It's not just about climate (BBC/Viewpoint)

[eppur_se_muova]

VIEWPOINT
Ahmed Djoghlaf

Concerns over climate change should not obscure other environmental issues such as the rapid loss of species, argues Ahmed Djoghlaf, head of the UN biodiversity convention. There is much to be gained, he says, by treating the different issues together.
***
This growing recognition of the seriousness of climate change is entirely to be welcomed, and in fact is long overdue.

It should not, however, eclipse another equally pressing crisis humanity has brought upon itself: the biggest reduction in the variety of life on Earth since the demise of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

Before I am accused of special pleading for an agenda in which I have a close interest, let me come straight to the point: unless biodiversity loss and climate change are tackled together and with equal priority, the impact of both on the lives of future generations could be very much worse.
***
My main argument, however, is one of hope: by taking determined action to ease the pressures on the planet's ecosystems, we have it within our power to reduce and even eliminate some of the worst threats posed by a warmer and less stable climate.
***
more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6408789.stm

[NNadir]

1. Good point.

[whoneedstickets]

2. Species decline...so what?

I'm going to ask this question with the best 'engage a debate' intention. Why should we worry about species loss? I mean the article notes that this is the biggest reduction in 65M years, but fails to note that during the C/E extinction 98% of all species were eradicated! Yet, a few hundred million years later and, through the 'miracle' of natural selection, life rebounded. So are all these doom-and-gloom prediction made by scientist with a overly 'human' --as oppose to geologic-- sense of time?

Species loss should only be troubling if you a) believe it could lead to the eradication of life on earth or b) believe it is a one way street (only loss never gain). Now, here comes the irony...following this the people who should be worried about species loss are the ones who believe that the number of species was FIXED--say at the time of creation!

We may seem to be screwing up the planet with this warming thing but give it a few 100 million years and all the new ecological niches we created will be filled with creatures we've never seen. Why are 'scientists' so wedded to a static view of our planet?

Is this the strange answer to the question "what do fundamentalist and alarmist scientists have in common"?

Yeah, I'll miss Polar Bears, but I miss triceratops too.

[Dogmudgeon]

3. Because one single species is causing the die-off

I agree, in a 100-million-year scale of time, no problemo. But in the stretch of historical time it's a disaster.

Unless, of course, you have come to burnish your credentials as a "Dangerous Thinker". Speaking of the Fundies and Creationists, Bill Dembski does that sort of thing all the time.

--p!

[whoneedstickets]

4. One species causing extinctions

I'm not so sure that the expansion of a single species hasn't had a massive extinction effect before. I recall reading something about the emergence of cyano bacteria (or was it a blue-gree algae?) anyway it was the first species to begin the transformation of our atmosphere to predominantly N and CO2 into one that held free oxygen. The decline in CO2 and the increase in oxygen led to a massive reverse-greenhouse effect, initiating a freeze that killed off most species on the early earth. (Actually now I recall it was the cyano-bacteria that survived by exploiting geo-thermal heat according to this theory).

I mean really, life on earth has survived numerous MASSIVE extinctions caused by volcanism, impacts etc. Compared to these events a little extra CO2 is small potatoes. I have no doubt that in a mere tick of the geologic clock all this fuss over global warming will be simply a blip on a climate graph. We certainly will change the earth,but we can't kill it (I doubt even with a global nuclear war given the finding of several radiation resistant bacteria).

Now, I'm sure you'll brand me as a heretic and report me to the hall monitors, but all this hand wringing about the 'future of our planet' is a canard. Hell, in about 4 billion years our little blue marble will be engulfed by the expanding sun and destroyed (so we better find a new residence) if a NEAR object doesn't strike us first.

I think that the only legitimate (as opposed to alarmist) global warming debate is one that precedes along the following lines which reflect this 'human time scale' fixation: What are the potential 'costs' to humans of our climate policy? How accurately can they be estimated? What are the 'benefits' of global warming (will this mean longer growing seasons?--yeah I know talk of benefits is also heresy). And, because this is a political world, who will bear these costs?

I have no doubt that global warming will result in many, sometimes severe humanitarian and economic problems. The flooding the Ganges delta could displace 100s of millions. Droughts and flooding caused by changing rainfall patterns over geography not accustomed to the change in precipitation and temperature could lead to crop loss and famine. We may find that as mother earth settles into a new equilibrium (or re-establishes her old one) that we may witness the collapse of economically viable fish stocks, epidemics, and the loss of swaths of timber-exploitable forest (among other things). We humans are sure to be hurt by this; some more than others.

Oddly, you rarely hear straight-forward economic cost-benefit discussion in the global warming debate even though, when approached rationally it is all about the human and economic effects of our policy choice. If any such discussion does occur it can scarcely be heard over the histrionic please to preserve the DNA arrangement manifested in some fuzzy and photogenic creature. Is this because we on the left disdain economic rationales? Is there something more noble about the cause if it is to save some doe-eyed poster species rather than say "it will save us money and preserve economically exploitable resources"?

Many on the right read into the global warming screed a (sometimes not so thinly) veiled 'anti-' agenda (anti-capitalism, anti-globalism, anti-market, anti-western). Would it be prudent to engage them on their own ground, so to speak, and demonstrate that this is not only the ecologically intelligent policy but the economically viable one too. Or don't we have the evidence?

[depakid]

5. If you understood the science of ecology

and the role of key species in ecosytems and overall food chains (which can and do collapse) then my thoughts are that you wouldn't be making these sorts of assertions.

[Dogmudgeon]

6. Yes, it IS another Dangerous Thinker.

"Now, I'm sure you'll brand me as a heretic and report me to the hall monitors, but (insert favorite topic of derision here) is a canard."

That's the boilerplate. I can't even begin to estimate how many times I've read this turn of phrase. Typically, nothing of value follows.

--p!

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. Take a look at the Stern Review

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm

a report by the head economics adviser to the British government on the economics of climate change.

ECONOMIC IMPACT

# Extreme weather could reduce global gross domestic product (GDP) by up to 1%

# A two to three degrees Celsius rise in temperatures could reduce global economic output by 3%

# If temperatures rise by five degrees Celsius, up to 10% of global output could be lost. The poorest countries would lose more than 10% of their output

# In the worst case scenario global consumption per head would fall 20%

# To stabilise at manageable levels, emissions would need to stabilise in the next 20 years and fall between 1% and 3% after that. This would cost 1% of GDP

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6098362.stm

[whoneedstickets]

9. Thanks! Great link

That was exactly what I was looking for. The citation a follow-up paper led me to this paper by a Yale economist

http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/SternReviewD2.pdf

The debate hinges on intergenerational justice and discounting techniques (the value one gives to future economic gains and losses relative to more proximate ones). If the discounting is very low (near zero) as the Stern report contends, (so future losses weigh heavily into current policy) then virtually any cost is justified to prevent the damage to economic output. Nordhaus examines alternative discounting functions and argues that a 'policy ramp' (low emission controls in the form of a carbon tax today combined with increases in this tax over time) are the optimal policy response.

Interestingly the Stern report mentions issues like human versus geologic time the differences between ecological impacts and the human cost of climate change. Guess I'm not the Dangerous Thinker that the mind guards on DU would lead you to believe.

[eppur_se_muova]

10. I'd miss honeybees. So would many crops.

There are many plants which rely on bees for pollenization, and their disappearance would mean a dieback (not necessarily dieoff) of many plants, including crops. Granted, some other species would probably adapt to fill that niche, and eventually the crops would rebound, but maybe not before a whole lot of people starved to death. In the long run, of course, that doesn't matter. But in the short term, those people would care A LOT.

[GliderGuider]

8. When you consider the totality of the World Problematique

The nature and scale of the problem becomes blindingly obvious. My web site explores this intertwined problem set.

In the early 1970s the Club of Rome coined the term World Problematique to describe the complex set of interacting problems that defines the multi-faceted global challenge facing our civilization today. The problems share a number of characteristics. They are global in reach, affecting all nations to a greater or lesser extent; they interact with each other, often working together to make solutions more difficult; their solutions may be contradictory, so that solving one may make another one worse. And as if that wasn't enough, they are all happening simultaneously, right now.

At their heart, all these problems are merely symptoms of one deeper underlying problem. They are symptoms of a species and a way of life that are growing beyond the ability of this planet to supply enough resources and to cope with our inevitable waste products. This growth is seen in the human population, currently surging through 6.6 billion people. It is also seen in our economic and industrial growth, with its emphasis on perpetually rising living standards and increasing wealth.

Air, Water and Soil Pollution

This is how we all became aware of environmental problems: acid rain, Upper Silesia, the Love Canal. Canada has a growing pollution problem in Alberta due to the production of synthetic crude oil from the Tar Sands.

Climate Change

This is the one we've all been watching. It's the major threat that everyone is aware of. While it is mainly a medium and long term threat, it has the potential to wreak havoc on civilization over time. Its effects will make every one of the other problems worse and harder to solve.

Deforestation and Desertification

The world is losing 130,000 sq km of forest every year, an area the size of the state of Florida. Over a billion people in 110 countries are now affected by desertification.

Depletion of Ocean Fish Stocks

The stocks of large oceanic fish have fallen by 90% since 1950. 90% of all fish species could collapse before 2050. For example, the cod stocks on Canada's Grand Banks collapsed by 99% in the quarter century leading up to in 1992 and are showing no signs of recovery after 15 years.

Depletion of Soil Fertility and Fresh Water Reserves

Soil fertility on the American Great Plains is half what it was a hundred years ago. The Ogallala aquifer is being drained 100 times faster than it is being refilled. In India farmers have drilled 21 million tube wells using oil-well technology to take 200 cubic kilometers of water per year out of the earth for irrigation.

Decline of the Global Grain Supply

The world has eaten more grain than it has grown in six of the last seven years. Global grain reserves have fallen from 130 days' supply in 1986 to 57 days today. Global per capita grain production has been declining since 1984.

Species Extinction and Biodiversity Loss

Species are going extinct at 1000 times the expected rate. Species are going extinct at a faster rate today than during any of the previous Great Five extinction events.

Social, Economic and Geopolitical Instability

The US debt is at record levels. Cultural and religious clashes are spreading and growing more violent. There are signs of resource wars around the globe. And of course there is terrorism.

Peak Oil and Natural Gas Depletion

Peak Oil is the most serious near-term threat our civilization faces. If it damages our industrial society as much as seems possible, it will become difficult or impossible to deal with many of the other crises of the Problematique.