On the WWF’s new report on environmental armaggeddon

By popular request, my look at the WWF’s report that everything is going to shit.

I was going to try an in depth sort of thing but then came across this in their “at a glance” section:

We need 1.5 Earths to meet the demands we currently
make on nature. This means we are eating into our natural
capital, making it more difficult to sustain the needs of future
generations.
• The carbon Footprint accounts for over half of the total
Ecological Footprint, and is the largest single component for
approximately half of the countries tracked.

So, if we subtract out those carbon emissions and have another look then we’re using only 75% of the Earth to support our lifestyles. Which means there’s no problem then, is there?

After all, we already know that the carbon emissions are too high and also that we’re doing quite a lot about it too.

And do note that this is even using Wackernagel’s entirely ridiculous calculations of footprints (a nuclear power station is assigned the same carbon foot print as a coal station of the same output…..no, really….and land is only counted once. So the carbon that is absorbed by the wheat that you eat ain’t counted etc, you need both a piece of land to grow the wheat and also another piece of land to absorb the CO2).

In fact, the report has simply come to the same conclusion as the IPCC. Cut down on the carbon emissions and we’re fine. Ho hum……

21 comments on “On the WWF’s new report on environmental armaggeddon

  1. I still have not forgiven the W.W.F for taking Vince McMahon to court over the initials of the World Wrestling Federation: the old W.W.W.F was founded before the W.W.F was a glint in their father’s trousers. The Attitude Era WWF was bloody fantastic, and it started going downhill from 2002 when the environmentalists won their case. Bastards

  2. These doomsayer thats preaches reduction of man’s presence are never the one reducing their own usage of resource. They just want everyone else to be poor. But that would be actual ethic which they sorely lack.

  3. Standard lying ecofreak bollocks.

    Everything is running out or being polluted so socialist tyranny.

  4. Tropic zones have both more diversity and more biomass than temperate zones.
    More plants grow faster with increases of CO2.

    So logically biomass should be increasing if the world was getting warmer due to CO2.

  5. And Tim, I would love to see you dedicate just a little more time to the underlying question of whether CO2 is a problem or not.

    I have been trying to find the link between eco-armageddon and CO2 for over five years. So far I can’t even find eco-armageddon let alone the link. I started as an ignorant (no knowledge on the subject) pillock and have graduated to a confused, where the hell is the evidence to conclude that, pendant.

    I started looking at the question because I KNEW that there would be no snow in the Pyrenees within 5 years and we have a small apartment in a ski resort, dodgy if you think that snow is coming to an end (anyone here calls me Toynbee and I’ll send the lads round).

    My conclusion is I don’t see the link between CO2 and the irregular warming of the 19th and 20th centuries, There is currently no warming and CO2 is still rising. The world is somewhat greener (probably as a result). CO2 is still at historically very low levels. The latest research (which although it suits me doesn’t mean I accept it uncritically) indicates that human-produced CO2 is much less than we think.. and the whole thing goes on.

    As a consequence I do not believe in the need for a carbon tax and subsidies for ineffcient and/or useless power sources even less.

    And although I usually leave my tinfoil hat at home, if something claims to be green I am finding that it smells pretty red to me. The recent climate marches gave rise to some hilarious interviews (see David Thompson) but made it clear that it is an anti-capitalist question with people like Naomi Klein now covering their arses because they know that the climate crunch ain’t coming, but they do want to break the system.

    I am with Patrick Moore, the renegade ex-joint founder of Greenpeace. This has become a political question and the climate facts do not support the narrative.

    Now back to work. I need to finish paying the mortgage on the ski apartment!

  6. Dear Tim
    Any child born eighteen years ago today would have seen no global warming as measured by all the various agencies. The Sahel which was supposed to be a growing desert is greener than it was twenty years ago. Tornado alley has had its quietest year ever recorded and Antarctic Ice this big has never before been recorded. Why do you still listen to Big Green? Their agenda are sinister and selfserving.

  7. I predict that unless we chnage our ways then in 50 years’ time man’s wrecking of the earth will result in it exploding in a ball of fire.

    Luckily I’ll be dead by then so don’t give a toss.

  8. Talking about armageddon, I see George Moonbat seems to have written a sensible article for once, entitled:

    “Why stop at Isis when we could bomb the whole Muslim world?”

    That’s something I could agree with, although I haven’t read the actual article mind.

