DOCSLIB.ORG

Nature's Benefits ESA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nature's Benefits ESA DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES WHITE PAPER NATURE’S BENEFITS: THE IMPORTANCE OF ADDRESSING BIODIVERSITY IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICE PROGRAMS ABOUT THIS PUBLICATION Defenders of Wildlife has been a leader in addressing ecosystem services and market-based programs, one of the first nonprofit organizations to explore policies guiding these programs. This white paper examines the process for addressing ecosystem services in decision-making, in hopes that these concepts encourage policy-makers to balance the interests of nature and society. Author: Sara Vickerman Designer: Kassandra Kelly Defenders of Wildlife is a national, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to the protection of all native wild animals and plants in their natural communities. Jamie Rappaport Clark, President and CEO Donald Barry, Executive Vice President © 2013 Defenders of Wildlife 1130 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-4604 202.682.9400 www.defenders.org Cover images, clockwise from top: Black-footed ferret, photo by Ryan Hagerty, USFWS; Burrowing owls, photo by Lee Karney, USFWS; Western painted turtle, photo by Gary M. Scholtz, USFWS; Canada geese, Nisqually NWR, photo by Bruce Taylor; Student at Wetzel Woods Conservation Easement during Alterna- tive Outdoor School, photo courtesy of the Friends of Tualatin River NWR and the Conservation Registry. Back cover: Rockefeller Forest, Humboldt Redwoods State Park, photo by Bruce Taylor. INTRODUCTION he concept of ecosystem services – or the benefits that nature provides – has gained tremendous attention over the past decade. It is a common-sense approach to manage- ment that recognizes and makes the most of nature’sT contributions to human communities. Solutions based on ecosystem services generally avoid up-front costs and expensive maintenance of highly engineered alternatives. Interest in the topic has sparked a growing number of articles, conferences, and technical tools to evaluate, quantify, and monetize these services. The idea of meas- uring the values provided by natural systems and using that information to make better decisions in natural Camassia blossoms in the William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge, Willamette Valley, Oregon. Photo by George Gentry, resource management has captured the attention of a USFWS. Varieties of camas were an important food source wide range of audiences, from conservation groups to for native peoples in the west. social welfare groups to developers and extractive industries. that it offers such fertile ground to define and implement However, significant ambiguities remain around what the new paradigm according to their own expertise and the concept means and how it should be implemented. value systems. As a result, it has been difficult to explain to policy-mak- Despite these complexities, the use of ecosystem ers, planners, and business interests who struggle to services in decision-making holds considerable promise. understand how an assessment of ecosystem services dif- Including the full range of ecosystem benefits and costs fers from multiple use management, impact assessment, may lead to better decisions in the long term by encour- or compliance with existing environmental regulations. aging decision-makers to balance the interests of nature The concept has also been difficult to translate into and society with those of the industry or agency respon- policy and management and, in particular, to apply sible for development and/or management. The concept consistently across the public and private sectors. is also useful for helping to manage the diverse expecta- The notion of quantifying the ecological outputs tions stakeholders have of public lands. For example, the associated with specific sites and management systems Forest Service recently adopted a new planning rule that inevitably means different things to different people. For mentions ecosystem services and has the potential to some, it opens the door to large-scale impact mitigation, greatly expand the range of values addressed in the land through the marketing of certain services to regulated management planning process (Forest Service, 2012). parties to “offset” damage to those resources elsewhere, Many Forest Service staff believe that an ecosystem serv- as in wetland and conservation banking and carbon ices approach will improve integration across programs, trading. Others expect calculating the economic value of encourage the agency to think about fundamental attrib- nature to provide more compelling justification for saving utes and processes, and move land management drivers it. It may be that part of the broad appeal of the ecosys- away from utilitarian outputs like board feet and acres to- tem services concept among economists, ecologists, ward more sophisticated objectives. It is also a powerful policy wonks, and advocates is actually due to the fact tool to support collaborative approaches to management. NATURE’S BENEFITS: The Importance of Addressing Biodiversity in Ecosystem Service Programs 1 There are potential benefits and hazards associated will be relatively straightforward to implement, that with applying an ecosystem service framework to allows for continuous learning and improvement over resource decisions. The advantages include: time, and could appeal to business and conservation interests. • Improving accountability as measurement systems evolve to address ecological values that have not be- Despite these complexities, the use of quantified in the past; ecosystem services in decision-making holds • Making investments more strategic as a result of considerable promise. Including the full range objective assessment of options; of ecosystem benefits and costs may lead to • Engaging a more diverse set of stakeholders in deci- better decisions in the long term by encouraging sion-making; decision-makers to balance the interests of • Providing alternative compliance options for nature and society with those of the industry or developers; agency responsible for development and/or • Diversifying income for landowners who provide management. ecosystem services; • Creating jobs in research, monitoring, consulting and restoration; and • Improving the overall effectiveness of resource EFINING THE ONCEPT management on public and private lands. 1 D C : UTILITARIAN AND INTRINSIC The potential disadvantages include: APPROACHES • Exacerbating the existing fragmented approach to The diversity of perspectives on and expectations of management by adding yet another layer of assess- an ecosystem services approach results in part from the ment requirements and goals, thereby undermining difficulty interested parties have had in coming to agree- rather than encouraging systems approaches; ment on a definition. Extractive industries, for example, • Ignoring the complexity of ecosystems and often see agriculture and timber production as the ulti- oversimplifying management objectives; mate ecosystem services – products provided by nature • Shifting the emphasis of management to a limited for the benefit of humans. Even among conservation suite of utilitarian goals, thereby alienating stake groups, a similarly utilitarian definition sometimes holders who traditionally support conservation; and emerges. • Continuing to overlook the fundamental ecological For example, in developing a framework for address- attributes and processes that contribute to the func- ing ecosystem services based on the Millenium Ecosys- tioning of healthy ecosystems. tem Assessment, academic researchers and government officials developed a classification for the “services” de- The ecosystem services approach is the latest in a rived from nature but tend to neglect to address biodiver- long list of conceptual approaches that are intended to sity and other underlying attributes that make it possible improve the practice of natural resource conservation for people to enjoy and consume the services. The as- and management yet tend to be replaced by the “next sessment has led to the creation of four categories of shiny object” before they reach fruition. As a result, there services: provisioning – which include commodities like is a limited window of time in which to get this approach timber, water, and food; supporting – which include right and to capture what conservation benefits are valu- things like nutrient cycling and soil formation; regulating able from its somewhat unique conceptual frame. This – which refers to protection from climate extremes and report outlines an approach to ecosystem services that disease outbreaks; and cultural services that capture 2 DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES WHITE PAPER aesthetic, spiritual and recreational benefits (Millennium accumulation, resistance to disease and disturbance, and Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Biodiversity – or nature – other environmental conditions that affect human wel- got lost in the shuffle and is generally not included as a fare.” (Smith, et al., 2011). “service” in many typologies. A 2012 paper in Bioscience discussed the notion that This interpretation – which is based on two funda- these two approaches represent fundamentally different mental assumptions – set the stage for continuing contro- value systems. Biodiversity advocates support a bio-cen- versy about whether the ecosystem services paradigm is tric view which assigns intrinsic value to all life on earth. good or bad for nature. These assumptions include the Ecosystem service supporters hold anthropocentric notion that services must benefit humans directly to be views in which nature
Load more

Recommended publications
  • EAZA Bushmeat Campaign
    B USHMEAT | R AINFOREST | T IGER | S HELLSHOCK | R HINO | M ADAGASCAR | A MPHIBIAN | C ARNIVORE | A PE EAZA Conservation Campaigns EAZA Bushmeat Over the last ten years Europe’s leading zoos and aquariums have worked together in addressing a variety of issues affecting a range of species and Campaign habitats. EAZA’s annual conservation campaigns have raised funds and promoted awareness amongst 2000-2001 millions of zoo visitors each year, as well as providing the impetus for key regulatory change. | INTRODUCTION | The first of EAZA's annual conservation campaigns addressed the issue of the unsustainable and illegal hunting and trade of threatened wildlife, in particular the great apes. Bushmeat is a term commonly used to describe the hunting and trade of wild meat. For the Bushmeat Campaign EAZA collaborated with the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) as an official partner in order to enhance the chances of a successful campaign. The Bushmeat Campaign can be regarded as the ‘template campaign’ for the EAZA conservation campaigns that followed over the subsequent ten years. | CAMPAIGN AIMS | Through launching the Bushmeat Campaign EAZA hoped to make a meaningful contribution to the conservation of great apes in the wild, particularly in Africa, over the next 20 to 50 years. The bushmeat trade was (and still is) a serious threat to the survival of apes in the wild. Habitat loss and deforestation have historically been the major causal factors for declining populations of great apes, but experts now agree that the illegal commercial bushmeat trade has surpassed habitat loss as the primary threat to ape populations.
    [Show full text]
  • Supplemental Wildlife Food Planting Manual for the Southeast • Contents
    Supplemental Wildlife Food Planting Manual for the Southeast • Contents Managing Plant Succession ................................ 4 Openings ............................................................. 6 Food Plot Size and Placement ............................ 6 Soil Quality and Fertilization .............................. 6 Preparing Food Plots .......................................... 7 Supplemental Forages ............................................................................................................................. 8 Planting Mixtures/Strip Plantings ......................................................................................................... 9 Legume Seed Inoculation ...................................................................................................................... 9 White-Tailed Deer ............................................................................................................................... 10 Eastern Wild Turkey ............................................................................................................................ 11 Northern Bobwhite .............................................................................................................................. 12 Mourning Dove ................................................................................................................................... 13 Waterfowl ............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Global Warming on Wildlife and Human Health
    Effects of Global Warming on Wildlife and Human Health Jennifer Lopez Editor Werner Lang Aurora McClain csd Center for Sustainable Development I-Context Challenge 2 1.2 Effects of Global Warming on Health Effects of Global Warm- ing on Wildlife and Human Health Jennifer Lopez Based on a presentation by Dr. Camille Parmesan main picture of presentation Figure 1: Earth from Outer Space. Introduction of greenhouse emissions.”4 Finally in 2007, the Fourth IPCC Assessment report concluded Global warming is defined as “the increase that the “warming of the climate system is un- in the average measured temperature of the equivocal” and “is very likely [> 90% sure] due Earth’s near surface air and oceans”.1 For the to observed increases in anthropogenic green- past several decades scientists have docu- house gas concentrations.”5 Based on these mented multiple aspects of climate change, conclusions, many scientists and environmen- including rising surface air temperature, rising talists have focused their efforts on sustainable ocean temperature, changes in rain and snow- living and are pushing for energy alternatives fall patterns, declines in permanent snowpack which produce little or no carbon-dioxide to and sea ice, and a rise in sea level.2 Through reduce greenhouse gas emissions. their research, scientists have been able not only to document changes in climate and the Effects of temperature change physical environment, but have also docu- mented effects that this phenomenon is having Scientists have concluded that in the past 100 on the world’s ecosystems and species, many years, the Earth’s average air temperature has of which are negative.
    [Show full text]
  • Put the Life Back in Wildlife Grade 8
    OSPI-Developed Performance Assessment A Component of the Washington State Assessment System The Arts: Visual Arts Put the Life Back in Wildlife Grade 8 Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction September 2018 Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Old Capitol Building P.O. Box 47200 Olympia, WA 98504-7200 For more information about the contents of this document, please contact: Anne Banks, The Arts Program Supervisor Phone: 360-725-4966 email: [email protected] Or contact the Resource Center at 888-595-3276, TTY 360-664-3631 OSPI provides equal access to all programs and services without discrimination based on sex, race, creed, religion, color, national origin, age, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation including gender expression or identity, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability. Questions and complaints of alleged discrimination should be directed to the Equity and Civil Rights Director at 360-725-6162 or P.O. Box 47200 Olympia, WA 98504-7200. Except where otherwise noted, this Washington Arts K–12 assessment by the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. All logos and trademarks are property of their respective owners. This work references the Washington State Learning Standards in The Arts (http://www.k12.wa.us/Arts/Standards/default.aspx). All standards designations are from the National Core Arts Standards (http://nationalartsstandards.org/). Copyright © 2015 National Coalition for Core Arts Standards/All Rights Reserved—Rights Administered by SEADAE.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economics of Threatened Species Conservation: a Review and Analysis
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Publications Plant Health Inspection Service 2009 The Economics of Threatened Species Conservation: A Review and Analysis Ray T. Sterner U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, Colorado Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Sterner, Ray T., "The Economics of Threatened Species Conservation: A Review and Analysis" (2009). USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications. 978. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc/978 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. In: ÿ and book of Nature Conservation ISBN 978-1 -60692-993-3 Editor: Jason B. Aronoff O 2009 Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Chapter 8 Ray T. Sterner1 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521-2154, USA Stabilizing human population size and reducing human-caused impacts on the environment are lceys to conserving threatened species (TS). Earth's human population is =: 7 billion and increasing by =: 76 million per year. This equates to a human birth-death ratio of 2.35 annually. The 2007 Red List prepared by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) categorized 16,306 species of vertebrates, invertebrates, plants, and other organisms (e.g., lichens, algae) as TS.
    [Show full text]
  • Responsible Human Use of Wildlife
    Standing Position Responsible Human Use of Wildlife Because humans are part of a functioning environment, we ultimately and legitimately derive our livelihood, and many of our cultural values, from the resource base. Human societies have recognized and accepted the use of wildlife resources for food, clothing, shelter, hunting, fishing, trapping, viewing, recreation, and as an indicator of environmental quality. All humans and human societies use wildlife directly and/or indirectly, because wildlife generates tangible goods and income and contributes to the economic and spiritual well-being of society. However, human use of natural resources, including wildlife, must be carried out in a responsible manner so that ecological processes can continue to function and sustain a diverse, healthy environment. This, in turn, will result in the continued well-being of both humans and wildlife. Human activities are a major factor in ecosystem disruption worldwide. Human population growth and technological development result in dramatic reductions and alterations in quality and availability of wildlife habitat, over-use of some wildlife species, greater human dependence on domesticated animals, and changes in the functioning of most ecosystems. Abuse of the land and water resources exacerbates the decline of natural resources and deterioration of the ecosystem’s abilities to support wildlife and human populations. Maintenance, restoration, and enhancement of wildlife populations and habitat characteristics through scientific management and regulations are vital to ecological functioning, genetic diversity, and perpetuation of wildlife populations, species, and habitats. Conservation-minded citizens and resource management professionals can successfully slow or reverse the decline of wildlife species and destruction of habitats. Prudent management practices and regulations, supported by a conservation-minded public, are essential for restoration of wildlife species, populations, and habitat productivity.
    [Show full text]
  • Illegal and Unsustainable Hunting of Wildlife for Bushmeat in Sub-Saharan Africa
    About the Wilderness Problem-Specific Guide Series These guides summarize knowledge about how wildlife authorities can reduce the harm caused by specific wildlife crime problems. They are guides to preventing and improving the overall response to incidents, not to investigating offenses or handling specific incidents; neither do they cover technical details about how to implement specific responses. Who is this bushmeat guide for? This guide is aimed at wildlife officers and non-governmental conservation practitioners who have identified the illegal and unsustainable hunting of wildlife for bushmeat, as an important threat in a specific site or landscape. These include: ñ Protected Area Managers and their deputies ñ Conservation NGO Project Leads ñ Wildlife officers and NGO conservation practitioners of whatever rank or assignment, who have been tasked to address the problem These guides will be most useful to problem solvers who: Understand basic problem-oriented policing principles and methods. The guides are designed to help conservation practitioners decide how best to analyze Scanning Analysis Collect and analyze and address a problem they have already Identify and prioritize information to determine problems. Choose one what drives and facilitates identified. The guides are structured in specific problem. the same way as the SARA process the problem. (right). This covers how to define your problem (Scan); questions you will need to answer to guide you to an effective intervention (Analysis); types of interventions you could use (Response); and ways to check if your intervention worked (Assessment). Response Assessment Implement response that reduces drivers and For a primer on Problem-Oriented Determine the impact of your facilitators of the problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Oil on Wildlife and Habitat the U.S
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Effects of Oil on Wildlife and Habitat The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Weathering reduces the more toxic elements in oil products over time as Service is the federal exposure to air, sunlight, wave and tidal action, and certain microscopic agency responsible for organisms degrade and disperse many of the nation’s fish oil. Weathering rates depend on factors such as type of oil, weather, and wildlife resources and temperature, and the type of shoreline one of the primary trustees and bottom that occur in the spill area. for fish, wildlife and habitat Types of Oil Although there are different types of at oil spills. oil, the oil involved in the Deepwater Horizon spill is classified as light crude. The Service is actively involved Light crude is moderately volatile and in response efforts related to the can leave a residue of up to one third of Deepwater Horizon oil spill that the amount spilled after several days. It occurred in the Gulf of Mexico on April leaves a film on intertidal resources and 20, 2010. Many species of wildlife, has the potential to cause long-term including some that are threatened or contamination. endangered, live along the Gulf Coast and could be impacted by the spill. Impacts to Wildlife and Habitat Oil causes harm to wildlife through Oil spills affect wildlife and their physical contact, ingestion, inhalation habitats in many ways. The severity and absorption. Floating oil can of the injury depends on the type and contaminate plankton, which includes quantity of oil spilled, the season and algae, fish eggs, and the larvae of MacKenzie FWS/Tom weather, the type of shoreline, and the various invertebrates.
    [Show full text]
  • Tech Rev 03-1 for PDF.Qxd
    The Relationship of Economic Growth to Wildlife Conservation Gross National Product Gross Time THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY Technical Review 03-1 2003 THE RELATIONSHIP OF ECONOMIC GROWTH TO WILDLIFE CONSERVATION The Wildlife Society Members of the Economic Growth Technical Review Committee David L. Trauger (Chair) Pamela R. Garrettson Natural Resources Program Division of Migratory Bird Management Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northern Virginia Center 11500 American Holly Drive 7054 Haycock Road Laurel, MD 20708 Falls Church, VA 22043 Brian J. Kernohan Brian Czech Boise Cascade Corporation National Wildlife Refuge System 2010 South Curtis Circle U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Boise, ID 83705 4401 North Fairfax Drive, MS 670 Arlington, VA 22203 Craig A. Miller Human Dimensions Research Program Jon D. Erickson Illinois Natural History Survey School of Natural Resources 607 East Peabody Drive Aiken Center Champaign, IL 61820 University of Vermont Burlington, VT 05405 Edited by Krista E. M. Galley The Wildlife Society Technical Review 03-1 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 200 March 2003 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Foreword Presidents of The Wildlife Society occasionally appoint ad hoc committees to study and report on select conservation issues. The reports ordinarily appear as either a Technical Review or a Position Statement. Review papers present technical information and the views of the appointed committee members, but not necessarily the views of their employers. Position statements are based on the review papers, and the preliminary versions are published in The Wildlifer for comment by Society members. Following the comment period, revision, and Council's approval, the statements are published as official positions of The Wildlife Society.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Review 12-04 December 2012
    The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation Technical Review 12-04 December 2012 1 The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation The Wildlife Society and The Boone and Crockett Club Technical Review 12-04 - December 2012 Citation Organ, J.F., V. Geist, S.P. Mahoney, S. Williams, P.R. Krausman, G.R. Batcheller, T.A. Decker, R. Carmichael, P. Nanjappa, R. Regan, R.A. Medellin, R. Cantu, R.E. McCabe, S. Craven, G.M. Vecellio, and D.J. Decker. 2012. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. The Wildlife Society Technical Review 12-04. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Series Edited by Theodore A. Bookhout Copy Edit and Design Terra Rentz (AWB®), Managing Editor, The Wildlife Society Lisa Moore, Associate Editor, The Wildlife Society Maja Smith, Graphic Designer, MajaDesign, Inc. Cover Images Front cover, clockwise from upper left: 1) Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) kittens removed from den for marking and data collection as part of a long-term research study. Credit: John F. Organ; 2) A mixed flock of ducks and geese fly from a wetland area. Credit: Steve Hillebrand/USFWS; 3) A researcher attaches a radio transmitter to a short-horned lizard (Phrynosoma hernandesi) in Colorado’s Pawnee National Grassland. Credit: Laura Martin; 4) Rifle hunter Ron Jolly admires a mature white-tailed buck harvested by his wife on the family’s farm in Alabama. Credit: Tes Randle Jolly; 5) Caribou running along a northern peninsula of Newfoundland are part of a herd compositional survey. Credit: John F. Organ; 6) Wildlife veterinarian Lisa Wolfe assesses a captive mule deer during studies of density dependence in Colorado.
    [Show full text]
  • States of the Union: Ranking America's Biodiversity
    States of the Union: Ranking America’s Biodiversity April 2002 A NatureServe Report Prepared for NatureServe The Nature Conservancy 1101 Wilson Boulevard, 15th Floor 4245 N. Fairfax Drive Arlington, VA 22209 Arlington, VA 22203 703-908-1800 703-841-5300 www.natureserve.org http://nature.org NatureServe is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing the scientific knowledge that forms the basis for effective conservation action. States of the Union: Ranking America’s Biodiversity A NatureServe Report Prepared for The Nature Conservancy Citation: Bruce A. Stein. 2002. States of the Union: Ranking America’s Biodiversity. Arlington, Virginia: NatureServe. NatureServe 2002 ConContentstents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 2 State of the States ............................................................................................................................ 3 Riches in Our Backyard NatureServe: Exploring Our Natural Heritage................................................................................ 4 Assessing Conservation Status Nature Across America: Ranking the States................................................................................... 6 Overall Biodiversity Patterns Rankings by Plant and Animal Group A More Perfect Union..................................................................................................................... 9 Appendix: State Ranking Tables.................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Movethedate Social Media Toolkit
    #MoveTheDate Social Media Toolkit Thank you for sharing Earth Overshoot Day through social media, email newsletters, blog posts, and/or your organization’s website. We appreciate your help driving users to steps to #MoveTheDate, videos, infographics, and other information available on the Overshoot Day website (www.overshootday.org). The following materials can be used to promote Earth Overshoot Day. Please download our images and graphics from Dropbox, available here. We have a few infographics available in other languages at https://www.overshootday.org/newsroom/infographics/. General • August 1 is Earth Overshoot Day―the date when we (all of humanity) have used more from nature than our planet can renew in the entire year. How will you #MoveTheDate? www.overshootday.org • We are using 1.7 Earths. How? By using more ecological resources and services than nature can regenerate through overfishing, overharvesting forests, and emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than ecosystems can absorb. #MoveTheDate www.overshootday.org • Earth Overshoot Day is August 1. If everyone committed to #MoveTheDate 5 days each year, we could get out of global overshoot by 2050. Take your first step today! www.overshootday.org • Today is Earth Overshoot Day. It would take 8.5 South Koreas to support South Koreans' Ecological Footprint. It would take 4 UKs to meet the demand for natural resources of UK residents. How does your country stack up? • Today is Earth Overshoot Day. If everyone www.overshootday.org lived like the average American, we would need 5 Earths. The average Russian, 3.3 Earths. And the average Brazilian, 1.8 Earths.
    [Show full text]