Only global poverty can save the planet, insists WWF - and the ESA!

Oh Lewis...

Why do you have to make enemies of your friends? You want to argue that AGW is dubious - that's fine. Many of us who consider ourselves environmentalists agree with you. You want to argue that a reduction in living standards is a bad thing (almost by definition) and is unnecessary - again, that's a position many of us support. You want to say wind farms are in the vast majority of cases a bad solution - huge numbers of envrionmentally minded types will agree with you! And yet you have to cast your net wide and start poking fun at, e.g. animal species being wiped out.

You're like a person who hates some positions of a group and therefore reflexively argues against them on all their positions, even when they have a valid point. Pick and choose your battles. Otherwise you become just like your opponents - irrationally lashing out at anything you see "the other side" say. Rated your article in the middle. Positive for the valid points against wind farms etc., negative for your dislike of tigers and mockery of people who try to preserve biodiversity.

A couple of thoughtish things

1. Thanks to El Reg for giving this report more publicity than the WWF's entire annual budget would allow.

2. One assumes that members of the WWF are taking their own advice by committing suicide or living entirely off weeds.

The Pentagon has the Solution

A famous report a few years ago had the solution, the world population has to be reduced by a few billion.

Wars, famine, drought, disease. The first item being behind their interest. Look at the UK naval capability, twin aircraft carriers, new nuclear subs, powerful frigates. The plan is to wipe out those hungry mouths, screw sustainability.

Lewis will love this of course, probably advocate using a fee nukes, radiation is safe after all.

We can eithe r decrease individual demand, or decrease individuals

Assume for a moment that the basic premise that there are not enough resources on the planet for everyone to live the life style of the typical Westerner, the proposed solution of having us all live in poverty, is only one possible logical outcome. The other is to reduce the global population until the numbers balance again, simples. ;-)

Ah well,

...not to worry, the Earth will sort herself out, one way or the other.

Always does, with or without WWF. Or Lewis, for that matter.

You just need some inspiration.

Pol Pot should be on the cover of the WWF report.

People should actually read the report. You might find a startling difference between what it says and how it's been reported here.

They're Not All That Wrong

It doesn't help one's case in arguing against the extreme position taken by the WWF to take an equally extreme position in the other direction. Then, neither side can really marshal the facts in its defense.

Yes, what they're aiming at is to impose global poverty. But they're quite right if we instead go on with business as usual, more species will go extinct as people intrude more into the few remaining untouched wildlife habitats.

There are basically two alternatives we have to the choice between a decent, prosperous life for all of humanity on the one hand, and the survival of the glories of wild Nature on the other. Two ways we could have both.

One is population control. If we decided not to have very many children, and our children decided not to have very many grandchildren, eventually, barring major advances in gerontology, there would be few enough of us that we could live comfortably without destroying the planet.

The other is nuclear power. That lets us produce the abundant energy our lifestyle depends on without impinging on the biosphere to any significant extent. We still probably would have to ration airplane travel, but that would not be a big deal if people could travel from London to New York in hours on high-speed electric trains.

You know, through the Channel Tunnel, and then on to the bridge across the Bering Strait...

No, I'm not kidding. We have options. We can build a meaningful future for humanity that doesn't mean ruin and destruction for the natural world.

'Eco' Thugs

These are Communists, people hatters and quite possibly psychopaths, and probably eventually want a Communist dictatorship with them on top, and the boot on you 1984 style. These rabid predators need to be revealed and ruined, and if still persistent, given the traditional tribal solution for psychopathy e.g. pushed off a cliff.

The real cause of all the real damage to nature is the lack of will and vision to make nature valuable enough to protect; however world-wide state collectivism together with slaver Bankster Fractional Reserve Debt and usury actively prevent the correct valuation of all resources, thus nature is undervalued and over exploited!

The real irony is a more primitive society would likely do more damage and become unable to maintain a lot of what they say is nature, but is actually centuries old man-shaped, improved and maintained ecosystems!

Gabri Rigotti

We promote poverty alleviation via Green solutions.

As Business Intelligence specialists we have processed massive amounts of municipal data in South Africa that indicate Green as a way forward not only for the environmental health of the planet but also for poverty alleviation.

South Africa is a microcosm of the world, with extremes of wealth and poverty, racial and cultural differences, and vast amounts of wilderness (natural environment).

Politically it showed the world how to resolve conflict, and its Constitution is arguably one of the most advanced ever in terms of human rights.

So as a real-world laboratory that can be extrapolated from, the evidence from the South African data that we process is significant.

The vested global interests in "dirty energy" however are threatened by a shift to clean energy.

A future Green world will not only be safer but also far less poorer.

It is however probable that those economic interests based on unsustainabe resources such as fossil fuels will eventually lose - if they do not shift their core business as well.

For more information see: www.greenit.org.za

Re: "90% reduction of the population.."

I think we should start with them, perhaps put them on Ark 3, then forget about them.

I don't know which WWF I think less of

I don't know which WWF I think are worse:

1) The totally fake, attention whoring, talentless hacks who put on a show just to make a buck

or

2) The guys in Spandex tights in the wrestling ring.

prequel to the wind up girl?

Reads like it