Earth this year will also lend to her, but it is a high-risk and may not last long, because otherwise you go bankrupt label. This is the alarm raised by the Global Network of the ecological footprint, which calculates the impact they have on agricultural land, pastures, forests and fishing areas and compares with those ecosystems that have the ability to generate new resources and absorb waste we produce. Result: the human demands exceed the capacity of about one third of the planet. Consume the equivalent of the amounts generated from 1.3 Earths. And since we have only one, the 0.3 was too much can be imagined as a kind of debt with the ecosystem.
"Humanity is living beyond the limits of your card Credit label - says Mathis Wackernagel, director of the network -. And if you spend more money than you earn in a bank leads to financial debt, to use more than what the planet can re-create an ecological debt each year and over time leads to the depletion of basic resources on which the ' human economy. " From the mid-80s, say the studies Ecological Footprint, man consumes more resources than the Earth which results. Progression was in '96 that if overfishing was 15% and the ecological debt began to accumulate in November, we are now at an altitude of resources consumed in excess of 30% of those available and the "ecological debt day" in which is calculated to have exhausted the resources the planet can produce this year, shooting Oct. 6. It was yesterday.
Of course, all this is valid if you agree to think in terms of carbon footprint. That is, if you take this to be good indicator of environmental sustainability 'synthetic' (because it attempts to integrate different information to each other), who as U.S. units per acre of biologically productive land, and is continually changed and refined by researchers apply it. No government and no UN agency implemented systems to gauge how extensive the use of human nature than the capacity of ecosystems. The
make some ecologists, and often the results obtained are very significant differences. "It is a method that has sparked much debate among scholars of sustainability," he admits as an environmentalist Tony Long, WWF Italy. In fact, the system is complicated. Analysis on consumption of food and materials, the amount of energy "contained" in a basket of products marketed in the world and the one generated locally biocapacity estimates from various countries. So the surface is measured by land or sea required to produce the resources a given population and uses - in the case of energy - the surface used to absorb carbon dioxide. But it is brutalizing the sum of six ingredients: the cultivated land to grow food, grazing areas used for animal products, forests provide wood and paper needed to, areas used for marine fish and food in general, the land required to accommodate the infrastructure building; forests which serve to absorb CO2 emissions.
the first to think it was William Rees, an ecologist at the University of British Columbia (Canada). By Mathis Wackernagel, in the late 80s, was trying to overcome the problems Cuni calculation of 'carrying capacity' of the human species, which in the study of ecology measures the maximum share of the population that area can bear. Instead of asking how many people the Earth can support, Wackernagel and Rees you were asked which area of \u200b\u200bproductive land was used by a population. An example: the Italians, given the levels of consumption and waste generation, rely on an area of \u200b\u200bbiologically productive hectares which is three times the size of the boot. "We have an almost twice the world average - says Simone Bastianoni, University of Siena -. If everyone on Earth had a way of life and level of our consumopari to meet their needs would need 2.3 planets. "
The idea is this: not only has the number of heads (the population), but also the size of the feet (as it weighs on Earth). The Living Planet Report 2006 says that the biological capacity of the global ecosystem production is 1.8 hectares per capita, while the footprint is 2.2. With huge differences from country to country. The U.S. has a biological capacity per capita of 4.7, 9.6, and then an impression of a deficit of 4.8, while Brazil's biological capacity to 9.9 hectares per capita production and a footprint of 2.1 , with the balance largely active. Italy, needless to say, is badly placed: few resources, 1.0, or 4.2 impact, ecological debt set at -3.1 hectares of biologically productive land per capita. Usually, At this point, those who follow our footprints on the planet says that consumption off-budget "like these are possible because billions of people have access to a paltry share of resources. And so are unsustainable.
"Humanity is living beyond the limits of your card Credit label - says Mathis Wackernagel, director of the network -. And if you spend more money than you earn in a bank leads to financial debt, to use more than what the planet can re-create an ecological debt each year and over time leads to the depletion of basic resources on which the ' human economy. " From the mid-80s, say the studies Ecological Footprint, man consumes more resources than the Earth which results. Progression was in '96 that if overfishing was 15% and the ecological debt began to accumulate in November, we are now at an altitude of resources consumed in excess of 30% of those available and the "ecological debt day" in which is calculated to have exhausted the resources the planet can produce this year, shooting Oct. 6. It was yesterday.
Of course, all this is valid if you agree to think in terms of carbon footprint. That is, if you take this to be good indicator of environmental sustainability 'synthetic' (because it attempts to integrate different information to each other), who as U.S. units per acre of biologically productive land, and is continually changed and refined by researchers apply it. No government and no UN agency implemented systems to gauge how extensive the use of human nature than the capacity of ecosystems. The
make some ecologists, and often the results obtained are very significant differences. "It is a method that has sparked much debate among scholars of sustainability," he admits as an environmentalist Tony Long, WWF Italy. In fact, the system is complicated. Analysis on consumption of food and materials, the amount of energy "contained" in a basket of products marketed in the world and the one generated locally biocapacity estimates from various countries. So the surface is measured by land or sea required to produce the resources a given population and uses - in the case of energy - the surface used to absorb carbon dioxide. But it is brutalizing the sum of six ingredients: the cultivated land to grow food, grazing areas used for animal products, forests provide wood and paper needed to, areas used for marine fish and food in general, the land required to accommodate the infrastructure building; forests which serve to absorb CO2 emissions. the first to think it was William Rees, an ecologist at the University of British Columbia (Canada). By Mathis Wackernagel, in the late 80s, was trying to overcome the problems Cuni calculation of 'carrying capacity' of the human species, which in the study of ecology measures the maximum share of the population that area can bear. Instead of asking how many people the Earth can support, Wackernagel and Rees you were asked which area of \u200b\u200bproductive land was used by a population. An example: the Italians, given the levels of consumption and waste generation, rely on an area of \u200b\u200bbiologically productive hectares which is three times the size of the boot. "We have an almost twice the world average - says Simone Bastianoni, University of Siena -. If everyone on Earth had a way of life and level of our consumopari to meet their needs would need 2.3 planets. "
The idea is this: not only has the number of heads (the population), but also the size of the feet (as it weighs on Earth). The Living Planet Report 2006 says that the biological capacity of the global ecosystem production is 1.8 hectares per capita, while the footprint is 2.2. With huge differences from country to country. The U.S. has a biological capacity per capita of 4.7, 9.6, and then an impression of a deficit of 4.8, while Brazil's biological capacity to 9.9 hectares per capita production and a footprint of 2.1 , with the balance largely active. Italy, needless to say, is badly placed: few resources, 1.0, or 4.2 impact, ecological debt set at -3.1 hectares of biologically productive land per capita. Usually, At this point, those who follow our footprints on the planet says that consumption off-budget "like these are possible because billions of people have access to a paltry share of resources. And so are unsustainable.
Pergamon Journal of Earth Observing 
0 comments:
Post a Comment