Canned Hunting – indeed all hunting – is Wrong

Myopic hunting companies set up canned hunting outfits where lions would be bred in captivity and later released into ranches to be shot by so called ‘sport hunters’. South Africa made this big business (I believe some people got rich from it) to the detriment of the lion.

Now, with the push to have this callous practice outlawed, lion breeders (and animal rescuers) are finding themselves in a dilemma, on the one hand, they have no place to release the captive animals since there are no sufficient resources to care for them in the wild, on the other hand, they have no more money to buy the captive lions the meat they require…and thus they might have to kill them. Animal rescue organizations have tried to help, but they are also fast running out of cash to finance their operations.

One such rescue operation is the SanWild Sanctuary which is hovering on the brink of having to ‘put down’ 16 lions (14 adults and two cubs) that they rescued from such ‘lion farms’ some time back because they cannot afford to feed them.

Now, feeding lions is an expensive affair. SanWild for instance spends 45,000 rand ($6,000) each month to feed the 16 lions. At the moment, if they don’t raise this money they will have to kill the lions.

This dilemma would not have come up if the South Africans had the foresight to know that canned hunting (and indeed all hunting) is unnatural and would – as they say – turn around and bite them. Unfortunately, it is not so much the South Africans that hunting will bite – it is the lions. That is why it would be wise if we all could just let nature be as it is…

To save lions – and all wildlife – we all must act to stop all hunting. Then we must stop multiplying like a plague. As David Attenborough ounce said, “growth in human population is frightening”. Basically, exponential growth in human population means exponential loss of wildlife habitat.

Oh, and mama Africa, there has to be a balance between ‘development’ and the conservation of wild spaces and species. Development is important, but the environment (which, and, as inconvenient as it may seem, includes wild species of plants and animals) is much more important.

The environment is the fuel for development – use it wisely.

On this Earth Day

The symbol of Earth Day is the Greek letter 'theta' in green

April 22 is Earth Day. People mark this important day in the environmental calendar in different ways. It is not as much known as, for instance, the World Environment Day that has so much been promoted by the UN.

Senator Gaylord Nelson, a Democrat from Wisconsin, is responsible for the first official Earth Day in 1970. In those days, saving the environment was synonymous with the now famous “Zero Population Growth”. He organized a lecture session in university to teach about the problems that the Earth was facing such as extinction, pollution and the like. On the first official Earth Day on 22 April 1970, many people around America organized their own similar events to discuss these issues.With time the celebrations expanded and started spreading outside the US borders.

Of course many other issues have now arisen including climate change and Earth Day is no longer an American holiday alone. It is celebrated throughout the world. Maura Judkis has a list of some 10 things you should know about Earth Day that you should probably read for a brief introduction on what this Day is all about

American president Barack Obama, who is seen as someone who cares about the environment has his own agenda for this years Earth Day. In the New York Times they say:

The Obama administration is using Earth Day for launching another all-out effort to sell the American public and key lawmakers on “green jobs” as the solution for the United States’ environmental and economic woes.

Which then begs another question, are we really concerned about the Earth for the Earth’s sake or for our own good? President Obama is pushing for ‘green’ because he believes that ‘green jobs’ will save the American economy. There are those who think that Earth Day is useless, and we should get rid of it.

Whatever your thoughts about this Day are, have a Happy Earth Day

Finally, Sir Attenborough Speaks on Human Overpopulation

One of the most respected personalities on natural world and conservation TV, Sir David Attenborough, finally spoke about a subject most consider taboo: human overpopulation. Sir Attenborough said growth in human numbers was “frightening” according to a report appearing on BBC News on Monday 13 April 2009.

The good Sir, who said this when he became the patron of the Optimum Population Trust, a UK group that has been campaigning for the voluntary reduction of human population in Britain by not less than 0.25% a year since 1991, is likely to get a lot of flak for saying this. But then again, isn’t it true that human overpopulation is threatening not only all other life but human life itself?

