Thursday, December 4, 2014

#339 / And Then There Were None ...

The Winter 2015 edition of Earth Island Journal cites to a recent report by the World Wildlife Fund, presenting its findings under the headline "And Then There Were None..." Tech Times covered the story, too, and I'm quoting from their publication.

According to the Living Planet Report, which is published biannually by the World Wildlife Fund, the decline in the population of the world's animals is worse than previously believed. 

Two years ago, the WWF's report put the figure of wildlife loss at only 28 percent for the period between 1970 and 2008. The 2014 report revealed that the population of amphibians, birds, fish, mammals and reptiles dropped by an average of 52 percent between 1970 and 2010. The worst impact was seen in freshwater species, which saw a decline of 76 percent over the same period, or almost double the biodiversity loss experienced by land and other marine species. 

The Living Planet Report is based on the Living Planet Index of the Zoological Society of London that monitors over 10,000 vertebrate species.

"If half the animals died in London zoo next week it would be front page news," said Zoological Society of London Director of Science Ken Norris. "But that is happening in the great outdoors. This damage is not inevitable but a consequence of the way we choose to live."

If you want to put it to music, look up Bob Dylan's song on his Planet Waves album. Going, Going, Gone:

I've just reached a place
Where the willow don't bend
There’s not much more to be said
It’s the top of the end
I’m going
I’m going
I’m gone

When Nature goes...
We're next.

Image Credit:

1 comment:

  1. Rhodi Lee from the Tech Times misunderstands the WWF report. The number 28% came from the "LPI" method which is *not* the same as the "LPI-D" method used to generate the 52% number [1]. Both numbers are based on Zoological Society of London data which is not a good representation of vertebrate biodiversity or vertebrate population health. The report is propaganda not a peer reviewed scientific paper. Don't you think it's a little convenient they changed the algorithm to double the estimated decrease?



Thanks for your comment!