Earth's environment getting worse, not better, says WWF ahead of Rio+20
Deixo-vos uma notícia do jornal britânico "The Guardian" de 15/05/2012 que aborda o estado actual do Ambiente à escala global antes da Conferência das Nações Unidas sobre desenvolvimento sustentável a realizar entre 20 a 22 de Junho de 2012.
Twenty years on from the Rio Earth summit, the environment of the planet is getting
worse not better, according to a report from WWF.
Swelling population, mass migration
to cities, increasing energy use and soaring carbon dioxide emissions mean
humanity is putting a greater squeeze on the planet's resources then ever
before. Particularly hard hit is the diversity of animals and plants, upon
which many natural resources such as clean water are based.
"The Rio+20 conference next month
is an opportunity for the world to get serious about the need for development
to become sustainable. Our report indicates that we haven't yet done that since
the last Rio summit," said David Nussbaum, WWF-UK chief executive.
The latest Living Planet report, published on Tuesday, estimates that
global demand for natural resources has doubled since 1996 and that it now
takes 1.5 years to regenerate the renewable resources used in one year by
humans. By 2030, the report predicts it will take the equivalent of two planets
to meet the current demand for resources.
Most alarming, says the report, is that
many of these changes have accelerated in the past decade, despite the plethora
of international conventions signed since the initial Rio Summit in 1992.
Climate-warming carbon emissions have
increased 40% in the past 20 years, but two-thirds of that rise occurred in the
past decade.
The report, compiled by WWF, the Zoological Society of London and the Global
Footprint Network, compiles data from around the world on the
ecological footprints of each country and the status of resources like water
and forests. It also examines changes in populations of 2,688 animal species,
with the latest available data coming from 2008.
The eighth report of its kind, the new
Living Planet document, comes five weeks before Rio+20,
the latest United Nations conference on sustainable
development.
Nussbaum said: "We have taken some
important steps forward: the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is an
important step, a way in which the world is seeking to come to agreement about
[cutting] greenhouse gases.
The Convention on Biological Diversity is an
important way of the world identifying steps that can be taken in protecting
biodiversity. But the pace in both cases is rather glacial. And unfortunately
our lifestyles and the consequences of those are having an impact more quickly
than the acts we are taking to protect the planet."
Wealthy countries have seen some
improvement, with the Living Planet biodiversity index, rising 7% since 1970,
as nature reserves and protections were introduced. But the biodiversity index
has dropped by 60% in developing countries, where people depend more on nature.
Demographic shifts have had a significant impact. The world's cities have seen
a 45% increase in population since 1992, according to the Global Footprint
Network, and urban residents typically have a much larger carbon footprint than
their rural counterparts. The average Beijinger, says WWF, has a footprint
three times the Chinese average, due to factors including private car use.
Water security is a growing concern in
many parts of the world as population and agriculture drives demand, placing
enormous stress on freshwater ecosystems and fishing zones, according to data
from WWF.
"The Living Planet report shows
that the biggest single drop in the living planet index is for freshwater
species in tropical areas, which have shown a decline of 70% since 1970,"
said David Tickner, head of freshwater at WWF-UK.
A note of hope for the future, said the
authors, is that the world could see peak population sometime this century.
Though the population hit 7 billion in 2011, the UNEP reports the population growth
rate has fallen from 1.65% to 1.2% since 1992, with women now having an average
of 2.5 children.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário