| | S | M | T | W | T | F | S | | 29 | 30 |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
| |
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
| |
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
| |
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
| |
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
| 1 | 2 | » Stats |
Members: 50,139
Threads: 82,300
Posts: 852,975
Top Poster: glsammy (15,069) | | Welcome to our newest member, jo0ls | |  | 
25-10-2006, 09:07 AM
|  | Frozen | | Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Mendip Dist. Somerset
Posts: 739
| | | Living Planet Report 2006 For those of you who are into the Earth & its environments, check out LPR2006 at: http://assets.panda.org/downloads/li...net_report.pdf
The UK has the third largest footprint behind Australia at number two & the good old USofA at number one, the biggest fouler of the planet.
Actually, I doubt many of you will bother to read the report but it would be good to nsee who does. | 
25-10-2006, 04:13 PM
|  | Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Suffolk
Posts: 2,795
| | | Re: Living Planet Report 2006 I haven't read it but am surprised to see Australia at number 2.
All I can think about things is they get worse before they get better. | 
25-10-2006, 04:43 PM
|  | Frozen | | Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: N.E. Lincolnshire
Posts: 4,126
| | | Re: Living Planet Report 2006 It does make rather depressing reading!
On the graphs the way I read it was the UK was 14th on the ecological footprint list. This was on page 16 – unless I read the data wrong! | 
25-10-2006, 05:34 PM
|  | Frozen | | Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Mendip Dist. Somerset
Posts: 739
| | | Re: Living Planet Report 2006 Quote: |
Originally Posted by Alan It does make rather depressing reading!
On the graphs the way I read it was the UK was 14th on the ecological footprint list. This was on page 16 – unless I read the data wrong! | On the overall Eco-Footprint, you're correct but on the per capita eco-footprint (ghs/person) we are 3rd, that relates to what each of us consumes & what is needed to produce that.
mrs fish, Australia was 2nd in an Aussie eco-news bulletin I get, I posted before I'd read the report, Canada is 2nd & Australia is not in the top-ten. Why they would print that I guess, is to do with Aussie politics at the moment. I acted in haste  Having read the 44 page report my optimisim wanes. | 
25-10-2006, 06:22 PM
|  | Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Lincolnshire/Cambs/Norfolk border right on The Wash
Posts: 2,249
| | | Re: Living Planet Report 2006 Quote: |
Originally Posted by Earth Hart For those of you who are into the Earth & its environments, check out LPR2006 at: http://assets.panda.org/downloads/li...net_report.pdf
The UK has the third largest footprint behind Australia at number two & the good old USofA at number one, the biggest fouler of the planet. Actually, I doubt many of you will bother to read the report but it would be good to nsee who does. | EH, that is enough to make me not want to read it. It is self defeating and insulting
Jaki
__________________ Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. | 
25-10-2006, 08:21 PM
|  | Frozen | | Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Mendip Dist. Somerset
Posts: 739
| | | Re: Living Planet Report 2006 Quote: |
Originally Posted by Garden Carpet EH, that is enough to make me not want to read it. It is self defeating and insulting
Jaki | My apologies Jaki, I should not take my frustrations out on WAB | 
25-10-2006, 08:27 PM
|  | Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Lincolnshire/Cambs/Norfolk border right on The Wash
Posts: 2,249
| | | Re: Living Planet Report 2006 Quote: |
Originally Posted by Earth Hart My apologies Jaki, I should not take my frustrations out on WAB  |
OK EH...thanks for that.... now where did I put the link 
jaki
__________________ Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. | 
26-10-2006, 10:17 PM
| | Wild Member | | Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Lancashire
Posts: 200
| | | Re: Living Planet Report 2006 Interesting how despite being the worst polluters, North America rank the best with regard to habitat destruction to agriculture, showing no significant change (from 1950 onward at least).
Sounds to me like the answer to starving Africa is easy, just let them have their own 'wild west' for 50 years, cull 99% of the fauna to inderectly kill off the old-timers, cut down all the forest then graze cattle and plant maize everywhere.
So the question is, Starve, survive on handouts or exhaust natural resource to live a good life?
If I lived there I know what Id want to do, any affect of my actions on the natural world would be the last thing on my mind.
They are the problems that need solving, in my opinion its about 1000 times more important than worrying about burnig fossil fuels. |  | | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | | | | 29 members and 448 guests | | Ace, Andrew C, borg, briar rose, Dillybythesea, Elizabeth B, Ferret, fox403, frits_b, Iona F, jaelen, Kenneth Baldwin, KentYeti, lanie77, Littlesparrow, Malkie, MegaCindy, nick5943, Normski4ash, nutmeg, rogpow, shenk1, spaldingd, watsthat, welsh.lensman, Wendy Woo, Za | » New Wildlife Posts | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | » New Environment Posts | | | | | | | | | » New Activity Posts | | | | | | | | | » New Community Posts | | | | | | | | | |