Global Warming

Global warming & other
environmental concerns
Sponsored link.
Warning to humanity:
Over 25 years ago, James Hansen, a startled a U.S. Senate committee meeting in 1981
by saying that he was 99% certain that human activities were already warming the
climate. Ironically, the speech was given during a stifling heat wave. He coauthored an
article in Science in August of that year that begins:
"Atmospheric CO2 increased from 280 to 300 parts per million in 1880 to 335 to 340
ppm in 1980, mainly due to burning of fossil fuels. Deforestation and changes in
biosphere growth may also have contributed, but their net effect is probably limited in
magnitude. The CO2 abundance is expected to reach 600 ppm in the next century, even
if growth of fossil fuel use is slow." 1
On 1992-NOV-18, over 1,500 members of national, regional, and international science

academies from 69 nations signed the World Scientists' Warning to Humanity. The
introduction to the Warning states:
"Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict
harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not
checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for
human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world
that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes
are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about." 2
A decade and a half have passed since this Warning was issued. The earth's environment
has further degenerated.
The public is becoming increasingly aware about threats to the environment. Air quality
is degrading and contributing to the early deaths of tens of thousands of North
Americans. Global warming appears to be an established fact. It is having repercussions
in the number of high intensity hurricanes, violent storms, erratic weather, etc.
Why does this religious site discuss environmental concerns?
A topic like this might normally be considered a scientific matter, without a significant
religious component. It might not be expected to appear on this web site. We have
included it because environmental concerns and religion are linked in at least two ways:
Many religious conservatives deny that the problem exists or that it is serious. Some
of this belief may be derived from the general distrust that many religious
conservatives have towards science and scientists. Another source may be their belief
that Jesus Christ will soon return to Earth and instantly correct any pollution
problems. Thus, they feel that we need not pay attention to these matters today.
Morality has always been closely associated with religion. A case can be made that
leaving a highly polluted world behind for future generations is a profoundly immoral
act, to say nothing of the massive loss of life caused by environmental degradation.
About the main author of this section:
Vladimir F.J. Tomek (1922-) donated most of this series of essays because of his
concern that "we are sleepwalking into an ecological disaster." He graduated from
Charles' University in Prague as 'Doctor of natural science' (chemistry and physics) in
1947. After a most eventful life, he settled in Ireland in 1968. Now in retirement, he
writes papers in the fields of religion and the environment.
Environmental concerns
Pollution data and trends;

past species extinctions
Sponsored link.
The polluted environment and global warming:

The environment is polluted at an incredibly high rate, mainly through the use
of fossil fuels for the generation of energy in industrial activity, coal burning,
and car exhausts. This produces carbon dioxide and other harmful gases. Since
the industrial revolution 250 years ago, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have
increased by 31%, CH4 by 151%, and NO2 by 17%.- in actual values CO2
increased from about 270-280 parts per million (ppm) to almost 380 ppm. 1
The current levels of concentration of carbon dioxide and methane in the
atmosphere are higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years, and the
rates of increase are absolutely exceptional - the atmospheric concentration
of greenhouse gases is expected to increase by further 30% by 2050. 2 This is
not surprising - every year we pump more than six billion tonnes of carbon
emissions, despite a general consensus that this contributes directly to
climate change. 3 CO2 remains in the atmosphere for a century or more. About
three quarters of greenhouse gases come from burning fossil fuels. Most of the
rest (with one exception) comes primarily from de-forestation of tropical rain
forests. The one exception is methane CH4. which is twenty times more
powerful than CO2. That comes mostly from agricultural sources.
The injection of the pollutants into the atmosphere leads to the greenhouse
effect that makes the earth hotter. Because the so-called 'greenhouse gases'
are composed of molecules of three atoms or more - CO2, CH4, NO2, etc., they
thicken up the atmosphere and help trap incoming sunlight. While the planet
has warmed up only by 1oF (0.55oC) in the past century, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has predicted an average
global rise in temperature of 1.4oC to 5.8oC between the years 1990 and 2100.
Such a change would have a profound effect on the climate of the world - the
world and human civilization would not have enough time to adapt. The
extreme events to which climate change appears to have already contributed
reflect an average rise in global temperatures of only 0.6oC. 4
The year 2005 was the warmest year globally since records were kept, while,
according to the World Meteorological Organization, the increase in
temperature in the 20th century is likely to have been the largest in any
century during the past 1,000 years. All of the warmest years have occurred
since 1990, including each year since 1997. 1
Industrialized countries with less than a quarter of the world's population are
responsible for about three quarters of the CO2 released by burning fossil fuels
which still provide almost 80% of the world's total energy needs. 5 This just
reflects the fact that, concentrated in the third world, nearly a third of
today's world's population have no electricity and about 2.5 billion people
have only wood or biomass for energy. Number one polluter is, of course, the
United States, with the largest emission of greenhouse gases of any country in
absolute terms. It is second after Australia in emissions per capita. With only
less than 5% of world population, US accounts for approximately 20 to 25%
green-house gases. 6 In 2002, 288 million Americans were producing
greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those of 2.6 billion people in 151
poorer countries. It can get only worse: In 2003 the US emissions were up 14%
above those in 1990, and projected was a rise by further 12% over the next
decade. 7 The quantity of nitrogen oxides released into the atmosphere from
automobiles, power plants, and various industries, doubled between 1950 and
1973, and the trend continues. 8
According to Wikipedia:
"The White House has come under criticism for downplaying reports that link
human activity and greenhouse gas emissions to climate change, and there
was suspicion that a White House official and former oil industry advocate,
Philip Cooney, adjusted descriptions of climatic research that had already
been approved by government scientists. Of course, the White House denied
that Cooney watered down reports."
"in June 2005, State Department papers showed the administration thanking
Exxon executives for the company's 'active involvement' in helping to
determine climate change policy, including the US stance on Kyoto." 9
And what about Exxon? In his letter to the Guardian on 2005-JAN-29, Roger
Hicks writes:
"A million good reasons to doubt global warming - each and every one of them
a 25,000 dollar wad of U.S. bank note:
"Exxon makes $25 billion profit." (It was $40 billion in 2005.) Does anybody
still remember the days when the tobacco industry's own scientists
pontificated on the harmlessness of smoking? Roger Hicks wrote:
"The tobacco industry had the financial clout to employ clever but
unscrupulous (or ignorant) scientists and lawyers to help fight their corner,
rationalizing the irrational, defending the indefensible, and justifying the
unjustifiable." 10
Two cases of direct interference with reports on global warning have come to
light quite recently:
In the US, according to an article in the Guardian of 2006-FEB-09, George

Deutsch (who worked for George Bush's re-election campaign) quit as NASA's
public affairs officer. In connection with his resignation it became known
that Deutsch's involvement with NASA was part of an intensifying effort at
the agency to exert political control over the flow of public information.
Deutsch was linked to a campaign to stifle discussion by space agency
scientists on global warming - he was described as a 'bit player' in a
politically motivated campaign to stop scientists from speaking publicly on
global warming. For example, scientists were ordered to remove a posting
from the agency's website which showed that 2005 was the warmest year on
record, and were repeatedly told to add the word 'theory' at every mention
of 'big bang'. 11
In Australia, according to an article in the Guardian of 2006-FEB-14, Graeme
Pearman, a former government scientists and climate director for the
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, claimed
that Australian officials stopped him raising concerns about climate change,
that he was gagged over it. He maintained that he was prevented from
speaking about the risks of climate change at least half a dozen times. 12
It is worth noting that the US and Australia are the only major industrialized
countries not to have signed the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.
Possible linkage of past global species extinctions with C0 2 level:
Popular science writer and paleontologist, Peter D. Ward, has written a book
"Under a Green Sky: Global warming, the great extinctions of the past and
what they can tell us about our future." The book cover features an
attractive ocean view with a green sky and water. 13
Ward discusses the great extinctions of species that have happened during the past 500
million years. The best known is the extinction in the Paleocene era some 65 million
years ago which caused the disappearance of the dinosaurs. Researchers have reached a
near consensus that this extinction was caused by a massive asteroid slamming into the
Yucatn Peninsula. Researchers had suspected that the other major extinctions were
cause by earlier asteroid collisions:
100 M years: Cenomanian/Turonian

140 M years: Jurassic/Cretaceous Extinction
180 M years: Toarcian Extinction
195 M years: Triassic Extinction
250 M years: Permian Extinction
385 M years: Late Devonian Extinction
425 M years: Late Ordovician Extinction
460 M years: Late Cambrian Extinction
However, there is no convincing geological evidence of repeated asteroid

impacts that correspond to these extinctions. A new theory has been recently
suggested -- called "Greenhouse Extinction." They start with what are called
flood basalts. These are massive volcanic eruptions of lava, either on land or
under the oceans. Some of these exceed 2000 cubic kilometers (480 cubic
miles) in volume. They release massive amounts of carbon dioxide and
methane into the atmosphere, which causes the world's climate to heat up.
This alters the oceans' circulation, which leads to blooms of green sulfur
bacteria. The bacteria produces toxic amounts of hydrogen sulfide which
reaches 2,000 times the present amount. This destroys the ozone layer. The
result is massive species extinction as a result of the high temperatures and
from the poisonous H2S gas.
The Permian Extinction, which occurred 250 M years ago, was particularly
devastating. More than 90% of all species and nearly 97% of all living things
died.
The correlation between CO2 variations and extinctions is extremely close.

Ward writes:
"The key to climate change seems to be both the level and the rate at which
carbon dioxide rises in the atmosphere."
The source of the change is immaterial. The world is now undergoing a sudden
and massive increase in CO2 levels due to human activity. Ward is concerned
that continued increases will result in the disappearance of the ice sheets, a
rise in sea levels by 60 meters (200 feet), tropical diseases flourishing in new
regions of the world, a greenish tint to the oceans, H2S buildup and mass
species extinctions. The Cenomanian/Turonian extinction occurred when the
CO2 level was only about 1,400 parts per million; the world's current CO 2 level
is about 380 ppm, and is rising rapidly.
References used:
The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above
essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.
1. Kirby Alex: "Climate Change: Uncharted Waters?" BBC News, 2004-DEC-

03.
2. McDonagh Sean, "The Death of Life: The Horror of Extinction," Columba
Press, (2004). Overview: at: http://www.christian-ecology.org.uk/
3. McDonagh Sean, "Care of the Earth Moves Higher on the Church
Agenda," at: http://www.columban.com/
4. Monbiot George, "Sleeping to Extinction," The Guardian, 2003-AUG-12.
5. "Disposable Planet - Energy," BBC News, 2002, at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
6. McDonagh Sean, "The Death of Life. A Challenge to Christians," at:
http://www.columban.com/
7. Houghton John, "Global Warming is Now Weapon of Mass Destruction,"
The Guardian, 2003-JUL-28.
8. Birch Charles, "Regaining Compassion," New South Wales University
Press, (1993).
9. "Kyoto Protocol," Wikipedia, at: http://en.wikipedia.org/
10.Roger Hicks, letter to the Independent, 2005-JUL-25.
11.Goldenberg Suzanne, "Pro-Bush NASA official quits over false CV," The
Guardian, 2006-FEB-09.
12.Goldenberg Suzanne, "I was gagged over climate change, says
scientist." The Guardian, 2006-FEB-14.
Pollution caused by land travel,

air travel and food transportation
Sponsored link.
Notes on land travel:
A substantial contribution to greenhouse gas emission comes from transport.

The sector is claimed to consume nearly 60% of the world's oil and produces a
quarter of all energy-related CO2 emissions. 1 However, the former value by
Venkat Kumar appears too high. Oil use by transportation has almost doubled
since 1973, and the related emissions are growing at about 2.5% annually. 1
According to IPCC, emissions of CO2 from all transport sectors accounted (in
1996) for about 22% of all global emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel
use. Note that the emitted CO2 and water vapor are directly proportional to
the fuel burned - according to the US Environmental Protection Agency, every
gallon of gasoline burned puts 20 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere. A
number of additional specific details are known for the United States, where,
unfortunately, they do not seem to lead to any positive action:
Of all of the global warming pollutants that Americans release into the
atmosphere, 27% come from cars, trucks, planes, and other vehicles
propelled by fossil fuels. 2 Some sources give 30% for cars, trucks, trains,
and planes.
With 20 miles per gallon, a car produces a pound of CO2 for each mile. With
two people in the car, 0.56 pounds are released, on average, for each
passenger mile. Airlines perform about the same.
Trucks move about 70 tonnes of goods a mile for each gallon of diesel
burned.
In the US, gasoline consumption amounts to 9 million barrels of oil each
day, enough to fill more than four supertankers. 2
In the last decade, US oil use has increased by almost 2.7 million barrels a
day, which is more oil than India and Pakistan use daily altogether. 3
Approximately one fifteenth of all greenhouse gases (GHGs) released by
humanity worldwide, originate in the US transportation system. If current
trends persist, US transportation GHGs could be half again as much by 2020.
2
In the year 2000, there was in Europe enough factory capacity to make about
18 million cars a year (with only 15 million expected to be sold). The same
capacity was in the US (the market was expected to shrink to less than 17
million). In the same period, US had 770 cars per 1,000 people, versus 10 in
China, 30 in Egypt, and 552 in Japan. 4 Currently, the passenger car global
production amounts to approximately 40 million cars per year. 5,6 As to
consumption, American vehicles burn triple the oil they did in 1950, which
leads to the following emission rates: 7
If we assume a properly maintained average passenger with annual car mileage of
12,500 miles, and a properly maintained average annual light truck with annual car
mileage of 14,000 miles, then, with fuel consumption of 21.5 miles per gallon (mpg) for
passenger cars and 17,2 mpg for light trucks:
A passenger car consumes 581 gallons of gasoline, and emit 77.1 pounds of
hydrocarbons, 11,450 pounds of CO2, 575 pounds of CO, and 38.2 pounds of
nitrogen oxides.
A light truck= consumes 813 gallons of gasoline, and emit 108 pounds of
hydrocarbons, 16,035 pounds of CO2, 854 pounds of CO, and 55.8 pounds of
nitrogen oxides.
Even if we were to increase vehicle fuel economy by 40%, all the gains would
be wiped out within 17 years with a modest 2% annual growth in vehicle miles
traveled. 8
It is particularly worrying that, in the US, high-horsepower automobiles and

SUVs (Sport Utility Vehicles) will continue to be manufactured, although they
have far worse economy than other vehicles. In the US, the SUVs now account
for one in four new vehicles sold, and sales continue to climb. Surprisingly, in
India sales of the fuel-guzzling SUVs account for 10% of all vehicle purchases,
and could soon overtake car sales.
Notes on air travel:
As to air travel, international travel has never been easier. In 2002, nearly 700
million trips are made abroad. 9 The demand for air travel has increased
three-fold between 1980 and 2000, and is set to double by 2020. The
expansion raises growing concerns due to its impact on the environment - air
transport is one of the world's fastest growing sources of greenhouse gases. 10
The airlines industry consumes about 205 million tones of aviation fuel
(kerosene) each year, which, according to IPCC, represents 3.5% of man's
contribution to global warming from fossil fuel use. 11 The IPCC figure is
expected to grow to between 5 and 6% in 50 year's time. In addition, the
climate impact of flying is increased by a factor of at least 2.5 (compared to
the combustion of jet fuel alone) by emission of nitrous oxides and other
pollutants at high altitudes. There will be efficiency improvements, but so far
the growth in air travel has been outpacing all fuel efficiency gains. In 2000,
there were around 900 airlines operating 11,600 commercial aircraft,
transporting 1.4 billion passengers and 30 million tones of freight. 12 Dominant
were large passenger and freight carriers; the total economic impact was
estimated to be in the range of $1,300 billion (3.5% of the world's GDP!). 12
Expected is an average annual traffic growth of 5% with freight traffic being
one of the main growth factors. Overweight Americans contribute to the
problem. They cause airlines to burn more fuel and raise air ticket prices.
Extra weight adds up to $275 million each year in extra fuel cost! 13
Air transport is essential for world business and tourism. Over the last 25
years, the number of international tourists has more then doubled. In 2002,
715 million international tourist receipts were accounted for. 14 Even more
important is trade. Unfortunately, it is to be regretted that in many instances
both in tourism and trade the policy is dictated not by the common good but
by excessive demands on profit and on satisfaction of narrow personal
preferences. Typically, both the World Trade Organization and the World Bank
- the two premier institutions that promote global trade - have been silent
about the links between trade, transportation, and climate. This applies
particularly to trade which appears to be contributing to the carbon dioxide
emissions for purely financial gains.
Notes on food transport:
The price of food is disguising externalized cost - damage to the environment,

damage to climate, damage to infrastructure, and the cost of transport. The
environmental cost of food transport is given as US 3.8 billion dollars a year
15, and it is claimed that it in-creased by 12% in the period between 1992 and
2002. Among the factors that drove the increase was the rise in global trade,
concentration of power in the hands of the supermarkets with centralized
systems of distribution, greater car use for shopping, and a rise in packaging
and processing.
The trend toward eating food from farther and farther away is becoming
wide-spread. While much of food goes by sea, air-freighted food - such as
chickens from Brazil and Thailand, mainly for use in processed food - makes a
major contribution to global warming. It has an extremely high carbon dioxide
emission per tonne, and is the fastest growing mode of transport. On top of it,
some of the food transport by air simply makes no sense: Why should spring
onions from Mexico be sold in an Irish supermarket, or why should iceberg
lettuce from Los Angeles be flown to London? In the latter case, Sustain, a
U.K. based food and farming alliance, has shown that the lettuce requires 127
calories of fuel for every food calorie. 16
Quantitative data on food transport are known in detail for Britain. 28% of all
freight on the roads of Britain is food or agricultural produce: 1.6 billion tones
are carried 148 tonne-kilometres. 23% more food than 20 years ago is on the
road, and due to centralized storage it is traveling 65% further. Carbon
dioxide emitted by food transport in 2002 amounted to 19 million tones. 17
The average distance we now drive to shop for food each year is 898 miles,
compared with 747 miles a decade ago. 17 If all of the U.K. food came from
within 20 km of where we live, we could save 2.1 billion a year in
environmental and congestion costs. 15
According to Brian Halweil from the World Watch Institute, a meal of meat,
grain, fruit, and vegetables accounts for 4 to 17 times as much petroleum if it
comes from afar than if a consumer buys the ingredients locally. The fuel
burned to transport and refrigerate the food contributes to global warming.
As to food coming from abroad, about 12.2 millions tones are imported into
Britain, and 7.4 million tonnes are exported. 15 Countries often swap food
instead of importing critical items that cannot be produced locally. In this,
U.K. is no exception: In 1998 Britain imported 61,000 tonnes of poultry meat
from the Netherlands, and also exported 33.100 tonnes of poultry meat to the
Netherlands.18 Also, Britain exports approximately 400,000 tonnes of milk
each year, but imports a similar amount from abroad.
There are surprisingly few data on food transport in the US on the Internet.
What is available mostly concerns earth-bound transport.
References used:
1. Venkat Kumar, "Global Trade - Global Warming," at:

http://www.commondreams.org/
2. Mazza Patrick, "Transportation and Global Warming Solutions," 2004-
MAY, at:
http://www.climatesolutions.org
3. Kirby Alex, "Energy: Meeting Soaring Demands," BBC News, 2004-NOV-
09.
4. Sandronsky Seth, "Excess Capacity in the Car Industry: The Capitalist
Crisis Continues," at: http://archives.econ.utah.edu/
5. Bessem Frank, "Global Car Production, Statistics Pages," 2002-MAR, at:
http://www.geocities.com/
6. "NationMaster.com: Stats > Industry > Car production," at:
http://www.nationmaster.com/
7. "U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Average Annual Emissions and
Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks," at:
http://www.epa.gov/
8. Berry Thomas & Thomas Clarke, "Befriending the Earth," Twenty-Third
Publications, (1992).
9. McDonagh Sean, "To Care for the Earth," Geoffrey Chapman, (1989).
10."Disposable Planet - Tourism," BBC News, (2002) at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
11.Rochat Philippe, "Air Transport - a Global Approach to Sustainability,"
at: http://www.airport-int.com/
12.Rodrigue Jean-Paul, "Air Transport," at: http://people.hofstra.edu/
13."Overweight Americans Cause Airlines to Burn More Fuel and raise Air
Ticket Prices," at: http://www.newstarget.com/
14.Rodrigue Jean Paul, "International Tourism and Transport," at:
http://people.hofstra.edu/
15.Connor Steve, "Buy local produce and save the world," at:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/
16.Venkat Kumar, "Global Trade - Global Warming," at:
http://www.commondreams.org/
17.Felicity Lawrence, "Food study reveals hidden 9bn costs of transport,"
The Guardian, July 15, 2005.
18."Tricks of the Trade," New Internationalist," 2003-JAN/FEB, at:
http://www.newint.org/
Site navigation:
Home page > Science/religion > Environment > here
Home page > Morality and ethics > Environment > here
Home >Christianity >Bible >Inerrancy >Harmony >Science/religion

>Environment >here
Home >Religious info. >Inerrancy >Harmony >Science/religion

>Environment >here
Copyright 2006 by Vladimir Tomek

Originally posted: 2006-JUN-25
Latest update: 2007-APR-18
Author: Vladimir Tomek
Degeneration of forests, water, soil;

Consumption of resources;
Problems caused by waste.
Sponsored link.
Degeneration of forests:
The destruction of forests causes an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere due to
the decomposition and burning of the forest and the fact that there are fewer
trees to remove carbon dioxide from the air. In fact, deforestation is second
only to fossil fuels as a human source of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
According to the World Resources Institute we are currently losing about 12
million hectares of natural forest annually. To save the natural forest
ecosystem we would have to reduce the culture of consumption in the key
developed countries, 1 But it may already be too late. According to Edward
Goldsmith, the process is now completely out of control. He:
"does not see anything in place that can conceivably stop the continued
destruction of the world's forests until there are no accessible forests left, or
rather until it has become uneconomic to cut down any more. The demand of
the First World countries for hardwood is insatiable. It has increased fifteen-
fold since World-War II, 2 and can be reduced only by prices becoming
exorbitant. There is no law anywhere to prevent corporations from clear
cutting forests."
The rain forests are extremely rich. They are among the oldest living systems
on earth, having evolved during the past millions of years in an environment
that was especially favorable. 3 It is unbelievable that they are in the process
of being extinguished, and that at the rate of more than an acre a second. 4
For example, deforestation causes the habitat destruction of over 10,000
square miles per year in the Amazon Basin! The rate of tropical deforestation
in 1989 was almost the double of that in 1979, with roughly 1.8% of the
remaining forests disappearing each year. The biologist Norman Myers
estimates that worldwide this amounts to 20 million hectares being yearly
destroyed or seriously depleted. 3 Once the fragile and irreplaceable life
system is extinguished it will never be the same. It could come back if the
damage is limited, but on the scale in which the rain forests are presently
being damaged they would never recover.
The conversion of tropical rain forests to cattle ranches to supply the fast-
food hamburger stands of the First World countries is the most wasteful and
destructive use of these forests. In 1988 in Brazil, 40,000 square miles of
tropical forest (i.e., an area the size of England, Scotland, and Wales) were
burned down - US researchers estimate that by 2020 less than 5% of it will
remain in pristine conditions. The beef produced as a result of this plunder
was and still is exported to the U.S.
A 1980 study of West African countries showed that the demand for wood for
fuel exceeded the estimated sustainable yield of forests in eleven of the
thirteen countries surveyed. In both Mauritania and the mountainous areas of
Rwanda, the demand for firewood is ten times the yield of the remaining
forests. 5 As to the forests of Central Africa, it is estimated that about one
fifth of them will be gone within 15 years. The amount of firewood burnt by a
single family in Africa (or in India) is quite small, but it is to be multiplied by
an enormous population to assess the rate with which the forests are
disappearing.
The rate of destruction of the rainforests in the Philippines is alarming - they
have dwindled from the original 17.5 million hectares to less than 1 million
today. Similarly, in 1920 the extent of mangroves in the Philippines was
estimated at around 500,000 hectares. Today, the figure is less than 150,000
hectares. 2
Figures from the Borealnet.org tell us that trees logged from Canada's Boreal
Forests in a single year (1994-95) would fill up more than 4,300,000 logging
trucks, which lined up bumper to bumper would encircle the world 2.5 times.
The situation is similar in Siberia - as fast as timber flows out of the Russian
Far East, consumer goods are pouring in from Japan, China, and Korea,
wrapped in packaging produced from Russian pulp. 1 And yet the forests of the
north and the taigas are essential to the health of the world and humanity.
Degeneration of water supplies:
The amount of water in the world is finite. Humanity is growing quickly and
its water use is growing even more quickly. Global water consumption rose
six-fold between 1900 and 1995, which is more than double the rate of
population growth. Without considering cooking, washing, and sanitation, for
most people the absolute minimum needed to stay healthy is around 0.8 US
gallons (3 litres) per day. In a hot climate people exerting themselves could
consume more than 5.4 gallons (20 litres) per day. Direct sanitation needs
require additional 6 gallons (25 litres) per day, and so does bathing and
cooking. 6 This brings the reasonable minimum of water to 13 gallons (50
litres) per person per day, plus water needed to grow food, produce energy,
and so on. In the US the average person uses about 99 gallons (380 litres) per
day for indoor residential use. in the Netherlands the average is just over 26
gallons (100 litres) per day. 6 However, the latter is exceptional. Nearly half a
billion people around the world faced water shortages in 2000. By 2025, the
number is expected to grow to 2.8 billion people. Of these, at least 1 billion
people live in countries facing absolute scarcity of water. The most over-
populated countries of Asia, Latin America, and Africa, with a third of the
world's population, have to survive on largely polluted and overused rivers and
wells - as many as 2.3 billion people in the world in 2000 suffered from
diseases linked to water (such as dysentery, cholera, and typhoid). By 2025,
their number is expected to rise to two-thirds. Of course, humans are not the
only ones who suffer - wildlife suffers as well: The level of the Aral Sea has
fallen some 40 feet (12 m) as a result of excessive withdrawal of water from
the Syr-Darya and the Amu-Darya rivers. The sea has shrunk to half its size, its
port is now 30 miles (50 km) off the shoreline. The bottom is becoming a
desert. Out of fourteen species of fish originally in the lake, only one survives.
5
Current estimates by WHO find that roughly 1.1 billion people do not have
access to clean water to meet their basic daily needs, and that 2.4 billion
people don't have adequate sanitation. These conditions lead to at least 5
million deaths every year from water-related diseases. 6
Problems for the ecologist are also caused by the pollution of the sea. Not
only is waste and poison dumped into the sea by all the polluted rivers;
noxious fumes from industries, homes, and automobiles end up there as well.
In the US alone, 142 million tonnes of air-borne pollution end up every year in
the oceans. 2 Another source of pollution are the supertankers (Torrey Canyon
discharged 100,000 tonnes of crude oil into the English Channel) and oil
intentionally discharged each year from the world's navies and merchant
fleets.
It would cost $170 billion to provide clean water and healthy sewage
treatment for all. That should not be beyond the resources of our present
global economy. 7
Degeneration of water supplies:
There is not enough land for farming, and no hope of finding more. The
deterioration of soil on agricultural land is worldwide. 35% of the world's
arable land is in danger of being turned into desert, and the process is already
going on: Globally, each year eleven million hectares of productive land is
turned into wasteland. 2 For example, the Bureau of Soil in the Philippines
estimates that over 500 million tones of soil are eroded annually. 2 As a result
of human activity dictated by greed, the amount of topsoil disappearing each
year is equivalent to the total topsoil of the entire wheat belt of Australia
(113,000 square kilometers) 5
The deserts are expanding in sub-Saharan Africa, south-central Asia, Australia,

the western United States, and southern South America. Farmers are having
to turn to increasingly marginal land, and the good land is often taking a
battering. Soil degradation has already reduced global agricultural
productivity by 13% in the last half-century. This was aggravated by
waterlogging and high salinity. Our agricultural land is eroding faster than soil
can possibly form by natural processes 8 Neither the intensification of
production nor the introduction of genetic hybrids can solve the problem. 9
In the USA one third of the cropland is now seriously eroded. For every bushel
of corn that a US farmer in Iowa harvests, two bushels of soil are lost through
erosion. This adds up to a loss of 4,000 million tones of topsoil each year. 3 If
this continues, then there will be no possibility of feeding people because
there is not going to be enough soil to grow the food. 9 On the other side of
the globe, in 1972, British agriculture was losing 150,000 acres per year.
Land is a finite resource, so the present exploitative approach to it cannot

continue much longer. Even so we must always act in the full knowledge that
the soil that is lost so quickly took hundreds and thousands of years to build
up.
Resources:
The well-being of our society depends on the resources provided by the earth.
There are removable resources such as timber, food, and water, and non-
renewable re-sources such as fossil fuels and minerals; the earth also provides
maintenance of the life-support systems such as pollution absorption capacity.
Until the world population reached 3 billion the means the earth provided
were adequate. However, the present growth in population coupled with
industrial growth has caused all the resources, which are limited, to be
outstripped by human demands. And they are not just overexploited to a
small degree: Both society and the natural world are being destroyed at such
a rate that the very survival of our species on this planet is now seriously
threatened. 10
It seems that humans have forgotten how long it took for the Earth to evolve
the current natural resources. The evolution process took billions of years to
achieve, with humans occupying this planet for only over a million years.
Before becoming industrialists, they consumed less than a third of the
available food resources. They did not clear forests for agricultural land, nor
did they hack down trees for building houses, nor were they shortsighted
enough to exterminate the wild animals on which they de-pended for their
livelihood. 9 It has taken us just 150 years to do all the damage.
Not everybody has contributed to the depletion of natural resources to the

