HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN OUR PLANET REALLY SUPPORT?

HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN OUR PLANET REALLY SUPPORT?

We often hear people citing overpopulation as the single biggest threat to the Earth. But can we really single out population growth in this way? Are there really too many people on our planet? It's clear that on the Earth there's so much space (and not to mention the resources that can support a human population) So a growing human population must pose some kind of a threat to the wellbeing of planet Earth, mustn't it? Not necessarily. As Gandhi said there is enough for everyone in the world, but not enough for everyone's greed, so if we think about this quote we can arribe that if we don't abuse of the world maybe we could have enough resources for everyone, but that's not how the Earth is going.The number of "modern human beings"  on Earth has been comparatively small until very recently. Just 10,000 years ago there might have been no more than a few million people on the planet. As it stands now, though, the world's population is over 7.3 billion. According to United Nations predictions it could reach 9.7 billion people by 2050, and over 11 billion by 2100. Population growth has been so fast that there is no real precedent we can turn to for evidence about the possible consequences. So a world with a human population of 11 billion might put comparatively little extra strain on our planet's resources. But the world is changing. The real concern would be if the people living in these areas decided to demand the lifestyles and consumption rates currently considered normal in high-income nations; something many would argue is only fair. If they do, the impact of urban population growth could be much larger. It is not the rise in population by itself that is the problem, but rather the even more fast rise in global consumption (which of course is unevenly distributed). By this reason there needs to be a fundamental change in the core values of developed societies: away from an emphasis on material wealth, and towards a model where individual and societal well-being are considered most important. Even if those changes finally occurred, it seems unlikely that our planet could really sustain a population of 11 billion. So they suggests that we should stabilise the global population, hopefully at around nine billion, and then begin a long, slow trend of decreasing population. That means reducing fertility rates.

Vocabulary (wordreference) :

- growth (creixement)

- resources (recursos)

- greed (avaricia)

- concern (preocupació)

- unevenly (desigualment)

News paper page:

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160311-how-many-people-can-our-planet-really-support

What was agreed as part of the Paris climate deal?

What was agreed as part of the Paris climate deal?

The deal unites all the world's nations in a single agreement on tackling climate change for the first time in history. They think that coming to a consensus among nearly 200 countries on the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions is considered like "histoirc movement". The Kyoto Protocol set in 1997 a protocol that make other countries not to produce so many contamination but some countries like US didn't want to accept. However, cientist say that the Paris accord must be strengthened if it  have any change to stop the dangerous climate change. 

I think that it's such a positive deal, I mean it can only be favorable for the habitants of this different countries and nations and it's a new way to help the world and not to destroy them, because if we do't think about our plante now what will happened in the future? 
So I think it's a positive moment and if now we have the 




vocabulary (wordreference): 

- consensus (opinión general)
- greenhouse (hivernacle)
- deal (tracte)



news paper link:

 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35073297