Report says consumption of resources outstripping planet's ability to cope.

...Consumption of fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil increased by almost 700 per cent between 1961 and 2001, the conservation body said (World Wide Fund for Nature)...

...The (ecological) footprint of an average North American is double that of a European but seven times that of the average Asian or African...

The report warned of increasing pressure on the planet's resources amid spiralling consumption in Asia.

The report points out that:

He mentions Bjorn Lomborg, who also shows up in a Guardian article about economists arguing climate change is not so important:

quote:

---

Climate change, predicted by the UN to change the way most people live over the next 100 years, is the least important of the world's immediate problems, says a group of economists, including three Nobel prize winners, who were asked to prioritise how money should be spent on helping the world's poor.
The team of six American and two other economists, brought together by controversial environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg, said it was not worth spending money on climate change because the effects were expected to be far in the future. They recommended that people became rich first and that money should be spent on HIV/Aids, water and free trade.

---

The Guardian also has green groups' view.

What's the old sports analogy; you can't tell who the players are without a scorecard?

[ 21 October 2004: Message edited by: Contrarian ]

However, you tell the difference between players and spectators.

When economists comment on environmental issues, they are definitely reaching beyond thier expertise.