Slashdot Mirror

Tanya Steele is the Chef Executive of the UK office of the WWF. Why would you ask if she's a real person instead of just clicking on the first Google result of her name: https://www.wwf.org.uk/tanya-s...

*WOOOOSH!!!*
Just to spell the joke out to you, Vince McMahon is the executive of the WWF as in "World Wrestling Federation" which at one time shared the initials with her org.

Tanya Steele is the Chef Executive of the UK office of the WWF. Why would you ask if she's a real person instead of just clicking on the first Google result of her name: https://www.wwf.org.uk/tanya-s...

If you go to the original article in the Guardian, you then have to click on a link to the World Wildlife Fund which then links to a report from the Zoological Society of London https://www.wwf.org.uk/sites/d... which is the ACTUAL study that all this is based on. If you read it you find there is no actual research that definitively counts any species or animals so everything about this is pure speculation. There has been no actual observed decrease. The headline is totally misleading. The actual report simply speculates that there will be decreases due to human behaviour. This is not news. This is not even science. It's simply fear mongering and speculation. In fact if you take the time to read the report it even shows that in some cases human impact is now decreasing year by year, e.g. in world fishing catches. People: please read the source of these stories before making wild comments about statements that are not even based on observable facts. Or better yet: get off your chair and walk into any woods or get out on the sea near you and notice the vast array of life that surrounds you. It's totally astounding. This article is not science. It is hubris. It is humans thinking they are so powerful and wonderful that they can kill every other living thing on the planet. This is totally and completely false. We are just animals like all the rest. Here for a short time and then gone. So read the source and get a grip.

The link is http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/wwf_lpr2010_lr_1_.pdf hopefully, after I read I would comment, because the numbers from the article seems, as many already noted, are taken out of thin air. But to comment - it is better to read details

This is such a bunch of FUD. Several UK studies show that very substantial carbon savings can arise from wind power even at 30% of total electricity provision.

The point about backup is that we have it already for existing plants; adding quite a bit of wind will have minimal impacts on this requirement, both in carbon and cost terms. Having substantial amounts of wind just means more intelligent load balancing from the grid operator, more flexible generation from existing fossil fuel/nuclear plant, and more demand management of consumption.

Again in the UK context, the Centre for Alternative Technology's recent Zero Carbon Britain report shows how the UK could fully decarbonise without gas by 2030 (though it would take quite radical action).

http://www.wwf.org.uk/news/n_0000001664.asp

* * * * * *
"I don't know...must be something in the water."
--Achaan Buddhadasa

(BTW, that 'fine fellow' at Science Magazine happens to be a woman :-))

The US has a bad reputation for all things environmental for a good reason! The fact that George W. Bush abandoned the Kyoto Protocol and pushed for oil drilling in Alaska as two of his first acts in office doesn't inspire confidence.

What makes you think that the US Government will legislate the use of biomass fuels? The influence of the oil companies in US politics is too great.

After all, why do you think the US is so keen to invade Iraq? I won't deny that Saddam Hussein is unstable, but I reckon the 112 bn barrels of oil Iraq is sitting on provides the ultimate motive. IMHO, The US will push for a US-friendly leader to ensure US oil companies receive drilling rights to continue the cycle of money.