  9. And do note that this is even using Wackernagel’s entirely ridiculous calculations of footprints (a nuclear power station is assigned the same carbon foot print as a coal station of the same output…..no, really…

    isn’t the carbon footprint of a nuclear power plant an order of magnitude smaller than clean coal?

  10. Carbon is a real problem and I can safely predict, with 100% accuracy, that every single person alive today will one day be dead.

  11. ““The fact that no one predicted what’s happened in the past 18 years indicates we have a long way to go to understand the climate system. And that the way the predictions were wrong were all to one direction, which means the predictions or the science is biased in one direction, toward overcooking the atmosphere… Our ignorance is simply enormous when it comes to the climate system, and our understanding is certainly not strong and solid enough to make policy about climate because we don’t even know what it’s going to do”

    Dr John Christy, Earth System Science Centre at the University of Alabama

    (Hat -tip Guido)

  12. “In the long run we are all dead”

    Who said that? Usually quoted approvingly by the usual suspects. Yet the sea level in Madagasgar in 2500 is vital.

  13. bilbaoboy – “(anyone here calls me Toynbee and I’ll send the lads round).”

    Of course not. We would call you Toyn-ondo’tar Bilbaoboy.

    “The recent climate marches gave rise to some hilarious interviews (see David Thompson) but made it clear that it is an anti-capitalist question with people like Naomi Klein now covering their arses because they know that the climate crunch ain’t coming, but they do want to break the system.”

    Just in passing, Naomi Klein has been responsible for a great deal of general mirth in the land, providing sport for all her neighbours and anyone else who has heard of her. But her new book has provoked the best review ever;

    http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/the-left-vs.-the-climate

    I warmly recommend it.

  14. Rob – “Who said that?”

    Keynes of course.

    “Usually quoted approvingly by the usual suspects. Yet the sea level in Madagasgar in 2500 is vital.”

    If I could just have a mild little rant, I have been opposing Global Warming hysteria for nearly thirty years now. Back when it was barely a glint in Michael Mann’s eye.

    And I have been doing so for environmental reasons.

    Madagascar is a great example. It is home to some very rare and highly endangered animals – lemurs in particular. They are suffering from habitat loss and hunting. They are suffering from government incompetence and indifference. They are suffering from introduced diseases and species. We ought to be doing a hell of a lot more to save them.

    But no, if you will forgive the expression, Global Warming hysteria is sucking all the oxygen out of the room. Instead of campaigning for something useful, everyone is wasting time on an issue which is probably not happening, and even if it is, it is not a major problem. The environment does have real problems. Right now. Global Warming is not one of them.

  15. The fate of lemurs cannot be shaped into a tool to facilitate the statist/socialist control of society–hence they don’t give a shit about lemurs.

    A pity–because after the end of man the lemur is a good candidate to emerge from the trees and make a decent stab at being an intelligent species.

    Or probably it will be the same old shite as now but with an additional furball problem.

  16. bilbaoboy – “Thanks for the link.”

    Ez horregatik

    “A devastating review.”

    Makes you think there is hope for the Left after all.

    Mr Ecks – “The fate of lemurs cannot be shaped into a tool to facilitate the statist/socialist control of society–hence they don’t give a shit about lemurs.”

    Well maybe that is their real plan. Species replacement. And to make sure the Earth’s future is properly socialist, this time they will give the Ants a chance!

    il.youtube.com/watch?v=hFzgw31-rYo&feature=related

  17. Each time Mankind has moved from one era to another, more recently from the wood burning age, to coal burning age, to oil age, to electricity age, nobody knew at the time each new age would rush us head long to Armageddon unless we stop doing this and start doing that. Just as well otherwise wheels and fire would have been banned at the outset for too many negative externalities.

    So my question to all those who promote ‘decarbonisation’ ( a somewhat lax and inaccurate phrase) how do you know that the wonderful new ‘sustainable/renewable’ energy source (should we discover it) will not create its own, albeit different road to Armageddon?

    And of course if your raison d’être and being able to pay the mortgage relies on approaching Armageddon, Armageddon will always be approaching whatever we do.

    The assertion that ‘decarbonising’ will ‘save the Planet’ relies on the conceit of those who promote it, that they know all there is ever to know so they can predict the future accurately.

    Only fools would buy their snake oil: of course neither fools nor snake oil are in short supply.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.