Birdwatching "not environmentally friendly" (1 Viewer)

[CJC]

As for ecotourism - wouldn't it be great if the poorer countries could find more ways of making money out of national parks that didn't involve people flying to visit them?

For instance, there is a huge appetite in the west for films, TV programmes, photos, websites, books about the worlds' wilderness places - and yet at present it's western companies that are making much of the money from these. I think it would be great to see non-western countries producing more of this content themselves and selling it to the west.

James

And if all that money I spend on coffee went to the Columbian farmers they might be happy growing a legal drug instead of an illegal one.

Seriously though, There was a feature on 60 Minutes last night about efforts to save the Mara River in Kenya and Tanzania. The river is drying up because of human development. This endangers wildlife. In one area, the government is trying to forcibly eject legal settlers by, among other things, burning their houses. The settlers are digging in their heels and fighting back. In another area, the Masai are being paid from tourist revenue to allow their land to be managed by a nonprofit land conservancy. Doesn't solve the problem of over population but seems like a more effective direction.

 

[Argon55]

You are welcome to your opinion, that is your right. I, however, naturally would question who is the more naïve in this respect, you seem to believe all the poorer countries in the World will be in the same position as a few rich nations and thus have the luxury of resources to sit back and continue to actively protect the national parks and environment regardless of local pressures by populations that are actually more interested in surviving than gazing upon the beauties of nature.

Not in the least. I believe that we HAVE to transfer resources from the West to less developed countries. These resources should mainly be used to prevent further deforestation and protect existing forest (including reserves).

For your information, some of the localities that you quote, I have spent months visiting, along with extensive trips throughout many parts of Africa, Asia, Central America, etc. Usually as a tourist, but also some involved in conservation projects, eg in Okavango, etc.

Sorry, I wasn't as clear as I might have been. Any visits to reserves as either a tourist/volunteer is essentially superficial. The only way of understanding what really goes on is to do research on the overall eco-tourism industry and impacts on the local environment and economies.

Again, I ask how you imagine the governments of these nations could (a) fund the protection of these reserves and (b) justify to their populations the need to protect them in the face of growing pressures. With no tourism, illegal grazing, poaching and cutting of firewood would increase in virtually all reserves - this is appicable equally to numerous reserves in numerous countries.

Tourism needs to be managed, tourism needs to be controlled. However, tourism is also part of the answer ...and virtually all conservationists in the field, including the WWF, agree with that.

Well we can agree on the need for tourism to be controlled. But general tourism is very much not part of the answer and eco-tourism, based on the research done already is very much a marginal option. Sometimes it can be beneficial, sometimes not. After searching around for evidence, I'm even less in favour than I was.

Please find where I said this.

As you know, you didn't say this. But my original post was about carbon emmisions and flying to which you replied about the value of ecotourism. My point all along is that it's atmospheric CO2 which matters....its the be all and end all of the debate. The IPCC estimate that we need to get back to 60% of 1992 CO2 levels. At the moment they estimate we are 165% above 1992 levels. So that’s a drop to 40% of current! That’s huge and the only way we’ll achieve it is massive savings across the board, including non-essential flights of all kinds plus huge changes to the way we live. Flying will continue, but only for essential purposes.

Unless we do this through co-ordinated international action, then not only do we risk gross climate and sea level change which will cause mass disruption to our children's lives (unlikely to happen in my lifeime) but runaway global warming becomes a significant risk through the release of methane clathrates (methane having a higher global warming potential than CO2). Although the risk is difficult to quantify at the moment it is far from insignificant. Recent research in Siberia has found methane levels at 100 times normal levels.

If this happens, wave goodbye to a substantial proportion of the world's species and collapse of the first world way of life

a. there are many examples of degraded land being turned into reserves, then actively enhanced, many by commercial long-term ventures to encourage tourism and/or that rely on tourism to fund the work.

b. there are even more examples of crtically important environments that owe their long-term survival to or partly to the revenues generated by toruism.

Are there any examples of any substantial areas of forest being restored?

 

[Jos Stratford]

Any visits to reserves as either a tourist/volunteer is essentially superficial. The only way of understanding what really goes on is to do research on the overall eco-tourism industry and impacts on the local environment and economies.

......

After searching around for evidence, I'm even less in favour than I was.

Naturally of course, you consider your 'searching around' puts you in a better position to understand than the 'superficial' pastime of actually spending time on the ground, seeing what is actually happening and speaking to conservationists working on the ground.

Flying will continue, but only for essential purposes.

Dream on.

Are there any examples of any substantial areas of forest being restored?

Yes, there are many substantial areas restored and/or in the process of being restored to their native habitats. Why don't you 'search around'?

 

[Jos Stratford]

My point all along is that it's atmospheric CO2 which matters....its the be all and end all of the debate.

It's the be all and end all to you.

 

[Argon55]

It's the be all and end all to you.

To mis-quote Kipling, ....... If you can keep your head in the face of global warming, there may be something about the situation you havent quite understood. :-O

 

[Argon55]

Naturally of course, you consider your 'searching around' puts you in a better position to understand than the 'superficial' pastime of actually spending time on the ground, seeing what is actually happening and speaking to conservationists working on the ground.


Dream on.

Now do calm down and engage your mind. If you paused to think, just for a second or two, you'd recognise the utter crassness of that comment. You're quite right that I've probably spent less time than you being involved in conservation projects abroad. But there are some things in life that can better be analysed, appreciated understood while maitaining a certain distance. For example, I didn't need to go to Nazi Gemany, Stalin's Soviet Union or PW Botha's Apatheid South Africa to appreciate their monsterous effects. Now let me be clear, I'm in no way comparing you or eco-tourism to these terrible political systems but I'm just making the point that you don't need to be there to provide an effective critique. In many cases, one can be too close of course.

 

[Jos Stratford]

Now do calm down and engage your mind.

There is little point in further discussion with you - in your opinion, if other persons hold different views, or have wider concerns, this simply equates to not engaging their minds, lacking understanding or possessing superficial knowledge or experience.

Whilst you have clearly thought through the issues and come to one conclusion, it is not impossible that others have equally considered the issue and come to a different opinion.

 

[Amarillo]

Carbon. Or specifically atmospheric CO2, yes, that is the be all and end all.

I've only skimmed through this debate just now, but in my opinion this whole obsession with CO2 is a massive mistake. Habitat protection is the most important thing and if we focus on that, reduction in CO2 levels will follow anyway. The danger of focussing too much on CO2 is that we come up with ideas like biofuels, which while they might make people and governments feel like they are doing something, actually make the problem worse because they directly or indirectly lead to more habitat destruction.

We need to get back to basics and stop the silly buzzwords like "global warming" and "carbon footprints" and start being realistic in our attempts to save the planet.

 

[Johnny Allan]

I refer everyone to my previous post 93. Only a reversal in world population growth will save the planets wildlife and environment. It is desireable and commendable to try and nullify the destruction of our wildlife and environment by other means but this alone will only delay the catastrophe that will inevitably come if the real cause (uncontrolled, unabating and unsustainable population growth), is not confronted.

 

[James Blake]

I refer everyone to my previous post 93. Only a reversal in world population growth will save the planets wildlife and environment. It is desireable and commendable to try and nullify the destruction of our wildlife and environment by other means but this alone will only delay the catastrophe that will inevitably come if the real cause (uncontrolled, unabating and unsustainable population growth), is not confronted.

Hi Johnny

I agree that population growth is a major issue, and that the numbe rof people we have/are going to have is quite possibly unsustainable.

But is correct to call population growth 'uncontrolled' and 'unabating' correct? I'd say it's not unabating when most forecasts have the human population plateauing sometime in the second half of the century. And it's not entirely uncontrolled: the world's two most populous countries, for instance, are making efforts to reduce population growth. India, for instance, is hoping to reach zero population growth by 2045, i.e. a few decades before the world as a whole:
http://populationcommission.nic.in/npp_obj.htm

I think the big questions are how far we should try to hasten the process of reaching zero population growth; what methods work; and whether population control measures that infringe civil liberties can ever be justified. This last issue has certainly been raised by certain Chinese policies.

best wishes
James

 

[James Blake]

Hi Jos

I do not agree with all your opinions. But I'd like to say how much I admire your ability to offer reasoned and polite replies to posts which, while making some good points, have also contained juvenile insults.

best wishes
James

 

[jc122463]

I also agree that population is a definite problem. However, even with the majority of the worlds population centered in Asia, the majority of consumption takes place in 'westernized' areas (mostly Europe and North America). That's not too say that increasing population isn't a problem, just that again there are other issues involved as well. It's also true that the 'western' regions tend to have a lower population growth. Education levels have been pointed to as a reason for this and it's often stated that as education increases in 'developing' countries population growth with plateau. However, as education increases so does income and consumption.
Again, I have no actual answers here, but think it's important to view everything as interconnected and realize that any one 'solution' may have unforeseen ramifications.

Cheers,
Benji

 

[Johnny Allan]

But is correct to call population growth 'uncontrolled' and 'unabating' correct? I'd say it's not unabating when most forecasts have the human population plateauing sometime in the second half of the century. And it's not entirely uncontrolled: the world's two most populous countries, for instance, are making efforts to reduce population growth. India, for instance, is hoping to reach zero population growth by 2045, i.e. a few decades before the world as a whole:
http://populationcommission.nic.in/npp_obj.htm

Hi James,

you're splitting hairs. The United Nations population forecast for 2050 is 9.15 billion (6.8 at present). Looking at the present situation, how do you think the worlds wildlife and environment will be doing then ?

In this country, over the same period, a rise from 61 million to 77 million. That's more than two Londons, where will they go ?

I'd like to know why the world's population will "plateau sometime in the second half of the century". Could it be that the "plateauing" will come about as the Earth's resources finally run out, it's wildlife and environment destroyed.

As stated previously, politicians seem happy to waffle on and on regarding climate change but are wholly uninterested in the emotive subject of population control. Unless we can find a way of getting them to face the reality of the situation, the planet's wildlife and environment face a bleak future.

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.aboutus.html

 

[Argon55]

There is little point in further discussion with you - in your opinion, if other persons hold different views, or have wider concerns, this simply equates to not engaging their minds, lacking understanding or possessing superficial knowledge or experience.

Whilst you have clearly thought through the issues and come to one conclusion, it is not impossible that others have equally considered the issue and come to a different opinion.

Well yes but from my position I could equally say the same. So we'll just have to agree to differ on this one.

 

[James Blake]

Hi James,

you're splitting hairs. The United Nations population forecast for 2050 is 9.15 billion (6.8 at present). Looking at the present situation, how do you think the worlds wildlife and environment will be doing then ?

In this country, over the same period, a rise from 61 million to 77 million. That's more than two Londons, where will they go ?

I'd like to know why the world's population will "plateau sometime in the second half of the century". Could it be that the "plateauing" will come about as the Earth's resources finally run out, it's wildlife and environment destroyed.

As stated previously, politicians seem happy to waffle on and on regarding climate change but are wholly uninterested in the emotive subject of population control. Unless we can find a way of getting them to face the reality of the situation, the planet's wildlife and environment face a bleak future.

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.aboutus.html

Hi Johnny et al

I'd like to say first of all that I'm by no means an expert on population; and I do agree it's a huge issue. But from a quick look at a few sources (some more authoritative than others - e.g. as you''ll see below, I've taken some figures from Wikipedia), the following seem apparent:

- there is some degree of consensus among population experts about what will happen to the world population this century (a peak sometime between 2050 and 2075, and then levelling off);

- there is no consensus at all about how many people the world can support in reasonable living conditions, without significant damage to the environment; and therefore no consensus about how much we should be doing to try to hasten the current trend towards zero growth.

While there is a lack of consensus it would surely be unwise for us to base our opinions on the position taken by any one organisation or any one individual.

I'm not sure how estimates for future population changes have been reached, but I'd guess it's at least partly based on projection from the last few decades: the rate of population increase apparently peaked in 1963 and has been tailing off ever since.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

I'm sure information about how estimates are reached is not hard to find if you're interested.

As for the population of Britain: our current increase is due to immigration; our birth rate is apparently below replacement level although climbing slightly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_population). In other words, our population growth is not contributing to global population growth: it's a case of people moving around. Whether people moving to Britain is a good or bad thing is a difficult point. On the one hand, we consume to excess here, and so more people coming here and adopting that lifestyle is bad. On the other hand, strong economic and social forces here discourage having children, hence our very low birth rate. People moving to a country where they're likely to have fewer children is arguably a good thing.

Personally I think we could comfortably support another 10 million people here if we were clever about it; as others on this thread have pointed out, the question of how sustainably we live is at least as important as how many of us there are.

I agree with you that governments should think more about population, but I don't think it's fair to accuse them of totally ignoring the issue. For instance, developed countries' aid programmes to poorer countries often include many measures likely to reduce population growth; the UN puts effort into creating credible population forecasts; and the world's two most populous countries have ambitious policies for slowing growth.

best wishes
James

 

[Johnny Allan]

Hi James,

you are, of course, entitled to youre opinion. Meanwhile, we continue to record the destruction of the Earth's wildlife and environment.

Kind regards

Johnny Allan

 

[kristoffer]

No, you are no expert, but experts like Stig-Olof Holm, among lots of others, estimate the maximal supported population to be around 1 billlion, just like I said earlier. And you claim that it is no problem since the population will level of between 2050 and 2075? It will level at 10 times the amount our planet can sustain. The word consensus is repetitively used among those who try to invoke doubt, and hinder steps against a more sustainable planet. If 1 scientists disagree and 100 agrees, is there no consensus then? Just look at our environment fairs now, and then say that our current population is no problem. Politicians should do everything to decrease the number people, but it is taboo, so they do nothing.

Hi Johnny et al

I'd like to say first of all that I'm by no means an expert on population; and I do agree it's a huge issue. But from a quick look at a few sources (some more authoritative than others - e.g. as you''ll see below, I've taken some figures from Wikipedia), the following seem apparent:

- there is some degree of consensus among population experts about what will happen to the world population this century (a peak sometime between 2050 and 2075, and then levelling off);

- there is no consensus at all about how many people the world can support in reasonable living conditions, without significant damage to the environment; and therefore no consensus about how much we should be doing to try to hasten the current trend towards zero growth.

While there is a lack of consensus it would surely be unwise for us to base our opinions on the position taken by any one organisation or any one individual.

James

 

[James Blake]

No, you are no expert, but experts like Stig-Olof Holm, among lots of others, estimate the maximal supported population to be around 1 billlion, just like I said earlier. And you claim that it is no problem since the population will level of between 2050 and 2075? It will level at 10 times the amount our planet can sustain. The word consensus is repetitively used among those who try to invoke doubt, and hinder steps against a more sustainable planet. If 1 scientists disagree and 100 agrees, is there no consensus then? Just look at our environment fairs now, and then say that our current population is no problem. Politicians should do everything to decrease the number people, but it is taboo, so they do nothing.

Hi Kristoffer

Sorry, but from my (admittedly limited) reading it seems clear that there is little consensus among the experts on the issue of the earth's carrying capacity. For instance, there is a UN report from 2001 which discusses the different estimates:

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpm/wpm2001.pdf

Pages 31-2 of this report present the following conclusions:
- estimates for the earth's carrying capacity range from less than 1 billion to over 1000 billion;
- two thirds of the estimates are in the 4-16 billion range;
- the median of all the predictions is about 10 billion;
- worryingly, there seems to be less consensus, not more, among the experts as time goes on.

Why can't the population experts agree? The report does not speculate on this, but the book How many people can the earth support? by Joel Cohen, while a little old (1996), looks like it could be a good place to start exploring the causes of disagreement.

I did not say that there was no problem! I'm sure there is. But I'd contrast the situation with population with the climate change issue. With climate change, there is a pretty solid consensus among experts about the scale of the problem and the scale of the solutions we need to implement. With population, we probably do need to be doing more to at least get to zero growth (if not beyond, i.e negative growth) as quickly as we can, but we also need to fund more research in the hope that demographers will be able to give us a clearer idea of the consequences of different courses of action.

best wishes
James

 

[Johnny Allan]

Hi James,

can we not, at least, agree that wildlife and wildlife habitat is being destroyed on a daily basis as a direct result of population growth and that a bigger human population will result in more destruction ?

Kind regards

Johnny Allan

 

[James Blake]

Hi James,

can we not, at least, agree that wildlife and wildlife habitat is being destroyed on a daily basis as a direct result of population growth and that a bigger human population will result in more destruction ?

Kind regards

Johnny Allan

Hi Johnny

I agree that population growth is having those terrible effects.

I agree it may continue to have those effects - unless the rate at which we adopt more sustainable ways of living outstrips growth. For instance, a 10% growth in the population of a certain area, accompanied by a 20% drop in the impact each individual has, would surely be a net good.

And I also agree that well-planned attempts to bring forward the time when we reach population stability are good; and that globally we should at least consider whether and how we can then go on to reduce the population.

My guess is that attempts to influence demographic trends have to be a complement, not an alternative, to measures to reduce our per capita impact, mainly because I suspect population measures are inevitably going to be slow. China has made major - and some would say brutal - attempts to limit population growth for many decades now, but has only managed to put the brakes on rather slowly.

Meanwhile, there is a biodiversity crisis now, a climate crisis now. For instance, as I'm sure you're aware, climate experts pretty much agree that we need to act to limit greenhouse gas emissions right now, in a fairly drastic manner. I suspect the most important role of population management may be not addressing the various current crises - it seems too slow for that - but as a longer-term measure to make further crises less likely in the future.

BTW, I'm grateful for this discussion, which is making me look into issues I knew far too little about.

best wishes
James