WWF
A Critique of The Cato
Institute‟s Critique of
The World Wildlife Fund‟s
“Living Planet 2002” Report
Background (General)
The July 9, 2002 release of the World Wildlife Fund‟s third “Living Planet” report
- which asserts that the human race is currently consuming resources at a rate
20% percent greater than the Earth‟s ability to regenerate - coincided
unsurprisingly with the simultaneous release of two counter-dispatches by the
Cato Institute. In conjunction with an additional counter-argument published in
the Cato Institute‟s August 26 edition of “Policy Analysis,” these two dispatches
serve as a fairly accurate example of Conservative/Libertarian criticisms of the
environmentalist movement or at least as examples prominent enough to merit
scrutiny.
The August 26 piece, written by Jerry Taylor, draws heavily on evidence
presented by Patrick J. Michaels, a professor of meteorology whom William K.
Stevens of the New York Times regards as arguably one of “the two most
persistent and visible” scientists skeptical of climate change.[1] The other two
dispatches, written by Reason magazine‟s science correspondent Ronald Bailey
and the late anti-Malthusian environmentalist critic Julian L. Simon, though both
originally published prior to the WWF‟s “Living Planet” report are still relevant
because of the prominence of their critique within policy circles advocating free
markets and limited government.
[1]
William K. Stevens, The Change in the Weather: People, Weather and the Science of
Climate (New York 1999) 245.
Social Context
The “Living Planet” report was consciously
released less than 50 days prior to the Aug.
26 – Sept. 2 World Summit on Sustainable
Development in Johannesburg. [1]
Jerry Taylor’s article in Policy Analysis was
released exactly on August 26.
Quick Aside: I’ve selected some key quotes
from the studies I’m citing for the slides but
I’ll also be summarizing a lot of things both
on and off the slides so don’t be confused if
I’m not like reading everything I’ve written
exactly how I’ve written it or whatever.
[1] Robert Evans, “World seen facing slump as natural
resources run out,” Reuters, July 10, 2002.
“Living Planet 2002” - Summary
The Living Planet report is divided into two distinct parts.
The first is the Living Planet Index. It is calculated by measuring population data
from 1970 to 1995 to 2000 for three abstracted categories of wildlife - forest,
freshwater, and marine species. The data used for the Index was gathered by
the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Conservation
Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC).
The Living Planet Index is primarily an indicator of ecosystem health as a
function of species decline and as such will not be focused on in depth here as it
does not pertain directly to the global warming debate.
The second part of the report (the WWF‟s assessment of humanity‟s
Ecological Footprint) hopes to measure how much of the Earth‟s biologically
productive land inhabited in one year by the global population, individual nations,
and an average citizen of one of those nations. As is clearly visible by the
upcoming graph, the portion of humanity‟s ecological footprint inhabited due to
energy needs is very significant.
More on the Ecological Footprint
If the Energy Footprint were removed, the WWF‟s projected 20%
overshoot would hypothetically no longer exist.
The footprint is measured in Global Hectares a measurement defined
by the WWF as “one hectare of biologically productive space with world
average productivity.”
There are currently 11.4 billion hectares of biologically productive land
total - one quarter of the planet‟s surface. Of these 11.4 billion
hectares:
– 2.0 is ocean
– 1.5 is cropland
– 3.5 is grazing land
– 3.8 is forest cover
– 0.3 is inland water
– 0.3 is “built up” land. (Land used for highways, cities, factories, “Mac
Donald‟s” or whatever)
The global average takes all of these land types of varying
productivities as reduces them to uniform unit of productivity so that
comparison between varying nations is possible. A hectare is
equivalent to 2.471 acres (an acre = 43,560 ft^2).
Ecological Footprint International
Foot Size (in Global Hectares per person)
Medium violet red: 5.0 and above
Light Coral: 3.0 – 5.0 Olive: 1.0-1.5
Goldenrod: 1.5-3.0
Gold Chartreuse: less than 1.0
Cream: insufficient data
Jerry Taylor
“Sustainable Development: A
Dubious Solution in Search of
a Problem,” Policy Analysis,
August 26, 2002.
He has been published in the
Washington Post, Los Angeles Times,
Wall Street Journal and USA Today.
He is a frequent television and radio
guest and is a regular commentator on
CNN, NPR, and the BBC.
Taylortakes several issues with the WWF’s formulation of the Ecological
Footprint, primarily the amount of Global Hectares claimed for human energy
production.
Energy Footprint International
Foot Size (in Global Hectares per person)
Medium violet red: 5.0
and above Olive: 1.0-1.5
Light Coral: 3.0 – 5.0 Gold Chartreuse: less than 1.0
Goldenrod: 1.5-3.0
Cream: insufficient data
Taylor‟s Argument in Brief
The World Wildlife Fund “didn’t
simply calculate how much land
was being used to produce oil,
gas, and coal (which is, in fact,
trivial). The calculated how much
forestland [his emphasis] is
necessary to absorb the carbon
dioxide generated by fossil fuel
consumption. By only the wildest
stretch of the imagination can
one discern a human “footprint”
in wild and uninhabited forests
sucking up carbon dioxide
(which, after all, is plant food).”
Taylor goes on to say that “there
is not and has never been any
dispute” as to whether or not
greenhouse gases are building
up in the atmosphere.
Taylor‟s argument (Cont.)
“The question of whether the buildup of green house gases in the
atmosphere is really sustainable is really a question about the science
of global climate change ... If one dismisses the argument that a
„human footprint‟ is left in the ecosystem by carbon sequestration, the
... study finds no ecological overshoot at all.”
“It‟s not entirely clear that global warming will prove to be the major
event advertised in the media.”
“warming over the past 100 years has been moderate (about a degree
Fahrenheit) and far less than the computer models suggest should
have occurred by now.”
Atmospheric physics confirms that warming will occur in a linear
fashion. Therefore we can extrapolate that additional warming by 1.17
to 1.35 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050, which if we use the UN‟s
International Panel on Climate Change as a departure results in “a
rather modest 3.0 to 5.3 inch rise in sea level.”
Note‟s on Taylor‟s source material
Most of Taylor‟s evidence comes from a book by Patrick J. Michaels
and Robert Balling called “The Satanic Gases.”
In 1998 Michaels testified before congress that an accurate increase in
global temperature rise would be one degree Celsius over the next
century.
What is both surprising and disturbing about these claims is that, while
they are not outside of the projected scale of possibilities for climate
change outcomes (they, in fact, correlate with the IPCC‟s 1995
predictions for a best case/least impact scenario), they whole heartedly
discount the potential worst case scenarios.[1] In other words, these
statistics don‟t adequately take into account the IPCC‟s or NASA‟s
scientifically agreed upon range of potential climate change outcomes
so the conclusions drawn from them are not terribly grounded.
[1] #William K. Stevens, The Change in the Weather: People, Weather and the
Science of Climate (New York 1999) 251-2. Recent NASA estimates with
climate models capable of predicting the past 50 years of climate change
accurately have forecast a 1.8°-3.6° Fahrenheit increase over the next fifty years
if things are “business as usual.” The rise will be something the earth hasn‟t seen
for “the past several hundred thousand years.”
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820climate50.html
Additional Notes
In reference to the rest of the Ecological footprint, Taylor states that
“the amount of the Earth„s surface used for growing crops, grazing
animals, harvesting timber, fishing, and supporting various human
infrastructure has grown only slightly over the past 40 years (about
35% of the planet‟s surface, in fact, which is pretty remarkable given
that global population exploded over that period as did the size of the
global economy and the demand for various resources)”
What‟s really being said here?
If we accept WWF estimates for biologically productive global hectares,
as Taylor does, and we construe “the planet‟s surface” to mean “the
surface of the whole planet,” then 35% is not an insignificant number.
It‟s 4.56 hectares more biologically productive land than the 11.4
hectares the Earth has available. [11.4 hectares is 25% of the Earth‟s
surface]
“The Law of Increasing Returns” &
“Natural Resources Aren‟t Finite”
Both papers argue that we will
not run out of resources
because resources are
subjective (firewood was once a
more valuable natural resource
than oil; we have switched from
an agrarian to an industrial
economy to an informational
economy, the corporeal
“finiteness” of copper let‟s say
doesn‟t equal an “economic
finiteness” for copper, etc.)
Bailey‟s “Increasing Returns”
piece is the longer and more
interesting of the two so I will
address it more directly.
Bailey‟s Argument as a counter to Prof. Aronson‟s
“Yet some committed Malthusians object that [economist Paul] Romer
and others who hold out that economic growth is potentially limitless
not only violate the law of diminishing returns but transgress an even
more fundamental physical law: the second law of thermodynamics ...
the solution to the puzzle of life and of a growing economy is that the
earth is not a closed system--the energy that drives it comes principally
from the sun.”
The Malthusian argument may sound familiar here, as it echoes Dr.
Aronson‟s criticique of mainstream economics, presented to us last
month. While Bailey‟s rebuttal of that argument thankfully includes
acknowledgement of the sun‟s role as our main energy provider, it fails
to incorporate much else about the real world outside economic
abstractions.
An example of another objection to those proposing that “economic
growth is potentially limitless” can be found in Herman Daly‟s ascertion
that once the global economy is seen as it is, a subsystem of the
planet‟s larger ecosystem, it becomes ceases to function under the
principles of macro economics and becomes subject to micro economic
theories of optimal size.
Classic Macro Bailey is arguing that this
isn‟t a closed system because
energy is coming in from the
sun. Former World Bank
Economist Herman Daly
would argue that – while
Bailey‟s argument is true is
doesn‟t go nearly far enough.
Daly argues that - once it is accepted
that the global economy is a
Empty world subsystem that has been growing
within the global ecosystem – the
economy becomes subject to
microeconomic problems such as
optimal size. [1]
[1] Herman Daly, Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development (Boston 1996) 45-70.
“Once the macroeconomy is seen as an open
subsystem, rather than an isolated system
Full World (the environment) cannot be avoided. The
obvious question is, How big should the
subsystem be relative to the overall system?”