21 oktober 2004, 17:39
|
#6
|
Parlementslid
Geregistreerd: 5 april 2003
Locatie: Erewhon
Berichten: 1.744
|
Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door parcifal
Wat gaan we eerst wegdoen?
De tweede wagen? De playstation voor de klein mannen?
De 2de badkamer?
|
Het WWF hopelijk.
Het model dat ze gebruikt hebben om deze onheilstijding de wereld in te kunnen sturen rammelt namelijk aan alle kanten.
Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door the economist
The footprint idea combines the area required for cropland, grazing land, forest products, fishing grounds, sustainable use of energy, and built-up land (making adjustments for the productivity of different sorts of space). In 1999, according to WWF, the total came to 13.7 billion hectares. But the group says that only about a quarter of the planet's surface, 11.4 billion hectares, is available to supply these services—hence the overdraft.
[...]
Exclude energy from the total footprint, and it is harder to get alarmed. Growth in the ecological footprint excluding energy was much smaller than growth in global population between 1960 and 2000: that is, the ecological footprint per person, excluding energy, has been shrinking rapidly. Hardly a sign of reckless unsustainability.
So a lot turns on whether it is right to include the energy footprint in the aggregate measure—and on whether it is right to estimate this as the forest area required to absorb CO2. On the first question, it is not obvious why sustainable development should require no change whatever in CO2 concentrations, as the energy footprint implicitly demands. And even if sustainability did require this, there would be other ways of doing it—such as by increasing the use of renewable sources. Some renewable sources (such as windmills in deserts) make no demands on biologically productive space, which incidentally implies that the limit of 11.4 billion hectares for the area available to provide environmental services is wrong.
|
|
|
|