same extent. The demands made by the people in industrialized countries and
the Third World elite are often 10 to 20 times higher than those made by the
poor. 11 Six percent of the world's population in the United States is consuming
40% of the world's nonrenewable resources, 12 The total figures for the world's
major industrial nations are no better: 20% of the world's population consume
as much as 80% of the world's resources. The developed nations consume such
disproportionate amounts of protein, raw materials, and fuels that, unless
they considerably reduce their consumption, there is no hope for the
undeveloped nations markedly improving their standard of living. 9 The idea
that they will be able to eventually catch up with the West is not realistic.
Should everyone in the developing countries use the same amount of energy
as the average consumer in high income countries does, the developing
countries' energy use would increase more than eight-fold in the next 50
years. And where would the energy come from?
The International Energy Agency says the world will need almost 60% more
energy in 2030 than it did in 2002. At the same time, oil industry experts
estimate that current reserves will only last for about 40 years, and the
accessible reserves of coal will also be consumed within the foreseeable
future. According to Walter Youngquist, 13 by March 1998 we have consumed
more than 800 million barrels of oil. At the same time, we knew that another
850 million barrels are in reserve, with just about 150 million extra barrels yet
to be discovered. After not quite 140 years we have consumed 44.5% of oil,
this irreplaceable resource accumulated by geological processes during more
than 500 million years. Life will go on without it, but in what form? Currently,
oil consumption is being taken care of by some 600 million gasoline- and
diesel-powered vehicles operating in the world, and we have no idea what
available alternative energy sources could individually or collectively replace
the required 72 million barrels of petroleum a day. We do not even seem to
think that far ahead: According to Paul and Anne Ehrlich,
"in the U.S. the Reagan administration relaxed the efficiency standards of
automobiles (standards that had already been met by Chrysler). If these
regulations had been kept in place, within a decade or so the amount of
petrol saved would have been equivalent to the entire amount of oil
estimated to underlie the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. That single step
could have both removed a threat to one of the last really wild places on
Earth and would have reduce pollution in cities." 14
At present rates of consumption we also have to face the exhaustion of known

re-serves of silver, aluminum, gold, cobalt, chromium, iron, mercury,
manganese, molybdenum, nickel, lead, platinum, tin, tungsten, and zinc.
We can allow the present growth rate in ecological demand to persist only at
the cost of disrupting ecosystems and exhausting resources.
Waste:
Apparently, many people are comforted by the fact that they can afford to
waste. However, all the waste is immoral, and so is the behavior of our throw-
away Western society. The more 'developed' we get, the more we throw
away. The misuse and squandering of natural and human means in the First
World (mostly Christian) countries not only shortens the resources, but is also
directly related to the poverty which affect more and more of the world's
population. The life-style and consumption patterns of many people in the
First World countries are beyond what the Earth can support. 15 In the mid
1990s, OECD countries were producing almost two tonnes of industrial and
household waste per person each year. 3 The United States is 'the world's
number one producer of garbage' consuming 30% of all the planet's resources
and producing 30% of all its waste, despite the fact that it has less than 5% of
the world's population. According to Heather Rogers every American discards
over 200 pounds (90 kg) of rubbish a year. 16 This means that each year
Americans generate several millions of tonnes of trash in the form of
wrappings, bottles, boxes, cans, grass clippings, furniture, clothing, phone
books, and much more. Consumer durables all too often end up prematurely
in landfill, but it appears that the largest contributor to waste is uneaten
food, which is a matter of serious concern. The waste output of an average
American has nearly doubled in the last 40 years.
According to an American research 17, foods that are regularly thrown away
include bread, fruit, milk, cheese, meat and fish, and even unfinished bottles
of wine. At least a third of the people surveyed suggested that they throw
food away on a regular basis, many of them every week. Thrown away is
frozen food that was too old to eat, over-ordered take-away meals, unused
bagged salad or fruit, and similar items. On average, US households waste 14%
of their food purchases. 15% of that includes products still within their
expiration date but never opened. Timothy Jones of the University of Arizona
Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology estimates an average family of
four currently tosses out $ 590 per year, just in meat, fruits, vegetables, and
grain products. Nationwide, he says, household waste alone adds up to $43
billion.
According to a study by the University of Arizona Garbage Project, Americans

throw away 1.3 pounds of food every day, or 474.5 pounds per year. A recent
(2005) study revealed that almost half of the food in US goes to waste; 40 to
50% of all food ready for harvest never gets eaten. Not only is edible food
discarded that could feed people who need it, but the rate of loss, even only
partially corrected, could save US consumers and manufacturers tens of
billions dollars each year. Californians throw away more than 5 billion tonnes
of food scraps each year.
In the UK, demands for 'pristine looking' produce means a lot of food does not
make the grade and never leaves the farm gate. Around one third of food
grown for human consumption ends up in the garbage can. Statistics from the
government and food industry show each adult wastes food to the value of
420 (US $777) each year. The waste increases by 15% every decade.
Cutting food waste would go a long way toward reducing serious

environmental problems. It was estimated that reducing food waste by half
could reduce adverse environmental impacts by 25% through reduced landfill
use, soil depletion, and application of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides.
Generally, we are also losing valuable raw material to the scrap heap - our
hunger for the latest consumer items leads to graveyards of computers,
televisions, and other highly technical items. In addition, we are squandering
energy on making new products.
Another serious problem in Western Europe and in the United States is junk
mail. Through the mail come catalogues, charity cards, Christmas cards,
irresistible and unignorable credit and goods offers, computer updates, and
such - most of which go immediately into the bin. Every year 5.56 million
tonnes of junk mail is shipped in the US, and much of it is disposed of
unopened - even so, Americans spend 8 months of their life just opening junk
mail. Recycling the 1.23 million tones of it saves landfill space, conserves
natural resources, and may reduce the thrash bill, but there are still
enormous environmental costs in terms of ink, energy to produce, deliver, and
recycle the paper, as well as loss of virgin forest to create the high quality
glossy paper much junk mail uses. This still leaves nearly 32 pounds of paper
and plastic going into the garbage for every woman, man, and child in
America, totaling 4.33 tonnes of garbage. Hauling this away requires 340,000
garbage trucks.
It takes on average 17 trees to make a ton of paper. This means that

approximately 327,000 trees get used for junk mail every year in the US.
In addition to junk mail paper resources are wasted on unnecessary packaging
that ac-counts for a large volume of paper (and plastics) in the thrash. For
example, Californians generate 66 million tons of solid waste, of which
approximately one third is packaging.
There are other kinds of waste, some of which it is difficult to categorize and
or evaluate:
Figures from an Internet mail filtering company, MessageLabs, show that

73% of the 12.6 billion e-mails they checked during 2004 were identified as
spam.
Materially affluent society offers a variety of different fashions in apparel,
footwear, and home textiles, as well as accessories to choose from. Fashion
is a multi-billion dollar business that exists to create interest in and desire
demand for various products, prevalently 'not-needed' ones. This requires
that there has to exist a substantial range of goods currently 'out-of-
fashion'. The aim is high demand maximizing profits. There is no doubt that
by creating demand for goods we can live without, fashion increases
unnecessary demands on natural resources.
According to a research conducted by the Prudential, the average Briton
wastes 7% of his/her annual salary on things he/she does not need. An
average US $3,190 (1,725) per person is wasted on uneaten food, unused
luxury goods and gadgets, and neglected hobbies. 17 Although food was the
largest contributor, an astonishing US $690 (378) per year is wasted on
hobbies we do not keep up. These include buying sports equipment,
unfinished courses, and unused DIY products. To this we have to add US
$444 (240) for unwanted videos, unread books, unused clothing, shoes, and
toiletries, and various fashionable gadgets. 17
The combined United State Forces generate 1 billion pounds of hazardous
material each year. 43 To what reasonable purpose is it used before it has to
be destroyed?
Our generation of waste products should be a constant reminder that the

planet has limits on its capacity to support people; that we face a serious
global problem.
References used:
1. Lebedev Anatoly, "Recycling our Forests?" at: http://www.the-

tree.org.uk/
3. McDonagh Sean, "The Greening of the Church," Geoffrey Chapman,
(1990).
MAY, at: http://www.climatesolutions.org
Press, (1993).
6. Cain Nicholas, "Challenges to Clean Water Worldwide," Geotimes,
2005-MAY.
7. McDonagh Sean, "Johannesburg 2002," at: http://eapi.admu.edu.ph/
8. Goldsmith Edward, "The Way," Themis Books, (1996).
9. Ecologist Staff, "A Blueprint for Survival," Penguin, (1973).
10.Goldsmith Edward, "Re-embedding religion in society, the natural
world and the cosmos," at: http://www.edwardgoldsmith.com/
11.McDonagh Sean, "The Death of Life: The Horror of Extinction," Columba
Press.
12.Birch Charles, "Purpose in the Universe: A Search for Wholeness,"
Zygon, 6, No.1, Pages 4-27 1971-MAR.
13.Youngquist Walter, "Spending Our Great Inheritance - Then What?"
Geotimes, 1998-JUL.
14.Ehrlich Paul R. & Anne H. Ehrlich, "The Popular Explosion," Simon and
Schuster, (1990).
15.Ardrey, Robert, "African Genesis," Collins, (1963).
16.Rogers Heather, "Gone Tomorrow. The Hidden Life of Garbage," The
New Press, (2005).
17.Worthing Borough Council, "A Wasteful Society," at:
http://www.worthing.gov.uk/
18.Gold Mark, "The Global Benefits of Eating Less Meat," Compassion in
World
Farming Trust, (2004). Online at: http://www.ciwf.org
The impairment of the ecosphere:

animals, fish, birds, plants, & water
Sponsored link.
Overview:
For about 3.8 billion years, the ecosphere has been developing into an
extremely complex system of different forms of life in close interaction. 1 All
these forms are an integral part of nature, to be appreciated and respected.
The non-human world is not there for exploitation - its value is to be
recognized.
The great number of different plant and animal species make up the
ecosystem stable. The elimination of one species affects the whole and
disturbs its balance - it has a knock-on effect on estimated 18 to 30 other
species. 2,3 Yet the insatiable demands of our global economy constantly
reduces the complexity of nature:
Herds of domesticated animals replace interrelated animal species.

Vast expanses of high-yield monocultures replace complex plant
ecosystems.
Some species, both animal and plant are being eliminated,
and so on. 4
At this moment we are going through an extinction spasm, caused mainly by

habitat degradation, environmental pollution, the introduction of non-native
species, and exploitation. In particular, human activity has destroyed areas
that are species-rich, like the tropical rain forests and coral reefs. If we
continue with the present business-as-usual approach, half the species of the
planet could be extinct within 50 years. 1
Since the year 1600, 83 known mammal species and 113 bird species have
become extinct, 5 In 2003 the World Conservation Union's Red List claimed that
more than 12,000 species (out of 40,000 assessed) faced some extinction risk, including
one bird in eight, 13% of the world's flowering plants, and a quarter of all mammals. (It
was assumed that there may be some 13-14 million various species in the world in
total.) Other estimates of the extinction rates vary, but all of them show how serious the
situation is:
Since 1600, more than 700 species of plants and animals have gone extinct.
This only includes the plants and animals we know of. 6
According to Tim Radford, species are now perishing at 1,000, or even
10,000 times, the 'background extinction.'
There are 794 species that will disappear soon unless urgent measures are
taken. 7
Human activity causes the extinction of between 70 and 150 species of
animal, bird, fish, insect, and plant life each day. 3
A probable estimate is that about one hundred species (of microorganisms,
plants, and animals) are becoming extinct each day.
As a result of our activities, it is probable that hundreds of species are
being made extinct every day. 8
Edward Wilson estimated that 27,000 species were being lost each year. 9
The study The Global Environment Outlook, published in 2002 by the United
Nations Environment Program, stated that if we continue with a business-as-
usual approach, by 2032 one quarter of the mammals would be extinct, and
11,000 species of plant and 1,200 species of birds would be heading over
the abyss of extinction. 1
The present mass extinction threatens to wipe out one third to one half of
all the species in the world in the next 40 years. 10
One estimate suggests that hundreds of thousands wildlife species may be
at risk of extinction by 2050 because of climate change. 11
David Attenborough claimed that unless major protective measures are
taken now, we could lose up to half the species of our world in the next 50-
100 years. 12
Paul and Anne Ehrlich estimate that, given the present rate of destruction,
25% of all life forms on Earth could be extinguished by 2100. 13
If present trends continue, on half of all species of life on earth will be
extinct in 100 years. 14
The most comprehensive information on mass extinction, with more than 300
links to authoritative reports and regular updates, can be found at:
http://www.well.com/
Our generation is extinguishing life-forms in a rather off-hand manner.

Consider, for example, the effect of the demand for coral to decorate house
aquaria. This casual attitude towards the environment can sometimes have
rather serious consequences, and our pillage of the natural world. It has been
likened to burning down the medieval libraries of Europe, before we had even
bothered to catalogue their content. 15 A typical example is provided by the
cone snails 16 which are decimated by habitat destruction (coral reefs are
destroyed by human activity), overexploitation and trade (millions of cone
snails are now killed annually for their shells). All this happens in spite of the
fact that the snails are famous for containing toxins working as analgesics to
treat chronic pain, cancer, heart irregularities, and many other afflictions.
For example, one toxin may be a thousand times more potent than morphine
for pain relief. And yet, although the tropical cone snails may contain the
largest and most important pharmacopoeia of any genus in nature, they could
rapidly become extinct if urgent measures are not taken to protect them. This
is particularly urgent, because to date only 100 out of a potential 50,000
conotoxins have been extracted and analyzed. 16
Some claim that we are causing species extinction at such a rate as if to mark
the end of the Cenozoic era. Others compare the current rate of extinction to
earlier geological periods, the Jurassic and Permian. While this picture of the
state of the environment has created pessimism among many and denials
among others, there is no doubt that human decisions in the immediate future
will be crucial for the survival of many life forms on earth. Political,
economic, and religious leaders need to take decisive action if some 11,000
species are not to get extinct in the next 50-100 years. In this context it
should be noted that the US have not signed either the Convention on
Biodiversity or the Cartagena Protocol on Bio-safety.
Notes on animals and birds:
Animals were not made for human beings any more than human beings were
made for animals. Almost no animals kill, like humans do, for the sake of
killing, but there is, of course, plenty of cruelty in the animal world. For
example, Jean Henri Fabr reported that:
"Before laying her egg in a caterpillar or a grasshopper or a bee, a female

digger wasp carefully guides her sting into each ganglion of the prey's central
nervous system. This paralyses the animal but does not kill it, and the meat
stays fresh for the growing larva."
The idea is appalling, but by no stretch of imagination does it give us the right
to hurt the animals ourselves. Neither callous attitude to animals, nor
practices that are intuitively perceived to be contrary to the spirit of
avoidance of unnecessary cruelty to animals, should be tolerated.
Two examples are:
Battery chickens spend their entire life crammed into tiny cages with
sloping wire floors that cause painful foot and leg problems. Week-old
chicks are de-beaked by a hot blade that cuts through the sensitive nerve
tissue and causes severe pain. Battery hens can never spread their wings,
scratch in the earth, perch or make a nest, dust-bathe, search for food that
is tasty, or even walk or run. Instead, five hens are packed into a cage
slightly bigger than an average microwave oven, and are never allowed out
until they are taken for slaughter. Two million battery hens die each year in
their cages. The male chicks, 40 million of them each year, are killed when
they are day old - too skinny for meat, unable to lay eggs. Their bodies are
used as fertilizers or as feed for farm animals.
In Australia, 2.5 million pigs are intensively confined in factory farms, 50
million broiler chicken are crammed into sheds, and 12 million laying hens
are held in battery cages. 17
At present, any hope for the protection of animals seems to be coming from
economic considerations and not ethical ones. However, consider the following
practice:
To kill animals without damaging their furs, trappers usually strangle, beat,
or stomp them to death. Animals on fur farms may be gassed, electrocuted,
poisoned with strychnine, or have their necks snapped. These methods are
not 100% effective, and some animals 'wake up' while being skinned!
Notes on fishes:
A global study published in Nature (which took 10 years to complete)

