Humans Use 83 Percent of Earth's Surface 719
belloc writes "CNN is reporting on a Wildlife Conservation Society report that states that humans take up 83 percent of the Earth's land surface to live on, farm, mine or fish. The article rerers to a WCS human footprint map, but the WCS site seems to have been CNN'd. Funny: I just got back from a little road trip across the southwest, and from all the nothing you see out there, you would think that 83% is a bit high. I guess Arizona farmlands must look a lot like wild, untouched desert."
83% (Score:1, Interesting)
What does it all mean? (Score:2, Interesting)
Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
Crap (Score:4, Interesting)
And people wonder why environmentalists come under attack. It's bullshit reports like this that make absolutely no sense and assume a static technology level.
First of all, drive through Nevada some time. Mile after mile of empty space, but according to this report, humans have "appropriated" it. Technically, I'm sure they're right in the sense that someone owns it, but it's not as if the land is being used for anything.
Another thing that's stupid is that they claim that 98% of the land that can grow crops have been farmed. That is just ludicrous, and reminds me of the other wackos that claim that it would take 8 Earths or whatever to support everyone at the level of the US. There are numerous technological solutions to creating more farmland. Sheesh, how about irrigating the desert? How about huge multi-level greenhouses built in the middle of nowhere?
Sure, that would be more expensive than what we're doing now, but so what? The point is that very few resources are actually limited. Technology almost always fills whatever needs arise.
We'll stabilize population way before then, but this planet could support hundreds of billions of people.
While flying it seems this is pretty true.. (Score:5, Interesting)
To tell you the truth, i don't see *ANY* land that ISN'T marked by humans.
Even the most dense forrests and pristine areas are loaded with new houses, barns, trucks, trailers, roads, pipes, power lines or something that we have planted there.
In a way, i'm jealous of the people who got to see the wild west and walk across america and stake out a piece of the world. Now i can't even go to a public park after dark! Sure wish there was some "free" land somewhere!!
The Yahoo! headline was even worse (Score:3, Interesting)
That sounds materially different than "Humans have influenced 83% of the land that we chose to count." So if there are any roads or trails into a Wilderness Area, then it doesn't count as real wilderness. That is an interesting definition.
Re:Incorrect summary (Score:5, Interesting)
Scientists have shown that we appropriate over 40% of the net primary productivity (the green stuff) produced on Earth each year either taking it directly or keeping other organisms from using it through our agriculture and land use practices.
Which answers the "what the hell is NPP" question.
And in response I say "so what?".
We are the top of the food chain. We are one of the few animals that changes the environment to suit us rather than the other way around. We are one of the few animals that can exist in nearly any environment because of that. Of course we've bent most of the resources on the planet toward our whim. In fact, I'm surprised it's not a higher percentage based on whatever nebulous methodology these "researchers" want to use.
Quite frankly the numbers put forth in this study are trash. They've perverted things like the percentage of earth's surface used to make alarmist numbers while using negative language and exploiting the average person's lack of scientific knowledge to try and prove their points. Which is basically that we humans are horribly evil and Ma Earth would be better off without us.
Fine by me. I expect them to suicide first to prove their devotion.
Re:Crap (Score:3, Interesting)
You talk about irrigating the desert. Where, exacty, is the water to irrigate the desert going to come from? What about the resources to build your "multi-level greenhouses"? Where are they going to come from?
Resources *are* limited. You are correct that technology help to fill in the gaps, but the required technology is not always available. Often it becomes a race between technology and the dwindling of resources. And more often than not the technology gets ignored because of greed and corruption.
I strongly believe that the Earth us going to hit an environmental catastrophe within 100 years.
Re:Humans bad. Animals good. (Score:2, Interesting)
But then, you could just subscribe to that school of "thought" that says that we can do whatever we want without any type of care or caution and nothing bad will ever happen. This would of course be in spite of a fairly detailed history of human beings bringing the worst tragedies on themselves, either through action, or through inaction.
But yeah, screw animals and the environment. They aren't humans!
Re:Consider Your Source (Score:2, Interesting)
Read between the lines of your news reports - it's amazing how much organizations try to hoodwink us. Think: The average Joe Sixpack thinks Microsoft are a fine example of an American corporation, and only those who know it's true self can speak the truth of it.
More Skewed numbers... (Score:5, Interesting)
Their figure of 85% may well be correct, but their methodology is suspect to say the least.
1) As you say, they ignored Antarctica and other islands.
2) They used nine datasets to plot human influence, of which two were RIVERS and COASTLINES. Given that they used independant plots for population density etc, I have to wonder exactly why they feel humans are responsible for the distribution of rivers and coastlines. They assume that the possibility of access by humans implies human interference.
3) They assumed that roads would affect the environment for 2 km to each side, when the highest estimate for ecological impact was 600 m!
4) They assumed that all settlements would also affect environments upto an arbitrary distance of 2 km, based on the error in *position*, not *extent* of map data.
5) Random assertions like: "Hunting no longer supplies a major source of in the Western world, but it does in most of the rest of the world." This is patently false. Very few communities use hunting as a major food source. The vast majority of people around the world are fed by agriculture. But the authors use this statement to justify scoring human influence as "moderate" (4) up to 15 km from settlements on this basis. (They estimated 15 km to be a day's travel.)
I'm sure there are more errors, this was a very cursory reading.
I'm disappointed that this was published in a peer-reviewed journal. This article is in no sense good science, although it makes a fine political manifesto.
Re:The Club of Rome (Score:1, Interesting)
Excuse me--correct me if I'm wrong, but with an inarguably finite amount of resources (people bicker about how much there is, but nobody says we've got infinite oil reserves) and with human population and consumption going steadily upward, there simply MUST be a point at which we run out unless we curb consumption. So some scientists working with inadequate data sets got the date wrong. I guess you think that means our planet's oil supplies will last for ever and ever and we don't need to be concerned about them?
Re:While flying it seems this is pretty true.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Even out west (others comments ignored) this is true. To a lesser extent yes, but all that desert is often fenced off and grazed. Just because you
don't see the herd from the road doesn't mean they aren't there. From the air its a lot more obvious. Little squares bounded by roads,
mountains etc, with a house and a group of cattle in one corner or the other.
I read a statistic a few years ago in a outdoors magazine which said that there isn't anywhere in the continental US if you pick the correct
direction and walk, you won't hit some form of human civilization (road, house etc) within a day. It also said that there are only a few places in
the US that if you randomly pick a direction and walk that its actually possible to take more than a day to reach civilization. Ever since reading
that I am depressed when I look at the road atlas and am unable to find big blocks of land without any roads.
Find your ecological footprint (Score:4, Interesting)
and then...
compare it to the rest of the world's [rprogress.org]
Re:Do the math (Score:2, Interesting)
Those greedy American bastards.....
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, they ban logging on lakes....
Back in 1993, the BC government was under a lot of pressure over their decision to allow logging in most of Clayoquot sound (one the last large areas of relatively pristine old-growth forest). In the midst of the public protests, they found a way to add thousands of acres to the preserved area: They banned logging on Kennedy lake. Now, I'm not talking about logging the shores of the lake, I'm talking about logging the surface of the lake. They then added the surface of the lake to their 'protected areas' statistics.
Re:Shouldn't we have a new category? (Score:2, Interesting)
An article pointing out that resources are not infinite doesn't say that we should live in the hypothetical de-regulated utopia, so therefore it *must* be calling for totalitarian governmental control of everything.
There are positions between these two extremes. It is possible to both respect private property and the rights of private property, while simultaniously recognizing that some regulations and restrictions must exist. Its like the old joke "Your right to punch ends where my nose begins".
Recognizing that resources are not infinite is not equivalent to demanding that we go back to living in caves. Calling for increased efficiency and conservation efforts is *not* identical to calling for an end to industrialization and technology. The solution is to step back, abandon the urge to split things into "two sides", and look at reality. Any Rynd and Greenpeace are not the only two alternatives.
It is self evident that we have to maintain a technological society, increase our industrial capicity, and increase energy production. This does not mean that increased industrial capicity, and increased energy produciton must come at the expense of more environmental harm, and paving the world. Also, it is self evident that a continuiously increasing human population will cause shortages of scarce resources. By combining efforts, abandoning the urge to dichotomize, and looking for solutions we can all get what we want.
I want a world with vast forests, and a world with advanced technology. We can have both. But we can't get there by denying that the way we currently are working is causing problems. It is one thing to say "technology is good, let's keep improving it". I agree with that statement, and its fine. But when you say "technology is good, therefore let's wreck the planet" I think you've fallen victim to the belief that we can have one, or the other. Both is both possible and necessary.
Re:Do the math (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Crap (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess the road just grew there by itself?
Michael
Re:The Club of Rome (Score:2, Interesting)
Probably we would have run out of oil and would be overpopulated (aren't we?) by now without the warning voices back in the 1970s. You won't be able to look at the world without the influence of these predictions. At least here in Europe cars use much less fuel than back in the seventies due to legislations passed after these predictions. And people have put a lot of energy in finding new sources of oil. Probably more time and money than without people warning of shortages. In the end these researchers were just succesful in preventing what they have predicted, weren't they?
Re:The Club of Rome (Score:3, Interesting)
Not really. In 1970 cars were gas-guzzlers but the fears that those predictions produced caused change. As far as the population goes I think that environmentally we are close to the limits.
What scares me the most, more even than our situation, are people who refuse to see our situation. It is the chipping away at our eco system that will eventually doom the human race. Eventually we will chip away just a little too much and our eco system will collapse. It won't collapse all at once but rather in a cascade effect that may take years. But once started, it will be impossible to stop. It will be too late for the human race and many other species who will fall victim to our unbridled greed.
I believe that man-kind will spend all of its time gathering wealth until the eco-system starts to collapse. Then it will spend all of its gathered treasure in a search for a way to save itself but will only find a grave.
Grazing livestock accounts for much of this (Score:3, Interesting)
One case study:
The desert grasslands of southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico supported herds of pronghorn, deer, elk and even the occasional bison prior to the arrival of the railroad in the 1870s. Historical accounts tell of grass that reached the belly of a horse spreading across the valleys, and perennial streams that held beaver, otter and enough fish to support a bald eagle population.
Of course, this was a perfect setting for Manifest Destiny to play its hand. Wealthy cattle companies rapidly overstocked the ranges with millions of head of cattle, which devoured the forage available. Then severe drought in the 1890s and a series of devastating floods from 1900-1905 carried away topsoil from the denuded land, and the greatly increased sediment load in the watercourses cut deeper channels which altered the drainage and aquifer recharge of entire watersheds. The rivers became dry ditches, cactus and tough scrub took hold where the grass once thrived, and the regional economy crashed hard.
Similar scenes to the one described above played out across the West. In fact, most places in the world that support vegetation but are not suitable for farming (everything except tundra, boreal forest, and virgin rainforest) are grazed and have been altered considerably from their pre-agricultural baseline conditions. So the figure of 83 percent is in fact very plausible, and may in fact be conservative.
It wouldn't be too tough to start turning this tide -- if Americans would simply cut their beef consumption by one third, there would be an economic impetus for the most marginal and habitat-damaging operations to cut back or ceases altogether. India, OTOH...how the hell do you fix that?
...poorly understood and needlessly destructive... (Score:2, Interesting)
There's a telling sentence, "We don't understand the effects, but we judge them anyway"
Re:The Club of Rome (Score:3, Interesting)
In 1970 cars were gas-guzzlers
Uh-huh. And we use sooo much less gas today. BTW- have you noticed that oil prices have hovered around $20-$25/barrel for the past 30 years? I guess the supply isn't decreasing after all...
As far as the population goes I think that environmentally we are close to the limits.
Oh no! A tree-hugger sitting at his computer thinks that our earth is close to its limits! Too bad he doesn't even try to back his statement up with any facts.
Eventually we will chip away just a little too much and our eco system will collapse.
Why will it collapse?
But once started, it will be impossible to stop.
Why?
What scares me the most is that people listen to opinions like yours. You have bought into the same doomsday theories that have been proven incorrect time and time again. I know it might make you uncool at the next Sierra club meeting, but try to at least consider the possibility that the world is not ending.
Re:The Club of Rome (Score:2, Interesting)
"Uh-huh. And we use sooo much less gas today. BTW- have you noticed that oil prices have hovered around $20-$25/barrel for the past 30 years? I guess the supply isn't decreasing after all..."
"Oh no! A tree-hugger sitting at his computer thinks that our earth is close to its limits! Too bad he doesn't even try to back his statement up with any facts."
First, the fact that you have begun name calling indicates that you have taken my opinion personally. Don't. You can disagree without making yourself look like an ass.
As far as presenting 'facts', do the research yourself. There are LOTS of studies that show that we are destroying our environment one piece at a time. However, I suspect that even presented with a plethora of data, you would choose to humbug the entire body of evidence. You are one of the people that will help to destroy our planet.
Let's take a simple test to see if I'm right:
Do you believe that greenhouse gases are effecting our environment? I predict that you will say no.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/c
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/glo
http://www.globalwarming.org/
http://www.climatehotmap.org/
http://lwf.ncdc.n
http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/
Let's try another question: Do you believe that our planet has finite resources and that we are exhausting them?
http://www.greencrossinternational.net/site/Dig
http://www.gzmn.org/v0000006.htm
Do you believe that the Earth has an overpopulation problem?
http://www.overpopulation.org/
http://www.amon
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0
Given that the world population is growing and that more people means greater consumption and more waist and that THERE REALLY ARE FINITE LIMITS on what the Earth's environment can stand you position seems ludicrous. Perhaps you don't believe we have a polution problem?
http://www.doh.gov.uk/airpollution/airpol9.htm
And on and on and on... But I don't seriously believe that you are interested in the real facts. Just keep you head in the sand because the truth although our only chance is sobering.
Re:The Club of Rome (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Club of Rome (Score:2, Interesting)
Give me a break. The relationship between greenhouse gases and global temperature is ambiguous at best. Why did the average global temperature go DOWN between 1920 and 1987 despite a 40% increase in "greenhouse gas" emissions at the turn of the century? Do you want to ignore the fact that the "hole" in the ozone has shrunk to half the size it was 2 years ago? Do you not remember that 40 years ago, environmentalists like yourself were more concerned about global freezing than they were about global warming?
The simple fact is that "global warming" is nothing more than a hypothesis that is backed up by ambiguous and contrary facts. There has been no conclusive evidence proving this idea, so why to you treat it as a proven theory?
Do you believe that our planet has finite resources and that we are exhausting them?
No, I definitely do not believe that we are exhausting a finite amount of natural resources. The earth was designed to support people living on it, and there are countless examples of resources renewing themselves through natural means. I live in oil country, and recently an abandoned oil well was revisited only to find that it had replenished itself! Nobody could explain it, but the oil company turned the rigs back on and started pumping oil out of it. Now, if we suddenly suck all oil wells in the world dry, oil prices would skyrocket (basic supply and demand economics). This rise in oil prices would suddenly make oil shale development economically feasible. Oil shale deposits have been conservatively estimated to hold several hundred years worth of the worlds oil supply. Oil is one thing we are going to have around for a LONG time.
Do you believe that the Earth has an overpopulation problem?
No, but maybe that is because I just got off a road trip where I drove through several hundred mile stretches of absolutely nothing -- land hardly touched by mankind. Try it sometime. You'll see what I mean. While your at it, next time somebody tells you that we are running out of trees, take a road trip up to the pacific northwest and take a look a the millions upon millions of trees they have up there.
Perhaps you don't believe we have a polution problem?
Sure I do. However, I also know that the nastiest pollution I have ever seen had nothing to do with humans. If you are ever in Hawaii while the volcano is erupting, check out the windward side of the big island. Volcano emissions contain some of the most toxic pollutants -- far worse than anything else I have ever seen. In fact, a single volcano eruption emits several times what a man made factory does in an entire year. Should we legislate against volcanoes now?
But I don't seriously believe that you are interested in the real facts
Let me explain to you the scientific method, because it seems you are having a hard time grasping reality. First, you start with an idea, or theory. This postulation can only be considered as "fact" if it meets these 2 requirements:
1) Supporting data is observed, either in the real world or through valid experiment, to solidify and prove your assertion.
2) There is no observation or data that disproves your theory.
Now, tell me if your "supporting" links meet these criteria. All I see are emotionally and politically charged accusations with ambiguous, unproven, and sometimes contrary observations to back them up. Real facts? Hardly. Now tell me who is keeping their head in the sand.