Last week, World Wildlife Fund released the 2014 Living Planet Report. The report is always a must read update on the state of the planet, but this edition is especially important for anyone who cares about biodiversity. The top line message is that vertebrate populations around the world have declined by an average of 52% between 1970 and 2010.

 

The situation is even worse if we look at the tropics, with an 83% species decline in Latin America. These are sobering statistics for me, and I'm sure for you as well.

 

Why are we seeing these alarming trends? Simply put, they are a consequence of the growing demands of the human population. More people are clearing forests, plowing grasslands, polluting waters, and emptying the oceans.

 

This is not just a problem for wildlife. It's a problem for you and me, too. Instead of living sustainably within our ecological means, we are borrowing from our future to pay for our present. Every year we take more natural resources than we took the year before.

 

I am posting this in the controversial issues area because there are many who are willing to turn a blind eye towards what we are doing to this planet. There are many who believe earth to be an infinite resource to support humanity, and this is not the case...it is not even logical to think so. What is the absolute limit, and when will this be reached, is up for debate of course. But at this point, we continue to go the wrong direction, and we should be smarter than that.

 

The above excerpt is from my monthly bulletin from the World Wildlife Fund to give credit where it is due.

I would so most of the decline is happening in Africa, South America, and Asia due to ignorance/myths and just plain 0 care for the environment.

 

What can we do?

With all due respect, I have a hard time believing for one second with the adaptability of species that we have lost 52% of species. I'd like to know how they came up with that number. I call hogwash on that total. And from an organization putting it out there called "world wildlife fund", consider me doubtful it's not terribly scientific a study if I was a betting man.

 

Can you provide a link?

I would so most of the decline is happening in Africa, South America, and Asia due to ignorance/myths and just plain 0 care for the environment.

 

What can we do?

 

Curb the world population.

With all due respect, I have a hard time believing for one second with the adaptability of species that we have lost 52% of species. I'd like to know how they came up with that number. I call hogwash on that total. And from an organization putting it out there called "world wildlife fund", consider me doubtful it's not terribly scientific a study if I was a betting man.

 

Can you provide a link?

Pretty much my thoughts. I'm extremely skeptical with a number like 52%. More then half of the animals on this planet are gone? Even if it's true how in the heck can you put anything close to an accurate number to it.

Here is a link: WWF - Impact of habitat loss on species

 

The world's population is roughly 8 mio now and growing. Yes, it is primarily in other countries where the biggest problem lies (and Memphis :-), To understand this, and not understand the results of this population growth and the inherent risks regardless of whether is is 52% or 5% is, and I will put it nicely illogical.

 

Essentially, world wildlife is going, going, gone and is being reduced to nature parks and zoos. It will only get worse and faster.

 

I pity our grandchildren for the earth we are leaving them.

With all due respect, I have a hard time believing for one second with the adaptability of species that we have lost 52% of species. I'd like to know how they came up with that number. I call hogwash on that total. And from an organization putting it out there called "world wildlife fund", consider me doubtful it's not terribly scientific a study if I was a betting man.

 

Can you provide a link?

 

Link provided. And...I suggest looking deeper into this "wwf" and who they are in partnership with and their mission: Ikea, Coca-Cola, Google and on and on. They are in partnership with environmentally responsible companies. Generally their research is sound and not inflammatory whether we like the conclusions or not.

Curb the world population.

 

You want us to bomb Asia, Africa and South America?

Here is a link: WWF - Impact of habitat loss on species

 

The world's population is roughly 8 mio now and growing. Yes, it is primarily in other countries where the biggest problem lies (and Memphis :-), To understand this, and not understand the results of this population growth and the inherent risks regardless of whether is is 52% or 5% is, and I will put it nicely illogical.

 

Essentially, world wildlife is going, going, gone and is being reduced to nature parks and zoos. It will only get worse and faster.

 

I pity our grandchildren for the earth we are leaving them.

Thanks for the link. I did read on the organization, and I read another report on the organization when I googled them. I think they do a good work. I sure don't want it to sound like I discount what they do, or how they go about their mission. However, I can find no correlation on how they come up with a blanket statement of this headline. Way too much generalization and I can find not one shred of accuracy in the statement that 52% decline in wildlife species is remotely true. Inflammatory is one thing, wholly innacurate is another. Again, I understand why they put something out there like that, it draws interest in their cause, which in total isn't a bad thing, regardless how accurate the statement is.

As usual, these or any other sets of statistical data are open for challenge. Below is a discussion of the report from National Geographic giving a different viewpoint, but which still confirms the fact things are changing at an accelerating rate.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/1409030-animals-wildlife-wwf-decline-science-world/

 

Pimm, a conservation ecologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, who recently published a study in the journal Science on biodiversity and extinction rates. (See "Species Extinction Happening 1,000 Times Faster Because of Humans?")