The overcrowded Kibera Slums in Nairobi.

Some anti-overpopulation campaigners are much more candid than the veteran presenter, perhaps even offensive to the antagonists. Dan Gainor writing on the Business and Media Institutes site – back in 2007 – quoted Paul Watson, founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and famous for militant intervention to stop whalers, saying that mankind is “acting like a virus” and is harming Mother Earth.

It is easy to see humanity as a virus considering how they are spreading into lands once only occupied by wild plant and animal life. It is also easy to see that this ‘virus’ is rapidly (as opposed to slowly) killing the planet we, and millions of other species, call home. Think accelerated global warming, deforestation, drying up of inland water bodies, the list is endless.

The question of population growth is touchy for various reasons, the most peddled being that human population control is an infringement on human rights. John Finney discussing the population issue in his essay titled Population: The elephant in the room on BBC’s Green Room, acknowledges that discussing population is indeed a taboo among conservationists saying;

Some activists insist acting to influence population growth infringes on human rights; they maintain that it is best to leave the problem alone.

Now, the solution to human population is straight forward, but not ‘simple’, neither can it be considered short-term in terms of implementation period. It will take a long time to reduce human population. But we have to start now.

Population reduction should be done in a humane way. Many experts have recommended some workable approaches. The ones I support are those that centre on the education of especially women in developing coutries about the availability of choice of family size.

Given the complex nature of family set-ups and cultures in these developing nations, the men need also be educated about the importance of small families. Tell them the truth, don’t tell them what you want them to hear. Because we should all be knowing by now that there is no other way out of the current ecological and resource crisis other than fewer people on Planet Earth.

John Finney, while reminding us that we are already beyond Earth’s carrying capacity – and we are headed for imminent human population collapse – adds;

Our chance to avert such an outcome depends on our ability to address our numbers before nature reduces them for us. There’s no other way out.

Are you ready to play your part in saving the planet?

Ecoflation: The Newest Addition to the Planet’s Misery

We are in the thick of a global economic recession and all we want to think is “how do we get out of this one”. But, we are also hard pressed on environmental issues. We are now more than ever worried about global warming and climate change and the plethora of problems these terrible twins have brought with them. We are talking floods, drought, heatwaves, wild fires, name them. We are also worried that hitherto abundant natural resources are now scarcer than we want them to be.

Wait, things could get worse – at least according to a report released by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the consulting firm, A.T. Kearney, on December 2. As pressure on natural resources increases, we are likely to see higher costs in the commodity supply chains. The report predicts that there will be a 13-31% increase in costs by 2013. This will almost certainly be borne by the consumer going by the way businesses operate. By 2018 this cost could be between 19 and 47 percent higher than they are today.

Already, 60% of the world’s ecosystems are degraded and Climate Change is making them worse. Then there is the problem of human population growth – something that really gets into my nerves – coupled with the growth in consumption levels in the worlds fastest growing consumer markets, China and India. These factors will make production expensive and manufacturers will have to bear the cost – alternatively, they can, as they always do, pass the cost to the consumer.

In short, things will cost more due to scarcity of natural raw materials – there will be ecological inflation or “ecoflation” – and it is the producers who have implemented ecologically sound policies who will be better poised to remain profitable. That sounds Utopian, doesn’t it?

It is not Utopian, I believe. For these drivers of environmental cost will make this scenario a reality:

• Climate Change Policy. The United States implements a comprehensive climate-change policy, which spurs international cooperation and results in a global price for greenhouse-gas emissions.
• Water Scarcity. Climate change causes more drought and water scarcity throughout major agricultural regions and leads to increased production costs and declining yields.
• Deforestation. Consumer products companies in the United States and the European Union voluntarily agree to source all wood and fiber from sustainability-certified forests, and to increase the use of recycled fiber for all paper packaging and products.
• Biofuels. Major biofuel-producing countries retreat from existing mandates and apply sustainability requirements to all relevant government policies.

