http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Earths-health-in-bad-shape-report/2007/09/14/1189276935599.html

More wood was removed from forests in 2005 than ever before, one of many troubling environmental signs highlighted in the Worldwatch Institute's annual check of the planet's health.

The Washington-based think tank's "Vital Signs 2007-2008" report points to global patterns ranging from rising meat consumption to Asian economic growth it says are linked to the broader problem of climate change.

"I think climate change is the most urgent challenge we have ever faced," said Erik Assadourian, director of the Vital Signs project.

"You see many trends in climate change, whether we are talking about grain production which is affected by droughts and flooding. Or meat production as livestock production makes up about 20 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions," he told Reuters in a telephone interview before the report's release.

Assadourian said the key message of the report was that unsustainable consumption patterns were responsible for climate change linked to carbon emissions and other ecological woes.

He said of the 44 trends tracked by the report, 28 were "pronouncedly bad" and only six were positive.

The trends range from the spread of avian flu to the rise of carbon emissions to the number of violent conflicts. The growing use of wind power is among the few trends seen as positive.

Some of the points highlighted in the report include:

- Meat production hit a record 276 million tonnes (43 kilograms per person) in 2006.

- Meat consumption is one of several factors driving rising soybean demand. Rapid expansion of soybean plantations in South America could displace 22 million hectares of tropical forest and savanna in the next 20 years.

- The rise in global seafood consumption comes as many fish species become scarcer. In 2004, people ate 156 million tonnes of seafood, the equivalent of three times as much seafood per person than in 1950.

- While US carbon emissions continue to grow, the fastest rise is occurring in Asia, particularly China and India.

Other analysts and think tanks have focused on different trends they say mean less cause for alarm. For example, they point out that while wood is being removed from forests on a global scale, many parts of Europe and North America have experienced reforestation in recent decades.

It's easier to make a living finding fault wherever man has an influence.

I don't think so. There's always more money available to those who can justify 'business as usual'.

And oil and coal isn't? Or is the big bad multinational environmentalist business with it's huge income playing the game unfairly? Could you flesh out this conspiracy theory for us?

IQSRLOW wrote on Sep 15^th, 2007 at 5:41pm:


never a truer word spoken.

there are many scientists around the world who are making alot of money out of our percieved environmental problems.

I am not saying we have no problems many are just overstated.

No one implied that one was a better business model than the other except you  just that it is a business and a growing one staffed by the extremely passionate and ideological

It's about the growing 'industry' that is environmentalism and the influence they can have. A few degrees of separation from environmental extortion in some instances.

So what your saying is, that it isn't some kind of extortion

Read it again

I have no control over what you think it looks like. The connection is there. The ambiguousness is also there because I recognise that not all environmental agencies are the same.

Perhaps you should try the same instead of gazing up at them from the lofty pedestals you eagerly place them on?