 

But Pimm is skeptical of the approach WWF used to calculate the species loss. "I'm not a fan of this planetary index because it mixes a lot of different numbers together in an essentially arbitrary way-therefore, it's hard to know what exactly is meant by a 50 percent loss of vertebrates over the last 40 years."

 

For instance, you can't put British songbirds in the same category as West African lions—"it's an apples and oranges and pears and grapes and cookies index that lumps a whole bunch of things together in a way that requires a lot of effort to dissect all the different pieces," he said.

 

"It's not 'we lost half of all vertebrates'—it's more complex than that," Pimm says.

 

"There is a lot of data in this report and it can seem very overwhelming and complex," Hoekstra said in a statement. "What's not complicated are the clear trends we're seeing."

 

Wildlife populations are dwindling most rapidly in the world's tropical regions, according to the report. The tropics have seen a 56 percent reduction in the index of more than 3,000 populations, which include 1,638 species, over the past 40 years.

 

Latin America, home to many low-income countries, has borne the brunt of animal loss, with "a dramatic decline" of 83 percent cited in the report. The opposite was found in countries where income is high—those nations show a 10 percent increase in biodiversity.

 

Other reasons for wildlife decline include pollution, disease, and invasive species.

 

I don't believe for a minute this is a myth, whether it is 52%, 22% or 82%. It is difficult to find any expert or scientific opinions that are debunking these statements. That leads me to believe that the evidence, and it should be is clear, that species are declining and at a significant rate.

duplicate post deleted

As usual, these are any other sets of statistical data are open for challenge. Below is a discussion of the report from National Geographic giving a different viewpoint, but which still confirms the fact things are changing at an accelerating rate.

 

Has Half of World's Wildlife Been Lost in Past 40 Years?

 

Pimm, a conservation ecologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, who recently published a study in the journal Science on biodiversity and extinction rates. (See "Species Extinction Happening 1,000 Times Faster Because of Humans?")

 

But Pimm is skeptical of the approach WWF used to calculate the species loss. "I'm not a fan of this planetary index because it mixes a lot of different numbers together in an essentially arbitrary way-therefore, it's hard to know what exactly is meant by a 50 percent loss of vertebrates over the last 40 years."

 

For instance, you can't put British songbirds in the same category as West African lions—"it's an apples and oranges and pears and grapes and cookies index that lumps a whole bunch of things together in a way that requires a lot of effort to dissect all the different pieces," he said.

 

"It's not 'we lost half of all vertebrates'—it's more complex than that," Pimm says.

 

"There is a lot of data in this report and it can seem very overwhelming and complex," Hoekstra said in a statement. "What's not complicated are the clear trends we're seeing."

 

Wildlife populations are dwindling most rapidly in the world's tropical regions, according to the report. The tropics have seen a 56 percent reduction in the index of more than 3,000 populations, which include 1,638 species, over the past 40 years.

 

Latin America, home to many low-income countries, has borne the brunt of animal loss, with "a dramatic decline" of 83 percent cited in the report. The opposite was found in countries where income is high—those nations show a 10 percent increase in biodiversity.

 

Other reasons for wildlife decline include pollution, disease, and invasive species.

 

I don't believe for a minute this is a myth, whether it is 52%, 22% or 82%. It is difficult to find any expert or scientific opinions that are debunking these statements. That leads me to believe that the evidence, and it should be is clear, that species are declining and at a significant rate.

I don't dispute that at all.. And a hard number would be nearly impossible to come to, however, general estimates I'm sure are alarming.

Thanks for the follow up info doomer. In general I completely agree with position that numbers are declining in certain regions of the world and in certain species. I wish all countries were as invested in protecting wildlife as ours. I know you don't hunt and aren't thrilled with the idea of it but you can't deny that wildlife numbers in our country are not in trouble and hunting organizations have a huge part in that.

 

I love to hunt but for me part of it is just being outside and having the chance to watch animals up close. You will see a lot of cool stuff.

Thanks for the follow up info doomer. In general I completely agree with position that numbers are declining in certain regions of the world and in certain species. I wish all countries were as invested in protecting wildlife as ours. I know you don't hunt and aren't thrilled with the idea of it but you can't deny that wildlife numbers in our country are not in trouble and hunting organizations have a huge part in that.

 

I love to hunt but for me part of it is just being outside and having the chance to watch animals up close. You will see a lot of cool stuff.

 

Agreed. This, to me, is a completely separate conversation than hunting and the negative effects are more dramatic in these last few decades in "developing" countries. It is quite an issue...this "development" including population growth, is not harmonized. The US rather than being a leader has even been a reluctant follower if at all in global growth accords. And, maybe the Kyoto accord wasn't good for us...then let us take the lead with more practical initiatives...

 

However, working for an international company, we followed the accords locally. We reduced our carbon footprint by almost 20%. The result, lower energy costs, better lighting, and it didn't break the bank.

You want us to bomb Asia, Africa and South America?

 

Wasn't aware that Asia, Africa, and South America constituted the "World".