CNN managed to squeeze this in for a full two hours before returning to the more important stories that impact all of us. I am reminded of the night that the producers of David Letterman's old NBC show chose to bump Jacques Cousteau (who was waiting in the green room) because Gena Davis, a very bad European prop magician and the Goo Goo Dolls ran long.

Report: Earths Ecosystem at Risk
30 March, 05

OSLO, Norway (Reuters) -- Humans are damaging the planet at an unprecedented rate and raising risks of abrupt collapses in nature that could spur disease, deforestation or "dead zones" in the seas, an international report said on Wednesday.
The study, by 1,360 experts in 95 nations, said a rising human population had polluted or over-exploited two thirds of the ecological systems on which life depends, ranging from clean air to fresh water, in the past 50 years.
"At the heart of this assessment is a stark warning," said the 45-member board of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
"Human activity is putting such strain on the natural functions of Earth that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted," it said.
Ten to 30 percent of mammal, bird and amphibian species were already threatened with extinction, according to the assessment, the biggest review of the planet's life support systems.
"Over the past 50 years, humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable time in human history, largely to meet rapidly growing demands for food, fresh water, timber, fibre and fuel," the report said.
"This has resulted in a substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity of life on earth," it added. More land was changed to cropland since 1945, for instance, than in the 18th and 19th centuries combined.

Getting worse
"The harmful consequences of this degradation could grow significantly worse in the next 50 years," it said. The report was compiled by experts, including from U.N. Agencies and international scientific and development organizations.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said the study "shows how human activities are causing environmental damage on a massive scale throughout the world, and how biodiversity -- the very basis for life on earth -- is declining at an alarming rate."
The report said there was evidence that strains on nature could trigger abrupt changes like the collapse of cod fisheries off Newfoundland in Canada in 1992 after years of over-fishing.

Future changes could bring sudden outbreaks of disease. Warming of the Great Lakes in Africa due to climate change, for instance, could create conditions for a spread of cholera.
And a build-up of nitrogen from fertilizers washed off farmland into seas could spur abrupt blooms of algae that choke fish or create oxygen-depleted "dead zones" along coasts.
It said deforestation often led to less rainfall. And at some point, lack of rain could suddenly undermine growing conditions for remaining forests in a region.
The report said that in 100 years, global warming widely blamed on burning of fossil fuels in cars, factories and power plants, might take over as the main source of damage. The report mainly looks at other, shorter-term risks.
And it estimated that many ecosystems were worth more if used in a way that maintains them for future generations.
A wetland in Canada was worth $6,000 a hectare (2.47 acres), as a habitat for animals and plants, a filter for pollution, a store for water and a site for human recreation, against $2,000 if converted to farmland, it said. A Thai mangrove was worth $1,000 a hectare against $200 as a shrimp farm.
"Ecosystems and the services they provide are financially significant and...to degrade and damage them is tantamount to economic suicide," said Klaus Toepfer, head of the U.N. Environment Program.
The study urged changes in consumption, better education, new technology and higher prices for exploiting ecosystems.
"Governments should recognize that natural services have costs," A.H. Zakri of the U.N. University and a co-chair of the report told Reuters. "Protection of natural services is unlikely to be a priority for those who see them as free and limitless."

...We now return to your regularly-scheduled programming...

It must be why your congress/senate/upper room bigwig bigwallet wacos decided to drill in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge just beside our Canadian Yukon. In their website they even posted the following headline:

Support ANWR drilling Save wildlife habitats

http://www.anwr.org/

Etc...

Support ANWR drilling Save wildlife habitats

Wind energy alternative to drilling would harm habitats, wildlife and US economy

Paul Driessen

The U.S. Senate budget bill would finally open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling. Environmentalists are shocked and outraged. This battle is far from over, they vowed.

Indeed, the 51-49 margin underscores the ideological passion of drilling opponents, their party-line determination to block Bush Administration initiatives, the misinformation that still surrounds this issue, and a monumental double standard for environmental protection.

2^ lol
Sorry Nyar. Too much reading. My brain itches already....

Man people will never learn, they would rather hear something about people, people don't care about there planet they are very selfish lazy gluttonous creatures, Yes I am one of these creatures but I pick up my trash and others, we must find a better way to live our lives without creating so much waste. We are the next generation, do we want our planet to be a dead zone? Do you want it to be an unlivable planet? Do you care about your future, your childrens future, your childrens childrens future?

Hmm? Are we supposed to care about that? Our leaders haven't given us our cues yet...

And who really cares because...
1) the coming rapture makes the above irrelevant
2) we've got real crisis to solve like: how to cut private industry in on social security management fees
3) global "democratization"
4) further consolidation of wealth and power in the hands of corporations
5) the project of turning america into a theocracy

So who has time for such trivial things as planetary degradation? Besides that, conservation is bad for the economy.

In case you didn't get the memo:

BUY BUY BUY!!!! CONSUME EVERYTHING!!!!

I'm afraid we will have to go though an incredibly nasty times before things gets better... We're ok for a little while but my feeling is at one point it will be increasingly 'freak weather events'. I fear for the kids of our kids...

I'm thinking though when half of Florida will be under water and huge tornadoes will rip though the midlands perhaps America will wake up... But by then China, India, Brazil and other powerhouses will have a per capita ecological footprint just as big as the US, so it won't matter. That's the rationale behind the US not signing Kyoto. (Canada signed it but is struggling to apply the causes of the treaty, and there is much opposition).

Mind you in Canada we're not better when it comes to pollution, and probably worse.

For years I've been trying to reduce my ecological footprint... Yet there is a trail of trash behing me... Packaging especially. I live downtown, I don't own a car. Eat mostly organic at home (mb 80% organic). Etc.

SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT: KEEP SHOPPING.
DAMN YOU STINKY: THIS IS NO JOKE.
By eliminating the environment, we solve the environmental problem, n'est ce pas?

Yes Pyronin. Don't you know that it's more important whether or not Brad and Jen get back together or whether Michael Jackson is a pervert than if our planet, our ONLY planet I might add, is on a self-destruct course because of our actions? Or is it what football team is going to win the Superbowl next year? I always forget which is more important.

Sigh. We are a mass consumer culture, and we are mass consuming this planet into oblivion.
My wife and I don't have kids yet, and although we want to, I have serious concerns about bringing a child into this world. I want them to be go outside when they're adults without having to wear a radiation suit to protect themselves from the depleted ozone. I don't see good things for the future generations.

And stinky, to be truly fair, there hasn't really been an administration in recent memory that has really cared all that much for any of this either. Mind you, the current one is the worst I've seen yet. I hope to never see it's like again.

Only planet, eh?
for those who may think. :)
but yes I suppose for the time bieng it is

How does that saying go? Lests not cut off the head to save the body.

This was/is neccessary it feed and clothe the people alive today. I guess if you where to
stagnate the production of food that would save ecosystems but at the expense of the poor.
Only the wealthy nations could afford food. Do we want to starve people now so our kids can
have it later?

I agree we are all too wasteful, but about those organic crops....Organic farming practices are far less productive than standard farming practices. For every acre of organic crops that are
planted it takes more acres of standard crops to make up for the shortfall in yeild. So organic
crops cause more harm than good.

@ stinky

1) You bring this stuff up again from that cracked-pot Moyers,(sp?) rember in that article
that only 2% of christians beleive in the rapture...so not a factor
2) I'll give you that one
3) democracies have a better track record on the enviroment (eastern Europe vs western)
4) It is going to take rich,capitalistic corporations to solve these eviromental problems
(cleaner energy, food production etc)
5) ?

T raider

Hey Raider, try to read this great magazine 'AdBusters'.
http://www.adbusters.org/home/

Just about everyone would like to continue living aswe do right now but for at least 30 years now there has been a growing concensus that this is simply unsustainable. At the end of the day a semi-drastic mass lifestyle change will be necessary. There has been many many warnings (Texas-size Icebergs drifting away from Antartica, melting of the North Pole (soon to be opened to year-round traffic), all the 'industrial diseases' of cancers (1 on 3 develops it), dementias, sterility, etc. I mean, the list goes on forever.

The prevalent concept in the West is that technology will save us . However no amount of technology can replace the loss of entire ecosystems, the disappearance of wildlife, the destruction of communities, the escape of entire nations further into the 'Simulation and Simulacra'

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0472065211/104-1538317-8920759
About:
3) democracies have a better track record on the enviroment (eastern Europe vs western)
I know what you mean, but their output also is much bigger than the Eastern E.. As it stands under the Kyoto Protocol, Russia ind most of the former Cominterm countries are 'under-polluting' and can sell 'pollution credits' to developped reason.

Good news for Stinky

Seems according to the Koran, the US of A is done for in two years, so then the meek can inherit the Earth and fix her right up (as long as you get China and India on board). Of course, I'll be with Jesus by then so, sayonara. XD

T Raid: moyers is far from a cracked pot.

Other than that, I pretty much agree with you...except...your argument is predicated on feeding the 6 plus billion humans alive today. No matter how you slice it, that's a huge strain on natural resources.

The simple, logical fix is to taper population to a more reasonable number. Fewer people, more resources, less competition for them. Happy-happy joy-joy.

Just think if there were only 1 or 2 billion of us...we could all drive hummers...and shoot off guns in all directions. In fact, we would have very little use for government regulation. When I was in australia last year...which is the size of the us with less than 10% of the population, this point was driven home to me. Huge open spaces, no cops patrolling the highways, no one worried about tresspassing ( I just pulled off the road and slept where ever I wanted. And no one cared. I imagine that's how the us was say 60 or 70 years ago. No double wides, little sprawl...very beautiful.

Rab, couldn't get that link to open. Did I detect a little disdain for the meek in your tone?

Hugobrain...I read some of that magazine, will keep checking in
...Are those industrial deseases truely industrial or is the
increasing life expectancy giving an aging population
more time to develope the deseases?
...I heard on the radio that a Canadian scientist said that
the polar ice cap is on a 30 year cycle, where the winds
either blow it together or spred it out. So as it has been shrinking
on the surface it has been getting thicker.
....I'm not to sure C02 is causing this warming trend, we are in a
natural warming cycle; read this


Extension Notes
Weather and Crop Comments
Climate since 1911
2/12/2005 8:25:00 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe asks: Can you say what kind of weather was occurring from 1911 until now?

Joe, the climatologist usually assumes that just
about every kind of weather you can expect will
have occurred during the past 100 years. This is a
quick summary: 1911 was just in time for the
increasingly erratic weather of the teens, a rather
mild 20s and the harsh weather of the century (1936
was the key year there). After that we went into
the 30+ years of high productivity with winters
about like other winters and summers about like
other summers, crop yields improved by 3% every
year, there were no serious droughts, winter
heating bills were all alike. The droughts that
tend to come in 19-year cycles were mild during the
40s-60s, but are and will be increasingly harsh
during the next 20 years. With 1972 we entered
the current phase of global warming with
increasingly erratic weather, this will continue
through 2025, likely to be the harsh year of the
2000s. In Iowa and all states on our borders, the
increase in yearly precipitation has increased 10%
during the past 40 years, this has exactly doubled
the water carried by our local rivers (so they are
over their banks 10 times as often and floods have
increased 700%, and this is not including some
flooding problems caused by land management). This
was not just Iowa, we saw 11 major hurricanes
strike FL in 33 years, then during the past 38
years only one (Andrew) until this past year with 4
(perhaps ushering in the next 30 years of stormy
weather like unto that they had 40-70 years ago).
Elwynn

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa State University Extension

Contact: extensionweb@iastate.edu

So can you imagine if the scientists of the early 1900s where
on the global warming bandwagon and then the dust bowl years
of the 30's hit and in 36 the worst winter and summer in history. It would have
been the begining of the end proving the C02 theory.

....I see technology as the only thing to save us
and I believe it will, or we can do what Stinky says
just kill off 6 to 7 billion poeple ?? Maybe with a lottery???

Stinky....its kind of like that here in Iowa. Man you should have smelled
the fesh air here this morning, no words to describe it.

T raider