But then again, there is the choice to go green on production. Those production firms that will be more prepared will likely be taking these actions:

• Understand the environmental impacts and dependencies: Examine how cost drivers are exposed to emerging environmental trends and, when possible, seek substitutes with lower environmental impacts.
• Take an inventory of current initiatives: Learn what the company, its suppliers, and its partners already are doing through the value chain.
• Prioritize: Rank environmental issues and opportunities according to their current and future potential impact on costs, revenues, and reputation.
• Chart a new course: Make sustainability principles part of an action plan by including externalities in the decision-making process and establishing the principal performance indicators.

So there you have it. You can now start saving the planet…and some money, or you could go to the WRI site and get the details.

Having a Family? You Must Plant a Tree

I was quite amused when I got my daily dose of Reuters’ Planet Ark bulletin this morning. Tucked away somewhere in the middle of the bulletin was one link: “Trees for Kids: Indonesia’s Way of Beating Global Warming“. I said I would read that and I did.

Section of Rainforest in Kenya (in Wikimedia Commons)

It turns out that a certain Indonesian city grappling with the effects of deforestation has instructed all family-hungry citizens to plant a tree before they start these social units. Everyone who wants to get married or apply for a birth certificate must plant a tree.” Syahrum Syah Setia, the head of Balikpapan City’s Environmental Impact Management Agency is reported to have said.

The agency is worried that the city’s condition, which is already worrying could get worse and they have to do something to tackle global warming. Now this is some radical action by the local council. A while ago I posted in this blog a simulation of how many children were being born each minute. Imagine if the entire world would plant a tree for each child born.

According to the Reuters report, East Kalimantan loses 350,000-500,000 ha (865,000 – 1.24-million acres) of forest each year and the government can only replant 30,000 ha (74,000 acres) of that. The report also says that Indonesia has lost an estimated 70% of its original forestland. Luckily there are still some 91-million ha (225 million acres) still left.

That is Indonesia which incorporates parts of the Bornean rainforests. Imagine a country like Kenya with only 1.7 million hectares of forest cover (of which 160,000 ha is plantation forest) and a population of 35-million people. This forest cover is less than 2% of the entire area of land in the country. If Kenya would implement this principle of a tree per child, then we could re-generate the lost forest cover and expand it further in a very short time.

The worlds other largest rainforest are mostly in Brazil and Congo. These are dissappearing rather rapidly and the only reason they are not entirely gone is because they are huge. But given the current rate of destruction, humans will surely lay waste to these important biodiversity areas within our lifetime.

So once again. Let’s emulate this obscure Indonesian city and start planting a tree for every child you have brought into this world…and…er…for every marriage you have blundered into.

Oh no! We’re all gonna die!

If your regular skeptics would read the WWF’s Living Planted Report, they would call it a doomsday conspiracy theory. They would say that the alarmist – the tree hugging scum who want us to live in the stone age – are, as usual, trying to scare us from accumulating wealth and living like space gods.

The 2008 Living Planet Report was announced today, 29 October 2008, via a press release contained here. It says, in more words than these, that by 2030, we’ll need two planets in order to continue living the way we do. Reason being that we are consuming more natural resources than the planet can produce. Demand has outstripped supply. We already need a third more of the planet to continue living.

Hectares worth of resources consumed by each country (linked from BBC)

The people (i am deliberately avoiding the use of the word “scientists” because the skeptic hates scientists) who came up with this proposition say that some nations already owe the planet a lot. Not surprisingly, the US, China and India are the biggest debtors of the planet.

In the US for instance, each person needs about two times more natural resources than the US has. In fact if the entire population of the earth was to adapt the US’s consumption pattern, we would need 4.5 planets to barely make it to the next day. Maybe the consumption in the US is not the problem. The problem could be that the rest of the world wants to live the American lifestyle instead of convincing the average American of the wisdom of living like a bushman.

Look around. African youth dress like their American counterparts and rap like them, imitate their hand signs and – painfully – curse like them. The most annoying thing is that the African youth are – in the most part – a cheap imitation of the Americans. But that is another story altogether.

In Kenya, we all dream of owning fuel guzzler Hummers – even our Prime Minister has one. Recently, one UN employee acquired the military specification Humvee and there was immediate outcry from the “ethical” online people. Again, the skeptics would have slammed the ethical people with something in the general direction of “a man cant just buy a Humvee and enjoy the attention, just because you think there is global warming?” or “If i can afford to buy, fuel, and service a Humvee, why not?” or simply “killjoys!”

The Humvee that is causing sensation in Nairobi (from Nick Wadhams Blog)

The BBC summarizes this tragedy by saying that three quarters of the human population now lives in countries where consumption levels are outstripping environmental renewal. The BBC calls these nations “ecological debtors” who are drawing and overdrawing from the natural coffers of agricultural land, forests, seas and resources of other countries to sustain them.

In a nutshell, with current consumption rates, each living person on earth needs an average 2.7 hectares of productive land to sustain his lifestyle. If we divide the total human population by the amount of land available it appears that only 2.1 hectares are available per person. This means that the earth has exceeded its human carrying capacity already.

To me, that is not the thing that the skeptics should worry about. They should instead consider that the situation is deteriorating faster than expected. In 2006, the WWF team had predicted that the two-planet syndrome would strike in 2050. Now they had to hack off a whole two decades from their prediction. That doesn’t say they are incorrect, it just says that we never learn.

So what are the solutions?

let me just quote the WWF press release:

The report suggests some key “sustainability wedges” which if combined could stabilize and reverse the worsening slide into ecological debt and enduring damage to global support systems. For the single most important challenge – climate change – the report shows that a range of efficiency, renewable and low emissions “wedges” could meet projected energy demands to 2050 with reductions in carbon emissions of 60 to 80 per cent.

If humanity has the will, it has the ways to live within the means of the planet, but we must recognize that the ecological credit crunch will require even bolder action than that now being mustered for the financial crisis

I must add that a solution also lies in how many children we choose to bring into this planet. Population growth is the problem really. There is simply too many of us such that the earth is groaning under our weight. We are eating ourselves out of existence. But maybe that is a good thing. With humans out of the way, the planet can return to sustainable existence. Problem is, humans wont go down alone; they’ll take the planet with them.

A breathing, breeding, bleeding earth

Do you know how many humans will be born in the next 1 second? Do you know how many people will die in that same second? And how many tonnes of Carbon Dioxide will be released into the atmosphere? There is a place where you can at least see a simulation of this.

I was idly roaming the Web today when I encountered a site that paints a really painful picture…if you care about the planet that is.

Breathing Earth Simulation

In 1 minute I witnessed 199 people being born, and 68 people die. That means the population of the earth grew by 131 people in that short minute. Withing the same minute, 26,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide had been emitted.

Whereas this simulated calculator is not – by all means – 100% correct, chances are that the statistics are below the actual statistics. Meaning that more than 131 people have been added onto this planet this minute and that we have a load of carbon dioxide heavier than 26,000 tonnes.

It is common knowledge that there is indeed a corelation between global warming/climate change and the growth of human population. We really need to think of how we can stop multiplying like rabbits. Actually I think we are worse than rabbits…

In Kenya for instance with a population of 34.3-million humans, we still give birth every 23.2 seconds. China on the other hand has a new birth every 1.8 seconds (and their population is 1,315,844,000).

On matters of contributing carbon dioxide – the key greenhouse gas – to the atmosphere, USA and China are in tandem. The US with 304.9-million emits 1000 tonnes of CO2 in a blistering 5.4 seconds. That’s huge. It is even faster than China which emits 1000 tonnes in 9.2 seconds and China has 1.3 billion people – four times the population of the US.

I wont tell you to conclude anything, just go have a look at the simulation and be the judge…click on the picture above to go straight there.