productivity may involve more
demand for inputs such as water and energy, and impact the
biodiversity and ecosystem services.
The way we supply our demands affect
ecosystem health, and ecosystem health affects
ability to meet these demands. This is equally relevant
for the poorest rural communities, which often depend
directly from nature to achieve their means
sustento- to the big cities of the world, which
They are increasingly vulnerable to threats such as flooding and
pollution as a result of environmental degradation.
Protecting nature and use its resources so
responsible are prerequisites for the development and welfare of the
humanity, and to build resilient and healthy communities.
Currently, nearly one billion
hungry people, 768 million
They live without drinking water and 1,400 million
They do not have access to a supply
reliable electricity

FROM SOLUTIONS
PERSPECTIVE “PLANET”
They can make better decisions
and yes there are practical solutions
The prospect of a “Planet” of WWF describes the best options
to handle, use and sharing of natural resources within
Planet-of limitations so that safety is ensured
food, water and energy for everyone.
Preserving the natural capital
Restore damaged ecosystems, stop
loss of priority habitats, expand
significantly protected areas.
Produce better
Reducing inputs and waste handling
resources sustainably, climbing
renewable energy production.
Consume smarter
Adopt lifestyles low impact footprint
ecological and food consumption patterns more
healthy, sustainable energy use.
Reorient financial flows
Assess the nature and environmental costs and
social, support and reward conservation,
manage resources in a sustainable manner and
innovative.
Equitable resource governance
Share the resources available, taking
fair and environmentally informed decisions,
measure success beyond GDP.

THE ROAD AHEAD
The same indicators we
show where we are wrong,
We can point to a better route
There is nothing inevitable about the continued decline of IPV, or
growth of our ecological overshoot. They are the sum of million
decisions taken with little or no consideration of the importance of protecting our natural world. Poor governance at local, national governments and international. Myopic policies approaches to economic growth and narrow interests. Business models focused on short-term gains that fail to take into account external factors and long-term costs. Ways inefficient, outdated and unnecessarily
destructive to generate and use energy, fishing, growing food, and
transporting goods and people. Losmedios desperate strategies to gain life. Excessive consumption brings happiness and makes them healthier to very few.
In each case, there is a better choice. It will not be easy to change the course yencontrar alternative routes. But you can achieve.
At the 2012 conference in Rio + 20, governments of the world
They affirmed their commitment to “economic, social and environmentally sustainable future for our planet and for present and future generations future.”
That’s “Our Common Vision”, the place to look for. It can be placed in the quadrant of sustainable global development-the territory now
unoccupied where everyone could enjoy a high level of development humanocon an Ecological Footprint in the global biocapacity.
In essence, this is the same space conceived in the “donut” Oxfam-the “safe and just space to run” that stays within planetary limits, while ensuring that all people achieve acceptable levels of health and wellness, and have opportunities).
The prospect of a planet WWF gives us an idea of ​​how we could achieve, through a series of practical decisions.
Investment need deflect away from the causes of the problems
environmental and to solutions. To make fair, of largoalcance and ecologically informed about how we can manage the resources we share decisions. To preserve what remains of the natural capital, protect and restore our ecosystems and habitats. To produce and consume in smarter ways.
We know where we want to be
We know how to get there
It’s time to get going


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s