Our response to climate change is missing something big, say scientists

Our response to climate change is missing something big, say scientists


Some environmental solutions are win-win solutions that help curb global warming and also protect biodiversity. But others approach a crisis at the expense of others. For example, growing trees on grasslands can destroy the flora and fauna of a rich ecosystem, even if the new trees ultimately take up carbon.

Read more on Our response to climate change is missing something big, say scientists…


Some environmental solutions are win-win solutions that help curb global warming and also protect biodiversity. But others approach a crisis at the expense of others. For example, growing trees on grasslands can destroy the flora and fauna of a rich ecosystem, even if the new trees ultimately take up carbon.

What to do?

Unless the world stops treating climate change and biodiversity collision as separate issues, none of the issues can be effectively addressed, according to a report released Thursday by researchers from two leading international scientific panels.

Also read | Poland is faced with the first civil lawsuits over climate change

“These two topics are more closely intertwined than originally assumed,” says Hans-Otto Pörtner, co-chair of the scientific steering committee that prepared the report. They are also inextricably linked to human wellbeing. But global policies usually target one or the other, which leads to unintended consequences.

“If you look at just one angle, you miss a lot of things,” says Yunne-Jai Shin, marine biologist at the French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development and co-author of the report. “Every action counts. “

How we got here

For years, a group of scientists and politicians has studied the climate crisis and tried to combat it, warning the world of the dangers posed by greenhouse gases that have been building up in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. The main culprit: fossil fuel burning.

Another group has studied the biodiversity crisis and tried to combat it by triggering warnings about extinction and the collapse of the ecosystem. The main culprits: habitat loss through agriculture and at sea through overfishing.

The two groups have largely operated in their own silos. But their themes are connected by something elementary, literally: carbon itself.

The same element that makes soot and the heat emitting carbon dioxide and methane are also a fundamental building block of nature. It helps form the tissues of plants and animals on earth. It is stored in forests, wetlands, grasslands, and on the ocean floor. In fact, land and water ecosystems already store half of man-made emissions.

Another link between climate and biodiversity: Humans have created emergencies on both fronts by using the planet’s resources in unsustainable ways.

Over the past few decades, the climate crisis has largely overshadowed the biodiversity crisis, perhaps because its threat seemed even worse. But the balance can shift. Scientists warn that a decline in biodiversity can lead to a collapse of the ecosystem that threatens the food and water supplies of humankind.

“Climate change of 4 or 5 degrees is such an existential threat to humans, hardly imaginable,” says Paul Leadley, one of the authors and ecologist at the University of Paris-Saclay.

And he continued, “If we lose a really large part of the species on earth, it is an existential threat.”

What does not work

Companies and countries are increasingly turning to nature to offset their emissions, for example by planting trees to absorb carbon. But the science is clear: nature can’t store enough carbon to keep emitting greenhouse gases at our current rate.

“A clear first priority are emission reductions, emission reductions and emission reductions said Portner.

Also read | Here’s an idea to reverse climate change: change the moon’s orbit

Just last month, the world’s leading energy agency said that nations must immediately stop testing new coal, oil and gas projects if the world is to avoid the worst effects of global warming.

To make matters worse, some measures that are being used or proposed to combat climate change could destroy biodiversity.

“Some people are selling this message that if we cover the whole planet with trees that will solve the climate problem,” Leadley said. “This is the wrong message on many levels.

In Brazil, parts of the Cerrado, a species-rich savannah that stores large amounts of carbon, have been planted with monocultures of eucalyptus and pine to meet a global reforestation goal. The result, researchers wrote separately, is an “impending ecological catastrophe” because it is destroying the indigenous ecosystem and the livelihoods of local communities, including the indigenous population.

Europe once hoped to be the world leader in biofuels until it realized they were leading to deforestation and increased food prices. Another type of bioenergy, wood pellets, is currently booming in the southeastern United States, despite concerns about pollution and biodiversity loss.

Climate interventions tend to harm biodiversity more than the other way around, and some compromises have to be made, the authors write. Solar parks, for example, eat up the habitat of wild animals, which is a problem especially for places with threatened species. Most importantly, they generate clean energy.

The report highlights ways to mitigate the damage to biodiversity, such as grazing livestock in the area, improving carbon soil supplies, and avoiding intact habitats. Pollinator gardens on solar farms can help feed insects and birds. While wind farms can injure migratory birds, the authors find that modern turbines cause much less damage.

The solutions

By protecting and restoring nature, the report says, we can protect biodiversity, limit warming, improve human well-being and even find shelter from the effects of climate change such as increased floods and storms.

In Senegal’s Casamance region, for example, local communities have restored mangroves and implemented sustainable fishing measures, improved their catch, brought back dolphins and 20 species of fish, stored carbon and protected their coastline, said Pamela McElwee, an environmental anthropologist at Rutgers University who was one of the authors.

“Mangroves are a very special ecosystem,” she says, “insofar as they do everything for people.”

While mangroves themselves are vulnerable to climate change, McElwee said they are less threatened than previously thought as the restoration efforts are working.

In the Hindu Kush mountains of South Asia, a project has preserved an area the size of Belgium, restored high-altitude forests and grazing land, and protected endangered snow leopards and musk deer, the report said, while keeping carbon out of the atmosphere. The 1.3 million people who live there, between Nepal, India and the Tibet Autonomous Region in China, have achieved higher household incomes through tourism and sustainable agriculture.

Urban areas can also make their contribution with native trees, green spaces and coastal ecosystems, according to the researchers.

The report was the first collaboration between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Platform on Science Policy on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

John Holdren, an environmental scientist at Harvard University and a former White House science advisor who was not involved in the report, called it “a must-see for our time.”

.

COMMENTS