concludes that 90% of all large fishes have disappeared from the world's
oceans in the past half-century, the devastating result of industrial fishing.
This started in the early 1950, and the global fish catch grew more than six
times from 1950 to 1997. 18 However, the peak was reached in 1989 at 100
million metric tonnes. Since then there was a fall of 2% per year. 19 The
overfishing of a particular species does not just damage the population of that
fish alone, but can have serious effects up the food chain. Examples: Herring
is vital for the cod, the sand-eel is the main food for seabirds such as the
puffin, krill are the main food for the great whales, seals, penguins, squid,
and fish.
Most of the problems associated with over-fishing have been caused by

advances in fishing technology. Huge factory ships (with equipment to tin or
freeze fish) scoop everything up from the ocean; radar technology has allowed
fish to be located much more precisely than was possible before. As the
catches have gradually become smaller, the mesh sizes in fishing nets have
been reduced, allowing smaller and smaller fishes to be caught. Fishes that
were not allowed to grow to a respectable size. Those too small to be used
for food are crushed to be made into either animal food or fertilizers. Fishing
with nets has another disadvantage: It is indiscriminate. For example, for
every tonne of prawns caught, three tonnes of fish are killed and thrown
away. 20,000 porpoises die each year in the nets of salmon fishermen, and
tens of thousands of dolphins are killed each year by tuna fishermen. 20
Mangrove swamps and coral reefs, the breeding grounds for a variety of fish,
are dynamited, over-fished, drained, and destroyed.
Notes on plants:
Plant life is absolutely dependent on a thin, fragile layer of topsoil, and it is

estimated that 75 billion tonnes of topsoil is lost world-wide each year. 21 Asia
is the most seriously affected, losing 25 billion tonnes per year. Together with
a very high population this is a recipe for disaster. The US and Australia lose 5
billion tonnes each. 21
Humans use up some 40% of the planet's potential plant production either by
direct consumption or in indirect ways. People will have to change to the
prevalently direct consumption pattern in order to have any realistic hope of
feeding themselves. Namely, it is an inescapable fact that many more people
can survive eating a corn crop as can survive eating cattle that had been fed
on this corn. Far more people could be fed with the food produced in the
world if less of it were not converted into pigs, sheep, or cattle.
Unfortunately, most of us don't appreciate, either personally or politically,
that it is going to be almost impossible to feed future generations the kind of
diet we have now in Western Europe and North America.
According to a report by Compassion in World Farming:
"Crops that could be used to feed the hungry are instead being used to fatten
animals raised for food. It takes up to 22 pounds of grain to produce just 1
pound of edible animal flesh." 22
The situation is not good: Over 70% of the grain produced in the US and 40%
produced worldwide is fed to animals destined for slaughter, while an
estimated 20 million of people worldwide die every year from hunger and its
effects. 23 Note that grain-fattened animals take more energy and protein
from their feed than they return in the form of food for humans. 19
Data on the amount of grain needed to produce of one pound of meat is given
by various people, and is generally lower than the 22 pounds of grain
mentioned above. In the classic book Diet for a Small Planet 24, Frances Moore
Lapp refers to the calculation by the USDA (United States Department of
Agriculture) Economic Research Service, that it takes 16 pounds of grain to
produce a pound of beef, if you were to feed the cattle a purely vegetarian
diet. Almost the same figure is quoted by John Robbins, the rapper and
prominent supporter of People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) 25 He
estimates 17 pounds per pound. A much lower figure of 10 pounds feed per 1
pound of beef is contained in the assessment by US Council of Agricultural
Science and Technology (CAST). In all the above cases, once the inedible part
of the dead animal is taken into account, the ratio of grain to meat becomes
considerably higher.
The rise in 'grain yield per hectare' is slowing in all major grain-producing
regions. This is due to the lack of new land and slower growth in irrigation and
fertilizer use. The growth in the irrigated area has fallen behind that of
population. It is a tragedy that, as they become richer, many countries are
adopting the Western meat-rich diet. For example, in 1960 Mexico fed only 5%
of its grain harvest to animals. This figure has climbed to 45% by 2004. Most
worrying of all is that China, with one sixth of the world's population, has
gone from feeding 8% of its grain to animals to 26% in forty years. In all such
countries poor people could use grain to stave off malnutrition and improve
their health. Unfortunately, they cannot afford to buy the grain. 10
For further comments see the paragraph Survival Diet.
Notes on water:
One kilogram of grain-fed beef needs at least 15 cubic metres of water, while
a kilo of cereals needs only up to three cubic metres. 26 Not only animals fed
on grain but also such as rely on grazing, need far more water than grain
crops. Much of the world is now running out of water for more production.
According to Anders Berntell from the Stockholm International Water
Institute:
"With about 840 million people under-nourished or lacking a secure food

supply today, and another two billion or more people, ... by 2025, feeding the
world's growing population - and finding the water to grow the food -
continues to be a basic and sizeable challenge."
Recent projections by the International Food Policy Research Centre (IFPRI)

indicate that if current trends in water management continue, we can expect
a combined rise of 62% in consumption for domestic, industrial, and livestock
use in the period 1995-2025. Figures for livestock production are predicted to
rise by 71% in the same period - 19% in the developed world and more than
double that in the developing nations. This in a world where (for a number of
reasons) more than 1 billion people lack enough safe water to meet minimum
levels of health and income. 27
References used:
1. McDonagh Sean, "Johannesburg 2002," at: http://eapi.admu.edu.ph/

2. Loflin Lewis, "Unitarians and Deistic Christians," at:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/
Press, (2004). Overview at: http://www.christian-ecology.org.uk/
5. Byrns Donna, "Religion and Environment," at:
http://churchoftruth.org/
6. Sheldon Joseph K., "Endangered Species," Testimony Before the House
Committee on Resources (UK), 2004-APR-28.
7. BBC News, "Extinction Alert for 888 Species," 2005-DEC-12.
8. Goldsmith Edward, "The Way," Themis Books, (1996).
9. Wilson Edward O., "The Diversity of Life," Penguin, (2001).
10.McDonagh Sean, "SOURCE," 2004-SEP-15, at: http://www.wervel.be/
11.Kirby Alex, "Climate Change: Uncharted Waters?," BBC News, 2004-DEC-
03.
12.McDonagh Sean, "The Death of Life. A Challenge to Christians," at:
13.Ehrlich Paul R. & Anne H. Ehrlich, "Extinction," Gollanz, (1982).
14."Mass Extinction Underway," at: http://www.well.com/
15.Kirby Alex, "Biodiversity. The Sixth Great Wave," BBC News, 2004-NOV-
01.
16.Pickrell John, "Wonder Drug: Snails Face Treats, Experts Warn,"
National Geographic News, 2003-OCT-16.
17."Codes of Cruelty, at: http://www.animalaustralia.org/
18.Kirby Alex, "Can the Planet Feed Us?" BBC News, 2004-NOV-24.
19.Elsis Mark, "Zero Population Growth will Occur Somewhere Between
2020 To 2029," at: http://www.overpopulation.net
20.Factsheet, "Overfishing," at: http://www.vptene.org.uk/
21.McDonagh Sean, "To Care for the Earth," Geoffrey Chapman, (1989).
22."Meat Means misery for the World Hungry," at:
http://www.goveg.com/
23."Judaism and Ecology," at: http://hollys7.tripod.com/
24.Lapp Frances Moore, "Diet for a Small Planet," Ballantine, (1982).
25.Robbins John, "The Food Revolution," Conari Press, (2001).
26.Kirby Alex, "Water Scarcity. A Looming Crisis?" BBC News, 2004-OCT-19.
27.Gold Mark, "The Global Benefits of Eating Less Meat," Compassion in
World Farming Trust, (2004) at: http://www.ciwf.org
Site navigation:

>Environment >here

>Environment >here
Copyright 2006 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

Originally posted: 2006-JUL-02
Latest update: 2006-JUL-17
Author: Vladimir Tomek
The impairment of the ecosphere

due to
human activities: war,
overpopulation....
Sponsored link.
War and Armament:
The bill for world-wide military spending was $236 billion per year in 1969,
and $650 billion in 1983. 1 It escalated to $1,000 billion per year in 1985, a
figure which exceeded the combined income of the poorer half of the people
on earth. 2 This continuous growth in military expenditure is diverting vital
human and natural resources away from the much needed areas of
development and ecological restoration:
In 1995, it was estimated that less than 15% of the annual U.S. military
expenditure would fund the most urgent global environmental requirements
- halting desertification and soil erosion, protecting and replacing forests,
protecting the ozone layer, moderating global warming, cleaning up
hazardous waste, developing renewable resources of energy, and
implementing population stabilization measures. 3,4
Fuel consumed by Pentagon in a single year would run the entire public
transport system of the US for 22 years.
War itself has the effect of shortening planning horizons and shifting
resources to immediate survival needs. For example, during World War II
timber cutting increased in the interest of defense while investments in
long-term environmental benefits were deferred.
The direct effects of modern war are now far more odious and permanent
than at any time in the past - consider, for example, defoliation used in
Vietnam; the consequences may last for centuries. 5
There are two and a half times as many military personnel as health
workers, 1 and one in every two scientists is employed in perfecting the
instruments of war and developing technologies that might do harm to
human life and the environment. 6
Such facts and figures are a harrowing indictment of our society.
And what about actual wars? According to the National Priorities Project,
toward the end of November 2005 the war in Iraq costs reached some $225
billion. 7 The National Public Radio (NPR) put the expenditure toward the end
of 2005 past $200 billion. 8 Keith Hartley, Director of the York University's
Centre for Defence Economics, puts the Iraq war cost (to the USA + UK
together) to more than $260 billion by the end of 2006, with the UK
contributing $7.5 billion. Eventually, he predicts that the total cost of the
Iraq war is likely to top US $1.25 trillion! 9 Also, Keith Hartley calculates that
the cost of the Iraq venture to the UK over three months in 2005 would build
25 hospitals in the UK.
Comments on the ecology of war and the preparation for it are obvious. It is
therefore more than surprising that the horrendous waste of resources on the
armaments industry were not on the agenda of the 2002 Johannesburg
Environment Summit. 10
Overpopulation:
Overpopulation is a ratio of two components: Population and resource. As to

the human population of the Earth, the available figures are: 1 billion in 1804,
1.6 billion in 1900, 2 billion in 1927, 3 billion in 1959, 3.5 billion in 1970, 4
billion in 1974, 5 billion in 1986, 6 billion 1999, 6.5 billion in 2006. The
estimates for 2050 vary between 9.1 billion and 9.2 billion, almost all of the
growth occurring in the developing world. Only slightly over 1.2 billion people
are expected to live in countries that are currently designated as developed.
11 When a population cannot be maintained without rapidly depleting its non-
renewable resources and without degrading the capacity of the environment
to support it, the area is overpopulated. Africa, where currently the
population grows at a phenomenal rate, is overpopulated, because the
production of necessities, such as food, does not keep pace with the grooving
number of people. Its soils and forests are being depleted so rapidly that, in
the future, their carrying capacity for humans will be much lower than it is
now. When the same criterion is used, even the United States had to be
considered overpopulated: Namely, the consequences of American fertility,
combined with substantial immigration, have to be seen on the background of
the depletion of American soils and water resources by over-consumption. 12
Our wasteful generation has to be constantly reminded that our planet has
limits to its capacity to support life. We are faced with:
Overwhelmed water treatment systems;

Water sources depletion;
Shortage of fresh water both for domestic purposes and for agriculture;
Reduced biodiversity;
Falling production of grain;
Loss of topsoil through erosion;
Massive loss of forest cover;
Collapsing ocean fisheries.
Decreasing income in the fastest growing regions in the world;
Growing unemployment in much of the developing world; and
A growing number of environmental refugees.
All these are symptoms of a serious global problem which is made much worse
by the yearly addition of 80 million new people to the overall population. The
sheer number of people on earth is already past what Paul Ehrlich has called
the 'carrying capacity' of the planet. A vast numbers of people are becoming
malnourished, marginalized, and disaffected 13, and there is an increased
ecological destruction. 2
The present increases in human numbers and in per capita consumption has a
considerable impact on the environment, disrupting ecosystems and depleting
resources 14 - just about every step in the direction of reducing the effects of
affluence and technology is negated by population growth. The more people
are on earth, the more resources are needed to maintain them, and the
greater is the amount of the waste-products escaping into the atmosphere.
There is probably no practical way to achieve an improvement in this respect
without population control. For example, as to the emission of greenhouse
gases, every person who lives makes a contribution to the CO2 in the
atmosphere by burning wood, coal, or oil. ... Small increases per person can
have an enormous effect in China and India with huge populations there. The
report of the Club of Rome stated already in 1972 that 'with the existing trend
in population, food production, industrialization, resource use, and population
continuing unchanged, limits to growth would be reached within a century'.
To achieve zero population growth in the twenty-first century even in the

most developed countries, birthrates would have to fall well below
replacement levels. The reason for the population momentum is the relative
youth of the growing population.
The current situation is well demonstrated on the population of the

Philippines, the islands of the archipelago being now one of the most densely
populated areas in the world with 173 persons per square kilometre. 6 By 1960
the population of the Philippines was 6 million people. By 1949 it had jumped
to 19.3 million; 1970 saw the population pass the 38.5 million mark, and in
1989 it was estimated to be 63.8 million. It was 70 million in 1991, and since
50% of the people are under the age of 18, the figure will most probably shoot
past 100 million shortly after the year 2010. Meanwhile, the mangrove
swamps are being destroyed, and 80% of the coral reefs, which are among the
richest ecosystems on the planet, have been severely damaged. A third of the
soil is severely damaged, two thirds are partly damaged, and the rain forest
that once covered over 90% of the area will, it seems, soon be totally gone -
only 10% survives now. 15 In 1988, a Catholic bishop in the Philippines
presented a document called What is Happening in Our Beautiful Land? to the
national meeting of all the bishops of the Philippines. They approved it, but
only after taking out the statement on population, which was vital. This
diminished the importance of the document and showed the reluctance of the
Catholic Church to deal with the population problem, even though
overpopulation is one of the most disastrous realities facing the Philippines
and the planet. Population pressures will not go away with our refusal to face
them.
Unless we solve the problem of overpopulation, all future generations will be

impoverished. Where are the children and future generations going to grow
food that they will need for their expanding numbers? For the sake of future
generations, we need to 'lower population, alter consumption levels, and
promote more resource-efficient technologies'. 16 We already know much of
what is needed in order to solve the problem of overpopulation, but we are
limiting ourselves to exhortations and promotion of general ideas. At the
minimum, exchange of ideas on population control, family planning, and
obstacles to it should be encouraged across cultural, religious and political
boundaries. The present policy of fertility control, promoted by the
leadership in the Catholic Church, may not be really pro-life when looked at
from a wider angle.
Trade and Economy:

In our society, it is acceptable to profit from other peoples suffering and
misery. Economists identify the pursuit of private gain as rational, and imply
that other sorts of behavior (that include regard for others and actions
directed toward public good) are not rational. Current economic theory simply
ignores everything to which monetary value cannot be assigned, This means
that the gifts of nature, provided by the normal working of biospheric
processes, are considered of no importance; to be deprived of these 'non-
benefits' cannot constitute a 'cost', and the natural systems that provide them
can thereby be destroyed with total impunity. 17 The most fundamental tenets
with which we have all been imbued since our most tender childhood are that
all benefits are man-made, that they are the product of the scientific,
technological and industrial progress, and that they are made available via
the market system. The normal benefits provided by the functioning of the
ecosphere (fertile soil, fresh water, and so on) are totally ignored, and are
assigned no value of any kind. We are told that to maximize all benefits and
hence our welfare and our wealth we must maximize economic development
and progress. 18 We assess the success of our government, the wealth of our
country, as well as our standard of living by the so-called Gross National
Product (GNP), which provides a rough measure of our ability to provide man-
made commodities. However. it is a rather poor indicator of well-being -
man's welfare is assured not by maximizing the GNP but by preserving the
natural order. 19 And the difference between the GNPs does not give a feeling
for what is hidden behind the numbers. It certainly does not show that for
every well-fed baby in the north five die of malnutrition in the south. 20
The result of all this is that despite increased environmental concerns, the
economy is not being steered onto an environmentally sustainable path.
Population growth requires more jobs to be created. Since no government can

hope to survive widespread and protracted unemployment, it becomes
necessary to stimulate economic growth regardless of consequences. This
conclusion is directly contradicted by the fact that the economy that we have
institutionalized in the last few years is so highly automated that it could
probably function with less than 20% of the world's work force, thereby
marginalizing 80% of humanity. 19,21 It also disagrees with the notion that to
move towards increased environmental sustainability will necessitate a
substantial reduction in the throughput of industrial economies. There is an
impasse over how to proceed with long-term planning in order to make it
compatible with environmental needs. A similar impasse exists over the
agreement of global trade agreements with global environmental agreements.
At present, primarily through inaction, we seem to be perfectly willing to
contemplate sacrificing forests, fisheries, and the ozone layer on the altar of
free trade.
We consider acceptable that third world governments service their debts by
cutting more trees or planting more cash crops, which is the only way open to
them. 6
Under present conditions, undeveloped nations have little or no hope of

markedly improving their standard of living. 14 The main stumbling block is
that many third-world countries depend on a single primary export like wood,
coffee, copper, or cotton, and that the prices of such commodities have been
declining. Another obstacle is that over the past 40 years, food aid has
deteriorated into a political instrument: In the third-world countries there is
now dependence on imports, local markets are disrupted, local agriculture is
discouraged, and, to a large extent, the ability to purchase food locally or
regionally has been lost. Attempts to fully open all markets to imports
threaten the livelihoods of agricultural workers from South Korea, India, the
Philippines, and Brazil. Many poor countries have been left behind as rich
countries have subsidized agriculture and blocked access to their markets.
Huge agricultural monetary grants by the main Western countries to their
small farm population ($350 billion) far outweigh the aid given the developing
countries ($50 billion). 22 And yet the world's richest nations are refusing to
cut subsidies to their own farmers and remove import tariffs for overseas
producers, i.e., stop measures that ruin the livelihoods of millions of poor
people who rely on farming to survive. The US and EU repeatedly promise to
take down their domestic subsidies and export assistance programs, but fail to
deliver, denying the poorest countries access to the lucrative Western
markets.
Any food aid sold in the local markets is competing with local food producers.
(The same considerations apply also to clothing collected in the West and sent
as aid to the various third-world countries.) This has the same effect as the
dumping of products below cost prices on world and local markets. If, on top
of that, this food aid in kind is the result of surpluses created by agricultural
subsidies in the donor countries, then subsidized food aid in kind is to be
considered as dumping.
Some published comments on free trade:
In 2001 Europe exported 770,000 tonnes of subsidized white sugar to Algeria

and
150,000 tonnes to Nigeria, both natural export markets to African producers
like
Mozambique. But sugar farmers in Mozambique (one of the poorest
countries in the
world) can't compete with subsidized EU sugar. Meanwhile, small farmers in
Europe
don't benefit - traders and retailers are the main beneficiaries of subsidies.
23
Before 1992 Jamaican dairy farmers produced over 25% of the milk
consumed in the
country. After the World Bank had Jamaican import taxes eliminated,
subsidized
powdered milk from the European Union poured in. In 1993, millions of
dollars worth
of local milk had to be dumped, hundreds of cows were slaughtered
prematurely, and
many dairy farms closed down. 23
A new threat to the third world agriculture comes from genetically
engineered (GE) crops which could have a devastating effect. These crops
certainly will give enormous control of the staple foods of the world to a
handful of powerful first world agribusiness companies. People are hungry
either because they do not have access to food production processes, or do
not have enough money to buy food. Do the proponents of genetically
engineered food assume that agribusiness companies will distribute GE food
free to the hungry poor who have no money?
Consumption:
Nature is a source of raw materials. They are not destined for selfish
exploitation by one group of people, but are available to be shared by all
creation. We must accept the fact that they form a closed system that has a
limited carrying capacity. An overuse of renewable resources by a massive,
uncontrollable economic development, which we usually identify with
progress, 19 converts them into non-renewable ones - this is a triumph for
greed and self-interest and a tragedy for the environment.
Consumption has become an overall aim, with the objective to process the
greatest possible amount of natural resources as quickly as possible, and then
(after some use) throw the product onto the waste heap. The faster this
process goes, the more of the natural world is consumed, the higher is the
Gross National Product, the happier we are supposed to be. This is the myth
of our times. We do not see the rising junk, the expanding garbage heaps, the
increasing amount of radioactive refuse. We are estranged from nature which
we use primarily for our own purpose. The West is without any meaningful
ethic of the environment, it has practically no moral direction in the manner
the resources are used.
There is a certain amount of conviction on the part of a lot of people (like the
US commercial establishments) that the well-being of everybody depends on
keeping the industrial economy going, i.e., on keeping the jobs and on
keeping a high rate of production and consumption. Today's policy is to create
a global economy totally controlled by vast, uncontrollable, and socially and
ecologically irresponsible transnational corporations, catering for the world
market. 19 Mass production has become skewed to provide not what is needed by the
customer but what is needed by the manufacturer to maintain or even increase profit.
Overproduction demands overconsumption. Advertising companies fan the flames of

consumerism, creating unbridled consumerism and a throw-away mentality, and various
methods are used to manipulate the customer into buying a new product before the old
one has come to the end of its life:
Demand is created by changes in fashion (such as swinging from fancy frocks

to hooded tops, or from lace-less trainers to sharply pointed shoes, as
advocated in the glossies). The fashion demands that styles must change,
otherwise what will the shops sell and what will the people buy?
Customer is manipulated into buying a new product before the old one had
come to the end of its life. For example, products may have expiry dates
indicating expiry long before the item becomes inedible or unusable, but
there are more sophisticated methods:
If machines break down because some part wears out, the repair and
replacement cost may be, (and frequently is) approximately the same or
even lower than the repair cost. Typical example is the malfunction of the
timer of a microwave. Similar cases are known from the repair of food
mixers, refrigerators, washing machines, heaters, cars, computers, and so
on. The current industry-projected lifespan for personal computers is about
two years! Today, there are over 100 million people using PCs in the U.S.
alone. Since 1997, the country has produced a tidal wave of junked laptops,
monitors, and hard drive, estimated in excess of $300 million. 24 And, in
addition to PCs, 3.2 million tonnes of other high-tech hardware gets tossed
every year. 24
A specific method of stimulating consumer demand is planned (or built-in)
obsolescence: Products are designed to wear out or become outmoded after
rather limited use. The method has great benefits for the producer: The
consumer will buy the product repeatedly. The impact of planned
obsolescence is felt particularly strongly when the cost of bringing the item
to the required level is comparable to the replacement cost. Obsolescence
can also be created by stopping the provision of service parts. For example,
Microsoft by withdrawing customer support for Window 95 and reducing
interoperability for the system, created a greater incentive to buy a more
updated versions of Windows (such as XP).
A type of obsolescence, frequent in computers, consists of the introduction
of new lines of products that do not interoperate (are not compatible) with
older products. The production of the older line may then cease. The new
technology may provide many benefits, but the sale is driven by lack of
support for the product people already own, and by making all new
developments incompatible with it. Example: Norton Internet Security 2006
is designed for Windows XP and 2000 only, and not for the Windows 98, for
which the older Norton Internet Security 2005 applied.
The electronic industry, most notably producers of cell phones and personal
computers, has brought built-in obsolescence to dizzying new heights.
As long as the full environmental impact is not incorporated into the price of
consumer durables, there will be an undue economic incentive to replace
items rather than to repair or to upgrade them. Since continuous replacing
creates waste and pollution, and uses up natural resources, it has to be
avoided. Also, unbridled consumerism and a throw-away mentality have to be
abandoned as quickly as possible, as well as manipulating a customer into
buying a new product before the old one had come to the end of its life.
The mass consumption and rampant consumerism, so typical for the U.S.,
have spread not only to other industrialized nations but succeeded in
penetrating much of the developing world as well. Millions of middle class
people across the globe have adopted lifestyles pioneered in the United
States. 25 But why are we doing all the damage to nature? Edward Goldsmith
claims that this is because our society is committed to economic development
and progress - a process which by its very nature must systematically in-
crease the impact of our economic activities on an environment not capable
of sustaining it. 18 A shorter answer would be that we are degrading nature
(biodiversity) in the name of profit (of large agribusiness corporations making
megabucks). 10
The greatest of the environmental challenges which lie ahead is our need to
adopt sustainable patterns of production and consumption.
Survival Diet:
It is claimed that ten times as many people can survive eating a corn crop as
can survive eating cattle that have been fed on corn. However, the ratio ten
to one appears does not appear to quite right. In 1990, the World Food
Program at Brown University calculated that, if the world harvest over the
previous few years was distributed fairly to all the people of the world, it
could provide an adequate vegetarian diet for 6 billion people. In contrast, a
meat-rich diet could only manage to feed 2.6 billion. The ratio of 2.3 to one
appears to be more realistic than 10 to one. However, even with the smaller
ratio a vegetarian diet seems to be the only ethical response to what is
arguably the world's most urgent social issue. 26
There were 800 million victims of starvation in 2000, between 840 million and 850
million in 2004 (a third of them in sub-Saharan Africa), and the number of people who
die from hunger and malnutrition is still increasing. Many food aid resources were
wasted due to inefficiencies, policy obstacles, and poor targeting, but there could have
been, in the form of a vegetarian diet, enough food to go around.
As to the present situation, available statistics are anything but reassuring:
3.6 billion people are barely getting enough to eat, with more than 1 billion
of them in total abject poverty. 30 In 2002, one quarter of the population of
the world lived on less than one dollar a day in appalling misery. 31
One person dies from hunger and malnutrition every 5 or 6 seconds. 32, 33
Somewhere between 10 and 30 million children die every year of starvation
related diseases. 27 Malnutrition is a factor in at least half of the 10.4
million child deaths which occur every year. 34
There seems to be some cause for concern even in the United States: A
1984 report noted that there has been a 50% increase in poverty among
children since 1960.
As the population grows, the actual number of poor people is rises as well. 35
The rich must live more simply that the poor may simply live.
On one hand people die of hunger, on the other hand, millions of people in
rich countries suffer from overweight and obesity. In 2005, 6 in 10 Americans
were over-weight, more than 1 in 4 obese. 36 Basically, Americans are on average
eating 200 more calories a day than they were in the 1970s.
Compared with the mid-to-late 1970s, American farms are producing 500
more calories of food a day per American. People are managing to pack
away 200 of them . A lot of the rest is being dumped overseas, or wasted,
or burned in the cars as ethanol.
According to the Journal of Preventive Medicine, the average weight of the
Americans increased by 10 pounds during the 1990s, requiring an extra 350
million gallons of jet fuel to fly them around during 2000. That's about 2.4%
of the total volume of jet fuel used domestically that year. 37
It is not surprising that the U.S. is a nation of fat adults: On the average, a
child in the U.S. eats 1,500 peanut butter and jelly sandwiches by the time
they become high school graduates. 38
Official surveys indicate that every year more than 350 billion pounds (160
billion kg) of food is available for human consumption in the United States.
Of that total, nearly 100 billion pounds (45 billion kg) - including fresh
vegetables, fruits, milk, and grain products - are lost to waste by retailers,
restaurants, and consumers. By contrast, the amount of food required to
meet the needs of the hungry is only four billion pounds, according to the
advocacy group Food Not Bombs. 25
The rich are responsible for most of today's environmental damage - they get
richer at the expense of the poor. If the poor are to be fed and housed, and if
the global environment is to be saved, the rich must reduce their economic
growth. This has been an anathema for traditional economists who have
shown singularly little concern for the deterioration of the global
environment.
According to the 1972 Report of the Club of Rome, the high rate of
consumption and pollution of the rich would be impossible for the whole of
the world. This is referred to as the impossibility theorem.
References used:
2. McDonagh Sean, "The Greening of the Church," Geoffrey Chapman,
(1990).
3. Brown Lester R., "State of the World 1996," Norton Co., (1996).
4. Gable Medard, Evan Frisch, "Doing the Right Thing," University Science,
(1991).
5. Loehle Craig, "On the Shoulders of Giants," George Ronald, (1994).
6. McDonagh Sean, "Care of the Earth Moves Higher on the Church
7. National Priorities Project, "The War in Iraq Costs," at:
http://nationalpriorities.org/
8. Inskeep Steve, "Iraq War Costs," NPR, 2004-DEC-16. Online at:
http://www.npr.org/
9. Howarth Miles, "What is the Unitarian Message?" at:
http://www.theopenmind.org.uk/
10.McDonagh Sean, "Johannesburg 2002," at: http://eapi.admu.edu.ph/
11.Carnell Brian, "Latest UN Projections: World Population will Reach 9.1
Billion," http://www.overpopulation.com/
12.McDonagh Sean, "The Cost of Overpopulation," 1994-SEP, at:
http://www.npg.org/
13."Oxfam Briefing Paper," at: http://www.oxfam.org.uk/
15.Berry Thomas, Thomas Clarke, "Befriending the Earth," Twenty-Third
Publications, (1992).
16. McDonagh Sean, "The Death of Life: The Horror of Extinction,"
Columba Press, (2004). Overview, at: http://www.christian-
ecology.org.uk/
17.Goldsmith Edward, "Towards an Economic Worldview," at:
http://www.edwardgoldsmith.com/
18.Goldsmith Edward, "The Way," Themis Books, (1996).
19.Goldsmith Edward, "The Cosmic Covenant," at:
20.Morton James Park, "Religion Cleans Up It's Act: The Renewal of
Spirituality," at: http://www.lapuismagazine.org/
21.Goldsmith Edward, "Re-embedding religion in society, the natural
world and the cosmos," at: http://www.edwardgoldsmith.com/
22. BBC News Online, "At-a-glance Guide. Poor Countries and Trade,"
2005-DEC-13.
23. New Internationalist 353, "Tricks of the Trade," 2003-JAN/FEB. Online
at: http://www.newint.org/
24.Taylor Alan, "Rot on the Landscape," Sunday Herald, 2005-OCT-30.
25.Rizvi Haider, "US Food Waste and Hunger Exist Side by Side," Inter Press
Service, 2004-SEP-04.
26.Monbiot George, "Why Vegans Were Right All Along," Guardian
Unlimited, 2002-DEC-24.
27.Elsis Mark, "Zero Population Growth will Occur Somewhere Between
2020 To 2029," at: http://www.overpopulation.net
28.Kirby Alex, "Can the Planet Feed Us?" BBC News, 2004-NOV-24.
29.McDonagh Sean, "SOURCE," 2004-SEP-15, at: http://www.wervel.be/
30.Cartner George, "Flames of Faith," B&C Press, (2003).
31."Brittons throw away third of food," BBC News, 2005-APR-14.
32.Chapple Christopher, "Hinduism, Jainism, and Ecology. at"
http://environment.harvard.edu/
33.Chatwin Bruce, "Songlines," Picador, (1987)
34.Kirby Alex, "Hungry World 'Must Eat Less Meat'," BBC News, 2004-AUG-
16.
35."At-a-glance Guide. Poor Countries and Trade," BBC News Online, 2005-
DEC-13.
36."Overweight Americans More Now Than Ever," CBS News, 2000-DEC-15.
37."Overweight Americans Cause Airlines to Burn More Fuel and raise Air
Ticket Prices," at: http://www.newstarget.com/
38.Mad Dog, "Weighing in on Obesity. The Mad Dog Weekly,"
http://www.maddogproductions.com/
The impairment of the ecosphere:

The current status and outlook
Sponsored link.
The current status and outlook:
We were given a healthy natural world with clean air and water, fertile soil
and abundance of life. This world was the basic source of all the benefits we
receive and of all the wealth we have. The decisions taken now will
determine in what condition we will pass on this precious heritage to our
children, to what extent will they receive the life-support systems of nature
undamaged. Extensive environmental degradation began long before the
biblical era. Almost every civilization, Chinese, Greek, Roman, Aztec, Hindu
and Buddhist, abused the environment by deforestation and extensive
agriculture, but only we have wounded the life systems of our planet
extensively, on several occasions mortally. This happened since the
emergence of an industrial civilization in Western Europe and its subsequent
spread to almost every part of the world. What is happening in our times is a
change unparalleled in the four and a half billion years of earth's history. 1
The environmental crisis is documented elsewhere in this section. Among the

topics of concern are manifestations of industrial pollution (the greenhouse
effect, the threat to the ozone layer from CFCs, acid rain), general pollution
(of streams, rivers and seas, of the air we breathe), source depletion (soil
erosion, desertification, draining of wetlands, grubbing up of coral reefs, loss
of species), habitat destruction, population explosion (population pressures),
and the development problems. Evidently, we are destroying the objective
conditions that make life possible, and it is we who must find a way to correct
the problems. 2 We must stop countries and corporations that are involved in
plundering the sea, raping forest, polluting the atmosphere, or creating the
chemicals that are poisoning the planet, and take all other necessary actions.
Already in 1947, Henry Fairfield Osborne proposed in his book Our Plundered
Planet 3 that, through human deeds, the world was undergoing grave
ecological devastation. There is little doubt that humans themselves and all
other life forms are going through an ecological crisis. The world needs to be
saved because it is moving in an eco-logically unsustainable path, and there is
no such thing as a sustainable growth any more. Population, food production,
and consumption of nonrenewable natural resources have been increasing
exponentially in the last two centuries. Increasingly in recent decades, human
demands have outstripped the ability of biological systems to renew
themselves. 4 We are rapidly destroying the ecological conditions apart from
which much of life could not exist. 2 Fossil fuels, minerals, and water,
together with four biological systems (croplands, forests, grasslands, and
fisheries) provide all the necessary resources for economy.
The 'human ecological footprint' defines the land area required to provide the
resources and absorb the emissions for the global society. This measure was
exceeded by 20% in 1990. 5 Few realize (or have the courage to say) just how
dire our situation really is, how radical the change must be. 6
We seek to create a man-made technological world, not knowing whether we

are capable of adapting to it, or whether the ecosphere is capable of
sustaining it for a sufficiently long time. 7 We are altering people's aspirations
without providing means for them to be satisfied. This leads to
disillusionment, rise in anti-social practices, rising unemployment, and violent
expression of discontent. 8 Individual motorization and unlimited air travel are
two of the most important examples of non-sustainable developments.
Global car ownership and air travel cannot reach North American or Western
European levels without depleting Earth's natural resources and
catastrophically disrupting its climate and life-supporting systems. 6 The
difference between the developed and the underdeveloped parts of the world
in the use of energy and raw materials is too large to allow the latter to be
brought to the level of the former without completely depleting all the
available resources. This is the reason why the World Bank, the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Trade Organization (WRO) cannot
succeed in their vigorous promotion of neo-liberal economic policies. There
are many examples of the quoted inequality:
According to the State of the World's 2004 Report, the US and Western
European consumers, who constitute only about 12% of the world
population, are responsible for about 60% of consumption of private
consumer goods. By contrast, the people of Latin America and the
Caribbean, whose share in the world population is just 9%, spend only 7% on
non-essential household goods. 9
The world's poorest countries - the 49 least developed ones - have not
shared the growth of world trade. The 646 million people in the top
exporting countries (USA, Germany, Japan, France, UK) have 100 times
more trade than their poor counterparts.
The United States, because of its size, wealth, power, and consumption
habits, is the most destabilizing unit of the vast ecosystem we call Earth. 10
Today, a zone of land which teems with wildlife, diverse plant populations,
and intricate ecological systems is deemed 'undeveloped', the plundering of
the planet by humans is termed 'progress', and the current destructive
discipline of economics is considered 'normal'. Under the entrancement of the
comfort made available, this is an indication of our tendency to regard the
only world we know as normal, to consider the idea of the unlimited
production of goods as means for achieving happiness, and to avoid seeing the
dark side of things. It is the beginning of the deadening of our capacity to
respond to a situation that is becoming economically and socially frightening.
Note that today our laws serve above all the protection of private property,
and one could destroy the living world and make our very species extinct
without violating a single one of the laws that we have enacted. 11
The perception of creation is an important issue in ecological discussions. On

the one hand, if nature is understood as created only to serve human beings,
than exploitation of nature without any limitations may be justified.
However, if nature is understood as having its own value, then it has to be
respected and used properly. In the prevalent view, the human race exists
only in the context of the natural ecosystem of Earth, not as a privileged
super-species given the earth as its inheritance. The human community
cannot survive unless everything else survives. The human being is not a
supreme being but a part of the web of nature, coexisting with other denizens
of the cosmos. His obligation to the natural world must be accentuated. 11 We
must realize that there is a purpose behind every act of creation, and each
species is having its own role to play.
The already serious problems could grow a great deal worse, and that very
fast. We have been given a breathing space, possibly a few decades, to
develop a sustainable way of living. If we squander this time, then we will
have passed the point of no return.
We have to act quickly. Unless we do, human beings and the rest of the
planet's community will be condemned to live amid the ruins of the natural
world. By ruining the bio-systems of the earth we are gambling with the
destiny of the next generation and all succeeding generations. Our children
may be living amid the ruined infrastructures of the industrial world. Also, it
is important not to deal just with physical pollution. There will be no
improvement in the lives of people and the planet unless ethical concerns are
given as much weight as economic, political, and technological ones. The
problems are not simply economic and technological; they are moral and
spiritual as well. 12
Greed, lust, and anger are the causes of mental pollution; disharmony,
conflict, sickness, and degradation of nature are their results. They are the
results of the desire for profit, power, and self-aggrandizement.
There can be no appreciation of our ecological predicament unless we view it

in its totality. 8 If, on the way to be followed, we put our faith in scientific,
technological, and industrial development or progress, it will always serve the
interests of corporations and their political allies. 13 And remember: World
leaders preach the message of sustainable development, but instruct their
negotiators to do trade deals above all else. 90
References used:
1. McCartin Paul, "A Theology of Environment," at:

2. Kaufman Gordon D., "Re-conceiving God and Humanity in Light of
Today's
Ecological Consciousness: A Brief Statement," at:
http://www.crosscurrents.org/
3. Osborne Henry Fairfield, "Our Plundered Planet," Little Brown, (1948).
4. Ardrey, Robert, "African Genesis," Collins, (1963).
Press, (2004). Overview at: http://www.christian-ecology.org.uk/
6. Hicks Roger, "The Plundering of Planet Earth," at:
http://www.spaceship-earth.org/
7. Goldsmith Edward, "The Way," Themis Books, (1996),
8. Ecologist Staff, "A Blueprint for Survival," Penguin, 1973.
9. Rizvi Haider, "US Food Waste and Hunger Exist Side by Side," Inter Press
Service, 2004-SEP-04.
10. McDonagh Sean, "The Cost of Overpopulation," 2004-SEP, at:
http://www.npg.org/
11.Goldsmith Edward, "The Cosmic Covenant," at:
12.McDonagh Sean, "Care of the Earth Moves Higher on the Church
13.Goldsmith Edward, "Towards an Economic Worldview,"
14.McDonagh Sean, "Johannesburg 2002," at: http://eapi.admu.edu.ph/
Collapsed and collapsing civilizations
Sponsored link.
Collapsed civilizations:
It is an old saying that forests precede humanity, deserts follow. In the words
of Charles Birch, it is no accident that the fallen columns and broken statues
of past civilizations often lie on devastated ground. 1 The ruined cities of
North Africa, once flowing with olive oil and honey, lie stagnant in sand. The
Maowu desert of Inner Mongolia over-took the lush pasture land with deer that
Genghis Khan choose for his tomb. When land is misused by greedy and
ignorant people, everything may collapse.
The cause for the sharp decline of the Mayan civilization in the lowlands of
Guatemala was for a long time unknown. Eventually it was found that the
reason was malnutrition, caused by the overexploitation of the rainforest
ecosystem on which the Mayans depended for food, and by overpopulation . 2,3
Internal wars and water shortages were merely contributing factors. For
seventeen centuries the local Mayan population doubled every 400 years,
eventually reaching by 900 CE a density of 200 persons per square kilometer,
which is comparable to that of today's agriculturally advanced societies. Their
civilization suddenly collapsed, the population falling over a few decades to
one-tenth of what it had been at its maximum.
The Carthaginians, Mesopotamians, and many others suffered a similar fate.

The collapse of the civilization that occupied the Euphrates River basin of the
Great Fertile Crescent was different only in that it was caused by extensive
irrigation, introduced without adequate drainage, that eventually led to
salination and water-logging of the soil.
Similar phenomena have been at work quite recently: Countries that have
experienced extensive deforestation, such as China, Bangladesh, Ethiopia,
Sudan, India, Pakistan, and the Sahel region of Africa, have all suffered crop
failures, famine, and devastating floods. 4
Are we today sleepwalking into a very similar situation, ignoring all warnings?
The answer is important, because this time at stake is the whole world.
The above examples concerned cultures that were mainly tribal and rural; the
bulk of the population lived in small villages. Such were the Mayas whose
central economic activity was maize production. In a slash-and-burn
agriculture they would cut down a swath of forest, burn the felled trees and
plants for fertilizer, and then cultivate the plot. Such plot would become
exhausted in two to four years. A similar situation is practiced now in the
rainforests of the Philippines and other countries.
The earth, with its plants and creatures was considered an awesome and
sacred landscape by the Mayans, and it is said that a hunter in Yucatan would
try to appease the god who protected the deer explaining his aggression to his
fallen prey by claiming "I had need". However. the Mayan religion was by our
standards extremely barbaric: Human sacrifice was perpetrated on prisoners,
slaves, and particularly orphans and illegitimate children; the Mayan elite
were obsessed with blood, and blood-letting was carried out to nourish and
propitiate gods, some ceremonies demanding the living heart of the victim.
It might be argued that rapidly destroying the very conditions that make life
possible was peculiar to uncivilized societies. That it could not happen to the
present highly civilized man-oriented urban society, with its hot-dog stands,
neon advertisement, and despoiled landscapes, a society in which man is
given dominion over all things and seeks not unity with nature but conquest. 5
Unfortunately, this would be just wishful thinking designed to provide some
comfort to those interested in maintaining the present status quo. It would be
completely false. This can be easily seen by looking at the salient facts of life
at the beginning of the third millennium CE. We will see that no civilization
has yet set about devouring its own future with such enthusiasm as our own,
and that ongoing human existence is far from being assured. 1
References used:

Press, (1993).
2. Welker Glenn, "Mayan Civilization," at: http://www.indians.org/
3. Culbert T. Patrick & Don S. Rice (Eds.), "Precolumbian Population
History in the Maya Lowlands," University of New Mexico Press, (1990).
5. McHarg Ian L., "The Plight," In Helferich Harold W. (Ed.), "The
Environmental Crisis," Yale University Press, (1970).
Site navigation:
Predictions, skepticism, victims,

trends
Sponsored link.
Predictions of the effects of global warming:
Nobody is certain what will happen next. Deforestation, drainage of wetlands,

pollution of ground waters and rivers, erosion and desertification of
agricultural lands, global climate change? The prognosis is depressing. Some
environmental consequences of the greenhouse effect and of the
accompanying global warming are already with us; other are predictable with
high probability:
We know that average global surface temperatures have risen by 1.0oF (0.6oC)
in the last 140 years, and scientists expect that they could rise further 1.0oF
to 4.5oF (0.6 to 2.5oC) in the next 50 years. Possible impacts include:
Climate change may kill off traditional crops.

Scientists have observed a wide range of changes in the migration patterns
of birds, fish and turtles, apparently in response to warming which has
already taken place.
Since 1970, mean ocean surface temperatures worldwide have risen about
0.9oF (0.5oC). Global air temperatures have also inched up about the same
amount.
The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, methane,
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other greenhouse gases is expected to
increase by 30% during the next 50 years. 1
The ozone layer that protects humans and other living things from ultra-
violet radiation is already being rapidly depleted and the process
continues. 2
Ocean circulation has been observed to be slowing.
Evaporation will increase as the climate warms up. Weather patterns may
change producing not only an increase in average global precipitation but
also heat waves and violent storms. Among the predicted results of
protracted global warming were violent and frequent weather disturbances,
including hurricanes, cyclones, and tornados. The storms are already getting
stronger, and they last longer.
Even relatively small increases in sea temperature may have dramatic
impact on wild-life due to speeded up depletion of the krill and of the tiny
plankton organisms that form the basis of the food web in the oceans
(leading, for example, to the decline in the breeding of sea birds deprived
of food.)
Coral atolls in the Pacific and Indian Ocean are slowly showing increased
erosion.
A temperature increase of a few degrees is all that is needed to bring about
the melting of the polar ice caps. It was thought that the entire Greenland
ice sheet could melt in about 1,000 years, but the latest evidence suggests
that it could happen much sooner - a comprehensive analysis found that the
amount of ice dumped into the Atlantic Ocean has doubled in the last five
years. 3 The melting of the ice sheets of Greenland and the Antarctica
would cause inundation of most of the world's coastal cities and farms. It is
claimed that just the complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet would
raise global sea levels by about 23 feet (7 m)! 3 In 1996, Green-land was
losing about 100 cubic km per year in mass from its ice sheet, and the loss
had increased in 2005 to about 220 cubic km.
Even if the rise in sea levels is less dramatic, low-lying lands will be
flooded. Some coastal areas may become uninhabitable. Just another 20
inches of sea-level rise by 2100 will make most atolls uninhabitable. The
inhabitants of the Marshall Islands, Kiribati (Gilbert and Ellice), the
Tokelaus, the Tuomotus, Maledives, etc. will have to move somewhere else.
Bangladesh will lose more than half it's rice-growing land. If large ice sheets
of Greenland and Antarctica move into the sea, most of the world's coastal
cities and farms will be inundated.
The icy homeland of the arctic natives, such as the Inuit, is melting. This
threatens the their hunting culture. While many species have been able to
adapt to new conditions by moving further towards the poles, this option is
not available to such animals as polar bears, seals and walruses, whose
habitat is disappearing with the melting of Arctic sea ice.
If the climate change materializes to the predicted extent, it will devastate
the earth's productivity. New research in Australia suggests that the amount
of water reaching the rivers will decline by up to four times as fast as the
percentage reduction of rainfall in dry areas. This, alongside the
disappearance of the glaciers, spells the end of agriculture based on
irrigation. 4
Global warming may reduce mountain snow pack on which the western
states in the US depend for much of their water storage and supply. Left
unchecked, global warming would cause unprecedented disruption of the
already strained water resources that are central to West Coast economics.
5
Nobody can predict what the probable impact of climate change will be on
food sup-plies. Only one thing seems certain: The developing countries that
are poor and have made no contribution to the climate problem would
suffer most.
A product of the burning of coal, which is immediately objected to, is smog.

As discussed by Sean McDonagh, 6 in industrial states such as the United
States, England, Germany, and Japan, the preferred way of combating smog
was building taller smoke stacks. This measure helps reduce the smog in the
vicinity of the plant, but results in acid rain that affects lakes, forests, and
farmlands in countries hundreds of miles away. Thousands of freshwater lakes
in Canada and Scandinavia have become so acidic that all life-forms are dying.
Canadian scientists estimated that 4.4 million tonnes of acid reaching eastern
Canada originated in the US. In reply, the Reagan administration insisted on
more scientific studies before limiting the emissions from heavy industries and
coal burning utilities. 6 Note that in 1984, the Thatcher and Reagan
governments refused to sign an agreement on the reduction of the emission of
Sulphur dioxide (by 30% over the next 5 years) which is the constituent of acid
rain causing the problems. 6 The story has a familiar ring to it.
As to the burning of coal itself, Montana and Wyoming together have more
energy in coal reserves than Saudi Arabia has in oil reserves. Most of the coal
is used to produce electricity via coal-fired steam turbines operating at 25%
efficiency. A pound of coal releases about 3.5 pounds of CO2 into the
atmosphere. This makes coal the dirtiest resource in terms of acid rain,
regional air pollution, and global warming. Like the U.S., China, too, has huge
coal deposits and is predicted to double its coal production in order to build
up its industrial capacity. On the plus side is that China signed onto the
Marrakesh Accord (the follow-on to the Kyoto protocol), according to which
the industrial nations must, on average, decrease their greenhouse gas
emissions to 7% below the 1990 levels by the year 2012; the U.S. did not
participate in the Marrakesh Accord!
Unfortunately, carbon dioxide (CO2) is well mixed in the Earth's atmosphere.

That is, the level of CO2 everywhere on the planet is influenced by each
country's CO2 emissions. One country could drastically lower its emissions, and
have little effect on the main greenhouse gas everywhere. Only a joint effort
by the countries producing major emissions would have a significant impact
on greenhouse gas levels.
Skepticism towards global warming:
There is general unwillingness to tackle global warming, to face this enormous

environmental challenge. There are, of course, still those who deny that any
warming is taking place, and/or who maintain that global warming can be
explained by already well known natural phenomena. Not surprisingly, few of
them are climatologists, and fewer still are climatologists who are not funded
by the fossil fuel industry.
Outside the political institutions the ranks of the global-warming skeptics seem to be
growing thinner:
In 1995, the IPCC said that "the balance of evidence suggests that there is a
discernible human influence on global climate" They strengthened this
claim in 2001 to "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the
warming observed over the past 50 years is attributable to human
activities." 'Balance of evidence' does not mean an unambiguous proof, but
the evidence is getting stronger and stronger.
According to Wikipedia, the current scientific opinion on climate change is
that recent warming is largely human caused. This fact is denied by the US
government.
According to the former US President Bill Clinton, there is no longer any
serious doubt that climate change is real, accelerating, and caused by
human activities.
Geof Jenkins, of the UK Met Office, said recently:
"Over the last few decades there's been much more evidence for the human
influence on climate. We reached the point where it's only by including human
activity that we can explain what's happening."
We cannot yet say that the higher temperatures we are getting are the result
of global warming. What we can say is that they correspond to the predictions
made by climate scientists.
Who are victimized by global warming?
With about 4% of the world's population, the U.S. use about a quarter of
world's energy. Each U.S. inhabitant uses twice the energy of a Western
European, 12 times that of a resident of China, 33 times more than a citizen
of India, and 147 times that of a Bangladeshi. While the U.S. and other
industrialized countries produce most of the CO2 and other greenhouse gases,
the effects of global warming are felt worldwide, most dramatically among
the fringe cultures and species of the world whose homelands are degraded or
destroyed.
Some of the regions hardest hit by global warming will be in the developing
nations of the tropics. Since the damage is primarily the result of gas
emissions by the rich nations, this is of global justice concern. Among the big
losers will be the inhabitants of tropical islands who could lose their homes to
the rising seas.
The targets set in the Kyoto Protocol are merely scratching the surface of the
problem. The aim is to reduce emissions from industrialized nations only by
around 5%, whereas the consensus among many climate scientists is that in
order to avoid the worst consequences of global warming, emissions cuts in
the order of 60% across the board are needed. The 60% reduction was
effectively rejected by the British Government - the US Government refused
to accept even a modest 5% reduction by signing up to the Kyoto Protocol.
Recent trends:
Industrial countries cut their overall emissions by about 3% from 1990 to 2000.
However, even this minimal cut happened because a sharp decrease in
emissions from the collapsing economies of former Soviet countries masked an
8% rise among rich countries. In the words of Jeffrey Kluger:
"When it comes to the atmosphere, there is no such thing as creative
accounting. If the world's population won't bring their climate ledger back
into balance, the climate will surely do it for them." 7
Unfortunately, the political processes are not moving at a speed to satisfy

scientists who want to see large cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. It is
unfortunate that the climate resembles a speeding train that takes a long
time to slow down, i.e., if we move quickly to clean energy, stop deforesting
the tropics, and move to more sustainable agriculture, the effect will not be
immediate.
References used:
1. McDonagh Sean, "Johannesburg 2002,"

http://eapi.admu.edu.ph/eapr003/sean.htm
2. Goldsmith Edward, "The Way," Themis Books, (1996),
3. Rincon Paul, "Greenland ice swells ocean rise," BBC News, 2006-FEB-16.
4. Monbiot George, "Sleeping to Extinction," The Guardian, 2003-AUG-12.
MAY, at:
http://www.climatesolutions.org
7. Kluger Jeffrey, "Evidence is Mounting that Human Activity is Helping
Fuel These
Monster Hurricanes," Time, 2005-OCT-03.
Groups that are actively involved.
Sponsored link.
Overview:
To avert a catastrophe on an unimaginable scale, humanity must realize that
its approach to life and progress must change, and then change it. This will
not be done by politicians, technocrats, economists, or tame scientists in the
pay of giant international organizations. These people consider the necessary
changes to be against their short-sighted and short-term interests. Just
consider what EXXON, probably the biggest of the international companies,
had to say in one of its leaflets:
"Exxon Mobil Corporation is committed to being the world's premier petroleum

and petrochemical company. To that end, we must continuously achieve
financial and operating results while adhering to the highest standards of
business conduct. These unwavering expectations provide the foundation for
our commitments to those with whom we interact. We are committed to
enhancing the long-term value of the investment dollars en-trusted to us by
our shareholders. By running the business profitably and responsibly we
expect our shareholders to be rewarded with superior returns. ... This
commitment drives the management of our company."
How many words on respecting nature does this statement contain?
Groups actively involved in environmental protection:
If not tame scientists, then who should take their place? There is an
impressive array of institutions and individuals who are aware that the
situation is bad, and are willing to do their best in trying to remedy it.
Growing awareness of environmental problems during the 1960s and 1970s led
to the formation of many active groups. Major environmental disasters, such
as the release of deadly gas from the Union Carbide plant at Bhopal, and the
Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster, have placed ecological issues firmly on
the political agenda of most countries.
There is the Club of Rome, a global think tank, which is a non-profit, non-
governmental organization. It brings together scientists, economists,
businessmen, international high civil servants, heads of state, and former
heads of state, who are convinced that the future of humankind is not
determined once and for all, and that each human being can contribute to
the improvement of our societies.
The analyses of the available scientific, technical, and socio-economic
information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced
climate change are done by the International Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). It incorporates the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and
the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). The Panel collates
evidence relevant for the understanding of climate change, and works out
options for the mitigation of climate change effects.
There is the Friends of the Earth movement (part of the Stop Climate
Chaos coalition), which inspires solutions to environmental problems.
Among other institutions with an ecology program are the National
Resource Defense Council, the Climate Change Section from the United
Nations Environment Program, and the Centre for Science and Environment
(based in Delhi).
There are five UN-backed biodiversity related treaties: CBD, CITES, CMS,
Ramsar, and WHC.
The World Conferences on Climate Change and Global Warming have staged
the Conferences of the Parties to the Convention (COP): COP1 in Berlin,
COP2 in Geneva, COP3 in Kyoto (conference and protocol), COP4 in Buenos
Ayres, COP5 in Geneva, COP6 in The Hague/Bonn, COP7 in Marrakech, COP8
in Delhi, COP9 in Milan, COP10 in Buenos Ayres, and COP11 in Montreal. The
best known is the Kyoto conference and protocol, which produced the
Kyoto Protocol (an international treaty on climate change setting targets
for industrial countries to cut their green-house gas emissions) - only two
major countries currently oppose the Kyoto Treaty: The USA (the country
responsible for about a quarter of the world's greenhouse gas emissions) and
Australia. The best-attended meeting was COP11 in Montreal, that was
attended by almost 10,000 delegates from more than 180 nations.
Note that US, Australia, China, India, Japan, and South Korea created, as an
alternative to COP3 Kyoto, the Asia-Pacific climate pact aimed at reducing
greenhouse gas emissions through technology and voluntary partnership.
The pact is toothless, not considering any mandatory reduction targets in
order to avoid any risk of economic pain. It has also been criticized as being
short in detail. The first meeting of the pact, scheduled to take place in
November, 2005 in Australia, has been postponed.
It is claimed that big business is beginning to play an important role in
developing principles and practices for environmentally sensitive cost
accounting. So far, there is little proof of that, business aims are contrary
to those of the environmentalists.
There are newspapers, such as the Guardian that publishes special reports
on climate change, and magazines, such as The Ecologist, that are active in
the ecology field.
Extensive information on ecology is provided on the Internet. Among the
important sources are:
The OneWorld.net brings together more than 1,500 organizations from
across the globe.
The Third World Network (TWN) has many articles providing a very critical
look at the role of big business and of such countries as the US.
The MediaChannel.org provides a critical look at how environmental issues
are covered (or not covered) by the media around the world, and also
serves as a link to a large collection of media related articles.
The Global Issues web-site by Anup Shah looks into biodiversity, global
environmental issues, and provides links to external web sites, articles,
reports, and analyses.
An apparent stealth group:
The Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (CREA) states that it:
"... is committed to preserving Americas natural resources, air, water, and
scenic beauty for future generations. CREA's mission is to foster
environmental protection by promoting fair, community-based solutions to
environmental challenges, highlighting Republican environmental
accomplishments and building on our Republican tradition of conservation."
Unfortunately, their main goals appear to be to:
Ridicule what they refer to as "excessive and intolerant" environmental

groups who are critical of the Republican administration's efforts on the
environment, and
Advertise the efforts made by Republicans to help the environment.
Give priority to the short-term preservation of jobs at the expense of long
term protection of the environment.
Site navigation:

>Environment >here

>Environment >here
Copyright 2006 by Vladimir Tomek

Originally posted: 2006-JUN-25
Latest update: 2006-NOV-12
Author: Vladimir Tomek. Addition of CREA by B.A. Robinson
Global warming and other environmental concerns
Fighting global warming in the courts
Sponsored link.
Some environmentalists are challenging polluting companies and governments
in the courts. These cases are difficult to prosecute. They rarely win large
settlements. It is difficult to prove a cause and effect relationship between a
single company's pollution and specific damage to the environment or to
people's health. However, they are may be laying the groundwork for what
may be major successes in the future. This is somewhat reminiscent of the
early cases against tobacco companies and asbestos manufacturers. They did
not succeed initially, but have since returned massive settlements. Even if not
successful, court cases keep the matter before the public and result in
pressure on politicians.
Court cases have had a more successful track record when they claim that
existing regulations were not being properly enforced by the government.
Peter Roderick, co-director of Climate Justice Program in London, UK, said:
"Judges are finally starting to accept what scientists have long said: that
greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate change and need to be
reduced."
Eric Posner, a law professor from the University of Chicago wrote a paper
titled "Climate Change and International Human Rights Litigation: A Critical
Appraisal." He said:
"The main purpose of litigation may not be to persuade courts to determine

greenhouse gas emission policy, but to attract public attention and pressure
governments to reach political solutions, including treaties and domestic law."
The Associated Press reported:
"Hari Osofsky, an assistant professor at the University of Oregon School of

Law, said it's important to remember that such litigation is still in its early
stages, and that most of it is seeking regulatory action, not damages."
Some examples:
Australia:
2004: A Victoria state court ruled that the state minister for planning had
violated a law by telling an expert panel to ignore global warming
implications when it investigated a proposal to enlarge a coal mine. The
panel was required to reconsider their decision; the expansion was later
approved.
2006: A New South Wales court ruled that Centennial Hunter Proprietary
Ltd. had to evaluate all possible effects of greenhouse emission from the
mining operation at Anvil Hill Project mine to the final use by the
customer. Again, the project was approved.
2007: A second case involving Anvil Hill Project mine is currently
appealing a government decision that the mine does not come under the
jurisdiction of Australia's Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act of 1999. That act is intended to protect world heritage
sites, such as the Great Barrier Reef and native species of plants and
animals.
Sponsored link:
Canada:
2007: Canada signed the Kyoto Accord but successive Liberal and
Conservative governments have largely ignored their obligations. The
country has fallen far short of its mandatory maximum CO2 emission
levels. Friends of the Earth Canada have initiated a lawsuit claiming that
the federal government has violating Canadian law
United States: All efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emission in the U.S. are
of great importance because the U.S. and China are the largest polluters in
the world.
2006: The state of California is suing Chrysler, Ford, General Motors,
Honda, Nissan, and Toyota, claiming that their vehicles are contributing to
global warming. They allege that their vehicles belch 318 million tons (289
metric tonnes) of CO2 each year into the atmosphere. They claim that this
damages the coast line, water supply, and increases maintenance costs.
2007: By its usual 5 to 4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on its first
global warming case. On APR-02 they determined that greenhouse gasses
from motor vehicles are an air pollutant. They told the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to reconsider its 2003 refusal to regulate CO2 and other
emissions from new cars and trucks. Martha Coakley, Attorney General of
Massachusetts said: "As a result of today's landmark ruling, EPA can no
longer hide behind the fiction that it lacks any regulatory authority to
address the problem of global warming." The block of four strict
constructionist judges -- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel
Alito, Scalia, and Thomas -- all dissented. 2 More information
2007: Eight states -- California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New
York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin -- have jointed New York City
in a joint lawsuit against five large power companies. The plaintiffs charge
that carbon dioxide from electric generating plants is contributing to
global warming. Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said: "Global warming
is an important issue for our country, for our state and for our world. It
can have enormous consequences.'' Miller claims that power plants owned
by the defendants -- American Power Company, The Southern Company,
the Tennessee Valley Authority, Xcel Energy, and Cinergy Corporation --
generate over 650 million tons of CO2 yearly. This is about 25% of the total
released by America's power plants. He said that power plants account for
40 percent of the country's total carbon dioxide emissions. The plaintiffs
are asking for a federal court order that would require the companies to
reduce emissions by 1 to 3% each year. 3
2007: A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the state of California.
It claimed that the car emissions were responsible for a significant part of
global warming. This is causing increased flooding and other disasters.
This forces the state to spend millions of dollars on repairs. California
sued Chrysler, Ford, General Motors and the U.S. subsidiaries of Honda,
Nissan and Toyota.
The judge ruled that it is impossible for the court to determine to what
extent carmakers were responsible for global warming and the damages
that it causes. Other industries, animals and other natural sources are
responsible for part of the problem. 4
2007: Eleven states and several environmental groups are attempting to
force the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to recompute its
vehicle mileage standards, and to include CO2 emissions in the
calculations.
An group representing 155,000 Inuits living in Arctic regions in Canada,
Alaska, Russia and Greenland presented a petition to the 34-nation Inter-
American Commission on Human Rights. They claim that CO2 emissions
within the United States are a major cause of global warming, and that
this should be considered a human-rights violation. Eric Posner of the
University of Chicago said:
"If a plausible claim can be made that the emission of greenhouse gases
violates human rights, and that these human rights are embodied in treaty
or customary international law, then American courts may award damages
to the victims." 1
References used:
1. Thomas Wagner, "Battle over climate change is being fought in world's

courts," The Associated Press, 2007-SEP-22, at:
http://www.usatoday.com/
2. James Vicini, "Court rules against Bush in global warming case,"
Reuters, 2007-APR-02, at: http://www.reuters.com/
3. Todd Dorman, "Iowa joins lawsuit battling global warming," Quad-City
Times, 2007-JUL-21, at: http://www.qctimes.com.
4. Paul Elias, "Judge tosses Calif global warming suit," Quad-City Times,
2007-SEP-18, at: http://www.qctimes.com/
The Environmental Protection

Agency,
global warming & the U.S. Supreme
Court
Sponsored link.
Background information:
Congress has repeatedly considered legislation to control greenhouse gas

emissions, but has yet to pass a bill. 1
President Bush supported the regulation of greenhouse gasses during his year
2000 campaign. Once elected, he repudiated his position and also withdrew
his support for the Kyoto Protocol. He has since repeatedly rejected requests
by environmental advocacy groups and some Congressional lawmakers to
regulate greenhouse emissions. He favors reduction in harmful gasses through
voluntary actions and the development of new technologies. 2,3
The Republican Administration argued that CO2 cannot be regarded a
dangerous pollutant under the Clean Air Act. It acts as food for all of the plant
life in the world. Even if it were a pollutant, they believe that the EPA does
not have the legal authorization to regulate it. In an application to the U.S.
Supreme Court, they wrote that the EPA should not be required to:
"...embark on the extraordinarily complex and scientifically uncertain task of

addressing the global issue of greenhouse gas emissions."
On the order of 50% of all of the greenhouse gases come from cars and trucks.
About 40% comes from gas and coal fired electrical power plants.
A petition and a lawsuit:
In 1999, a group of state Attorneys General petitioned the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) to establish rules concerning carbon dioxide (CO2)
emission. They believe that CO2 and other chemicals emitted by gas-powered
vehicles should be treated as unhealthy pollutants.
The EPA denied their petition in 2003-AUG. They and a number of

environmental advocacy groups then sued the EPA, claiming that:
"The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to take certain actions when it determines
that a pollutant may 'cause or contribute to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare'."
The states of California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New

Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and
Washington were involved. They were joined by a number of cities including
Baltimore, New York City and Washington D.C. Also involved is the Pacific
island of America Samoa, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Greenpeace, the
Sierra Club, and Friends of the Earth.
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected the
case by a 2 to 1 verdict on 2005-JUL. The three judges issued three separate
rulings. Those who rejected the petition concentrated mainly on the scientific
merits of global warming evidence, but did not deal directly with whether the
EPA had the authority to regulate CO2 emission. One judge wrote that the
plaintiffs had not proven harm; the other said that the EPA is not obligated to
regulate CO2 even if it had the power to do do. The single judge who agreed
with the plaintiffs wrote an opinion critical of the scientific case but said that
the EPA did have the power to control emissions.
Implications of the lawsuit:

Unfortunately, carbon dioxide (CO2) is well mixed in the Earth's atmosphere.
That is, the level of CO2 everywhere on the planet is influenced by each
country's CO2 emissions. The United States, or any other single country, could
drastically lower its emissions, and have little resulting effect on the main
greenhouse gas everywhere. Only a joint effort by the countries producing
major emissions would have a major impact on reducing greenhouse gas
levels. The EPA could install stringent controls on the major American
pollutant sources -- electrical generation and transportation -- and still end up
with emissions above levels damaging to the environment.
On 2006-JUN-26, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of this

case. It will hear arguments during its 2006-Fall term which begins in October.
The Court will probably reject the appeal. It would be illogical for the court
to rule that Congress had intended the Clean Air Act to control greenhouse
gas emissions when the House and Senate have repeatedly rejected bills that
would control emissions in recent years.
The plaintiffs' petition states, in part:
"Delay has serious potential consequences. Given that air pollutants

associated with climate change are accumulating in the atmosphere at an
alarming rate, the window of opportunity in which we can mitigate the
dangers of climate change is rapidly closing."
David Bookbinder, an attorney for the Sierra Club -- one of the environmental
groups involved in the appeal -- said:
"This is going to be the first major statement by the Supreme Court on climate
change...This is the whole ball of wax."
Sen. Jim Jeffords (D-VT) said
"It is encouraging that the high court feels this case needs to be reviewed. It
is high time to stop relying on technicalities and finger pointing to avoid
action on climate change."
Sponsored link
California to take independent action:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) reached an agreement with state

Democrats at the end of 2006-AUG to impose a limit on greenhouse gas
emissions including those from industrial plants. The target would have
California reduce its CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gasses by about 25%
by the year 2020. This would be the first state to do so. 4
Further developments on the lawsuit before the Supreme Court:
On 2006-AUG-31, Arizona and four other states joined the 13 other states
already sponsoring the lawsuit before the Supreme Court. A lawyer for the
state of Arizona indicated that it has joined the case in order to gain the
authority to impose new "clean-car" restrictions on cars sold in the state.
Assistant Attorney General Joe Mikitish said:
"It clearly is a state's-rights issue that we should have the authority to adopt
such a program if we are going to control and reduce the amount of climate-
change pollutants coming from motor vehicles in the state."
Both the EPA and the Appeals Court earlier quoted conclusions by the
National Research Council in 2001 that the link between greenhouse-gas
emissions and global warming cannot be unequivocally proved. Eighteen
scientists filed a brief on 2006-AUG-31 stating that the EPA misrepresented
the academy's conclusions "by selectively quoting statements about
uncertainty while ignoring statements of certainty and near-certainty." The
scientists quoted the academy report as saying "it is virtually certain" that
human-caused greenhouse-gas emissions are causing global climate change. 5
The Supreme Court heard arguments on 2006-NOV-29. It is the first time the
country's highest court has heard a case relating to climate change. In his
filing to the court, the Massachusetts attorney general, Thomas Reilly, said:
"Global warming is the most pressing environmental issue of our time and the
decision by the court on this case will make a deep and lasting impact for
generations to come. Delay has serious potential implications. Given that air
pollutants associated with climate change are accumulating in the
atmosphere at an alarming rate, the window of opportunity in which we can
mitigate the dangers posed by climate change is rapidly closing." 6
The papers filed by the Bush administration with the Supreme Court argued
that the EPA should not be required to "embark on the extraordinarily
complex and scientifically uncertain task of addressing the global issue of
greenhouse gas emissions" when there were other ways to tackle climate
change. 6
The Supreme Court rules:
By its usual 5 to 4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on its first global
warming case. On APR-02 they determined that greenhouse gasses from motor
vehicles are an air pollutant. They told the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency to reconsider its 2003 refusal to regulate CO2 and other emissions from
new cars and trucks. Martha Coakley, Attorney General of Massachusetts said:
"As a result of today's landmark ruling, EPA can no longer hide behind the
fiction that it lacks any regulatory authority to address the problem of global
warming."
The Supreme Court's block of four strict constructionist judges -- Chief Justice
John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Scalia, and Thomas -- all dissented. 7
References used:
The following information source was used to prepare and update the above
essay. The hyperlink is not necessarily still active today.
1. Iain Murray, "Taking a molecule to court," The American Spectator,

2006-JUL-07 at: http://www.spectator.org/
2. "Supreme Court takes on global warming. Case over emissions caps sets
up key environmental ruling," Associated Press, 2006-JUN-26, at:
http://www.cnn.com/
3. J.R. Pegg, "U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Global Warming Case,"
Environment News Service, 2006-JUN-27, at: http://www.ens-
newswire.com/
4. "Greenhouse gas emissions targeted," The Toronto Star, 2006-AUG-31,
Page A7.
5. Tony Davis, "Arizona wants greenhouse-emission authority," Arizona
Daily Star, Tucson AZ, 2006-SEP-01, at:
http://www.romingerlegal.com/
6. Andrew Buncombe, "Bush faces legal action over global warming,"
Independent- London, 2006-NOV-29, at:
http://www.romingerlegal.com/
7. James Vicini, "Court rules against Bush in global warming case,"
Reuters, 2007-APR-02, at: http://www.reuters.com/
Global warming and other environmental issues
2007 Prospects for Congressional

harmony
Note:
The following text is an editorial published by the New York Times on 2007-
JAN-01 titled "Environmental Harmony."
Environmental Harmony:
The long history of Congressional bipartisan cooperation on environmental

issues dating back to Richard Nixon has been seriously challenged only twice.
The first time was in 1995, when the Gingrich Republicans swept into
Washington determined to roll back environmental laws, a threat averted by
President Bill Clintons veto pen and the exertions of a group of moderate
Republicans. The second challenge occurred during the Congress that has now
thankfully drawn to a close.
The Democrats return to power in both houses has raised hopes that some of
the old cooperative spirit can be restored and progress made on vital matters
like global warming, oil dependency, national parks and threatened wetlands.
Environmentalists in the House will certainly have more time to work on
positive legislation, since they will no longer have to play defense against
Richard Pombo, the California Republican who produced a stream of
destructive schemes to open up protected public lands for commercial
exploitation, rescind a longstanding moratorium on offshore drilling and
undermine the Endangered Species Act. Mr. Pombo has been ushered into
well-deserved retirement by California voters.
On the Senate side, there have been striking changes in leadership. Barbara
Boxer, who cares about global warming, replaces James Inhofe, who doesnt,
as head of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Jeff Bingaman, who
emphasizes conservation as the appropriate response to oil dependency,
replaces Pete Domenici, who tends to favor greater production of Americas
dwindling supplies of oil and natural gas, as chairman of the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee.
Although hell need Mr. Domenicis help, Mr. Bingaman will almost certainly
make a major push for new energy legislation, based on proposals that
already have broad bipartisan support and would offer a menu of loans, direct
subsidies and tax breaks to encourage the production of fuel-efficient cars as
well as alternatives to gasoline.
The main legislative responsibility for shaping a national policy on warming

falls to Ms. Boxer, who has promised early consideration of various measures
aimed at imposing mandatory limits on carbon dioxide emissions. Absent any
support whatsoever from the White House and the Republican leadership,
these measures have languished for years even as the problem has grown
steadily worse.
Our own wish list would include several other measures, all within reach. One
would be to amend the Clean Air Act to require meaningful reductions in
mercury from power plants, overriding the administrations weak regulations.
Another would provide robust financing for the national parks.
Finally, the new Congress needs to amend the Clean Water Act to clear up the
confusion caused by several court decisions involving federal protection of
wetlands. It should assert, in unmistakable terms, that the act protects all the
waters of the United States, large and small, permanent or seasonal,
navigable or isolated.
Notice:
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. sec 107: The news items contained above are provided
without profit by the Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance, Box 27026, Kingston ON
Canada K7M 8W5 and are intended to be available to anyone interested in the topics
included, for educational purposes only. Any editor, author, Webmaster, writer, publisher,
news service, etc. that objects to being part of this listing may request that this essay and
any future works be excluded. We will also attempt to delete previous entries from the same
source.

Global Warming

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global Warming

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global warming & other

On 1992-NOV-18, over 1,500 members of national, regional, and international science

About the main author of this section:

Pollution data and trends;

The polluted environment and global warming:

In the US, according to an article in the Guardian of 2006-FEB-09, George

Possible linkage of past global species extinctions with C0 2 level:

100 M years: Cenomanian/Turonian

However, there is no convincing geological evidence of repeated asteroid

The correlation between CO2 variations and extinctions is extremely close.

1. Kirby Alex: "Climate Change: Uncharted Waters?" BBC News, 2004-DEC-

Pollution caused by land travel,

Notes on land travel:

A substantial contribution to greenhouse gas emission comes from transport.

It is particularly worrying that, in the US, high-horsepower automobiles and

Notes on air travel:

Notes on food transport:

The price of food is disguising externalized cost - damage to the environment,

1. Venkat Kumar, "Global Trade - Global Warming," at:

Home page > Science/religion > Environment > here

Home >Christianity >Bible >Inerrancy >Harmony >Science/religion

Home >Religious info. >Inerrancy >Harmony >Science/religion

Copyright 2006 by Vladimir Tomek

Degeneration of forests, water, soil;

Degeneration of water supplies:

Degeneration of water supplies:

The deserts are expanding in sub-Saharan Africa, south-central Asia, Australia,

Land is a finite resource, so the present exploitative approach to it cannot

Not everybody has contributed to the depletion of natural resources to the

At present rates of consumption we also have to face the exhaustion of known

According to a study by the University of Arizona Garbage Project, Americans

Cutting food waste would go a long way toward reducing serious

It takes on average 17 trees to make a ton of paper. This means that

Figures from an Internet mail filtering company, MessageLabs, show that

Our generation of waste products should be a constant reminder that the

1. Lebedev Anatoly, "Recycling our Forests?" at: http://www.the-

The impairment of the ecosphere:

Herds of domesticated animals replace interrelated animal species.

At this moment we are going through an extinction spasm, caused mainly by

Our generation is extinguishing life-forms in a rather off-hand manner.

Notes on animals and birds:

"Before laying her egg in a caterpillar or a grasshopper or a bee, a female

Two examples are:

A global study published in Nature (which took 10 years to complete)

Most of the problems associated with over-fishing have been caused by

Plant life is absolutely dependent on a thin, fragile layer of topsoil, and it is

According to a report by Compassion in World Farming:

For further comments see the paragraph Survival Diet.

"With about 840 million people under-nourished or lacking a secure food

Recent projections by the International Food Policy Research Centre (IFPRI)

1. McDonagh Sean, "Johannesburg 2002," at: http://eapi.admu.edu.ph/

Home page > Science/religion > Environment > here

Home >Christianity >Bible >Inerrancy >Harmony >Science/religion

Home >Religious info. >Inerrancy >Harmony >Science/religion

Copyright 2006 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

The impairment of the ecosphere

Such facts and figures are a harrowing indictment of our society.

Overpopulation is a ratio of two components: Population and resource. As to

Overwhelmed water treatment systems;

To achieve zero population growth in the twenty-first century even in the

The current situation is well demonstrated on the population of the

Unless we solve the problem of overpopulation, all future generations will be

Trade and Economy: