It’s only November, but I feel quite certain that if I were to go on vacation, I would head for a tropical zone over a temperate one. If I were any species other than a human, this would be a bad choice.
Over the last 3 decades, according to the new 2010 Living Planet Report
, there has been a 60% decrease in biodiversity for tropical species, compared to the 29% increase that temperate species have enjoyed.
This same report has labelled the US and Canada with the 5th
heaviest footprints, respectively. In 2007, humanity’s footprint exceeded the earth’s biocapacity by 50%. So...we need a half of another planet to support our consumption patterns. We crossed the point of balance between what we took and what could be restored on a yearly basis in 1970.
Take our 3-question quiz to challenge your knowledge of our planet's health:
1. If you were an animal, would you rather be living in a:
a) Low income country
b) Middle income country
c) High income country
2. Which habitat type is losing its biodiversity at the fastest rate (since 1970)?
a) Freshwater species
b) Terrestrial species
c) Marine species
3. Which country has the largest footprint?
b) United Arab Emirates
1. c) Species fare better in a high income country. Biodiversity has fallen 58% in low-income countries, 25% in middle-income countries, and has risen 5% in high-income countries.
2. a) Freshwater species have dropped by 35% (Actually, this is an average. The
tropical freshwater Living Planet Index has fallen by nearly 70%, while the temperate freshwater LPI has risen by 36%). Terrestrial species have lost 25% and marine species have lost 24%.
3. b) United Arab Emirates leads the way, with Denmark placing #3 and Australia placing after Canada in the 8th