CLIMATE CHANGE VERSUS LANDSCAPE LOSS- THE U.N. REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY
It seems only a summary has so far been published, but the
recent UN report on biodiversity- one million animal and plant species threatened with
extinction- seems to show a marked shift of emphasis on causation, away from climate change to landscape use, a theme which I have been propagating for more years than I care to remember. It also seems to be weak on priorities and practicalities.
A bar diagram published in the "i" newspaper- so far
as I know, not anywhere else- on May 7th shows the key drivers of biodiversity loss for four
groups- birds; reptiles and amphibians; mammals; and fish. Threats to biodiversity are listed
as habitat degradation; pollution; exploitation; invasive species and disease; and climate
change. In all four groups of species the climate change contribution is small- from visual
inspection (why is the media so keen to publish graphics rather than figures?) it seems to be
about 10 per cent for fish, 5 per cent for mammals, 8 or 9 per cent for reptiles and amphibians,
and 15 per cent for birds. Plants are not shown. Habitat degradation is given as around 50 per
cent for birds and "reptiles and amphibians", around 45 per cent for mammals and 27 per cent
for fish, but three and possibly all four of the other causes listed could be included in landscape
degradation. When it is recognised that landscape change is itself an important cause of climate
change, through albedo, it is obvious that nearly all attention must be focused on it. (In addition
the prevailing doctrine that climate change is caused mainly by CO2 most be strongly challenged, as I do in a Farsight Research report Climate change: reclaiming a lost science, to be published
in July, but this is a separate question).
If landscape loss is overwhelmingly the main issue, what
is to be done?
Stemming population growth, obviously. In developing
countries, this means reducing the birth rate. In developed countries, it means reducing immigration.
But in addition governments must embrace controls over the location of population of a scope and
stringency so far not contemplated anywhere, though the UK in 1945-1973 had something like
what was needed- industrial development certificates were used to steer industry away from
London and South-East England, as well as the Midlands, to other parts of the country. The
rationale was macro-economic- reducing pressure on the labour market and hence inflation,
plus the social aim of reducing unemployment- rather than environmental. It is clear that
National Parks, Green Belts, protected areas etc. are not sufficient. The government must
specify the areas where development is to be allowed, and ban or restrict it in other areas.
The location of economic activities which require large areas of land and are for this and other
(public finance) reasons inevitably under government control- such as airports, ports,
universities- can be used as levers for influencing the location of employment and population.
Of the demands on land use which are directly subject to government control and where there
is scope for reducing the demand, top of the list must be the private car, especially when used
for commuting, where it is idle but occupying space for much of the day). In addition there
is the host of other reasons- encouraging walking, now seen as more efficacious than medicines
in treating a variety of ailments, road accidents and air pollution. There is no such thing as
an eco-friendly private car.
The growth of air travel is correctly seem as a major issue.
I saw some time ago a figure- now probably out of date- that only 5 per cent of the world*s
population had ever been in an aeroplane. What will it be like when this figure grows to
20, 30 or 50 per cent? We can do a lot to encourage long-distance rail travel- how about
a Casablanca to Cairo railway, with links to Europe through tunnels near Gibraltar and the
Bosphorus- but it could hardly compete with holiday air travel unless the journey itself could
be made part of the holiday. But in the meantime we can enforce the most drastic restrictions
on airport car parking, with the incidental benefit of inducing people to cut down the
amount of luggage they take on holiday.
I am doubtful about the emphasis on beef production as
a land use which could be reduced, as also on the vegetarian case for reducing meat production-
what would the English landscape look like if it was all East Anglia-type cereals and
vegetable prairie fields- but this need some more detailed investigation at a later time.
t
It seems only a summary has so far been published, but the
recent UN report on biodiversity- one million animal and plant species threatened with
extinction- seems to show a marked shift of emphasis on causation, away from climate change to landscape use, a theme which I have been propagating for more years than I care to remember. It also seems to be weak on priorities and practicalities.
A bar diagram published in the "i" newspaper- so far
as I know, not anywhere else- on May 7th shows the key drivers of biodiversity loss for four
groups- birds; reptiles and amphibians; mammals; and fish. Threats to biodiversity are listed
as habitat degradation; pollution; exploitation; invasive species and disease; and climate
change. In all four groups of species the climate change contribution is small- from visual
inspection (why is the media so keen to publish graphics rather than figures?) it seems to be
about 10 per cent for fish, 5 per cent for mammals, 8 or 9 per cent for reptiles and amphibians,
and 15 per cent for birds. Plants are not shown. Habitat degradation is given as around 50 per
cent for birds and "reptiles and amphibians", around 45 per cent for mammals and 27 per cent
for fish, but three and possibly all four of the other causes listed could be included in landscape
degradation. When it is recognised that landscape change is itself an important cause of climate
change, through albedo, it is obvious that nearly all attention must be focused on it. (In addition
the prevailing doctrine that climate change is caused mainly by CO2 most be strongly challenged, as I do in a Farsight Research report Climate change: reclaiming a lost science, to be published
in July, but this is a separate question).
If landscape loss is overwhelmingly the main issue, what
is to be done?
Stemming population growth, obviously. In developing
countries, this means reducing the birth rate. In developed countries, it means reducing immigration.
But in addition governments must embrace controls over the location of population of a scope and
stringency so far not contemplated anywhere, though the UK in 1945-1973 had something like
what was needed- industrial development certificates were used to steer industry away from
London and South-East England, as well as the Midlands, to other parts of the country. The
rationale was macro-economic- reducing pressure on the labour market and hence inflation,
plus the social aim of reducing unemployment- rather than environmental. It is clear that
National Parks, Green Belts, protected areas etc. are not sufficient. The government must
specify the areas where development is to be allowed, and ban or restrict it in other areas.
The location of economic activities which require large areas of land and are for this and other
(public finance) reasons inevitably under government control- such as airports, ports,
universities- can be used as levers for influencing the location of employment and population.
Of the demands on land use which are directly subject to government control and where there
is scope for reducing the demand, top of the list must be the private car, especially when used
for commuting, where it is idle but occupying space for much of the day). In addition there
is the host of other reasons- encouraging walking, now seen as more efficacious than medicines
in treating a variety of ailments, road accidents and air pollution. There is no such thing as
an eco-friendly private car.
The growth of air travel is correctly seem as a major issue.
I saw some time ago a figure- now probably out of date- that only 5 per cent of the world*s
population had ever been in an aeroplane. What will it be like when this figure grows to
20, 30 or 50 per cent? We can do a lot to encourage long-distance rail travel- how about
a Casablanca to Cairo railway, with links to Europe through tunnels near Gibraltar and the
Bosphorus- but it could hardly compete with holiday air travel unless the journey itself could
be made part of the holiday. But in the meantime we can enforce the most drastic restrictions
on airport car parking, with the incidental benefit of inducing people to cut down the
amount of luggage they take on holiday.
I am doubtful about the emphasis on beef production as
a land use which could be reduced, as also on the vegetarian case for reducing meat production-
what would the English landscape look like if it was all East Anglia-type cereals and
vegetable prairie fields- but this need some more detailed investigation at a later time.
t
