Three Questions
Are we doing enough of the right things (to save the world, obviously)? Are we doing them fast enough? Why are we doing them? These are the Three Questions I posed over five years ago as we launched our Getting Serious Now Blog, and I would like to ask them of our efforts to address climate change and biodiversity.
Two recent alarming reports: Just as I was finishing my last piece on the scary 1.5C climate report, the World Wildlife Fund, with the help of 59 scientists, released a report revealing a world-wide “overall decline of 60% in [vertebrate] population sizes between 1970 and 2014.” Putting a number on wildlife losses is actually very difficult and can be done in different ways, but the main message is clear: we have lost a huge portion of our wildlife over just the past four decades. The resulting population distributions between wild and non-wild animals for instance are astounding: humans and their livestock make up 96% of mammals (by weight), leaving 4% wild. Of the total biomass of birds in the world, 70% is our poultry! (In spite of this, I am amazed at how much wildlife there is still around to appreciate and enjoy—and to protect.)
Pausing to reflect on my career: These recent reports show dramatic losses in both climate suitability and wildlife since I started my career 45 years ago, and since most of my work over this time was in the natural science and environmental fields, it makes me wonder whether our generation has been asleep at the wheel. I think it is fair to say that we were aware of these trends all that time and should have seen where we were going, but we failed as a society—so far— to steer away from these tremendous losses. For my part as a professional and as a citizen, what should I have done differently? More importantly, what should we all be doing now?
Are we doing enough of the right things?
Clearly, from the reports above, we are not. Are we at least focusing on the right things? It is clear to me that biodiversity and climate are two of the most critical crises facing us and our planet. The severity and scale of their impacts—coupled with their irreversibility for all practical purposes—puts them at the top of my list. Increasing greenhouse gases and the changes they set in motion will affect our climate dramatically for centuries. Wildlife losses lead to extinctions which are permanent affronts to the biodiversity that our world—natural and otherwise—depends on.
Which is most critical? The intersection of food, biodiversity, and climate are at the center of our work at Healthy Community Food Systems. In our strategic planning, I repeatedly ask which—climate or biodiversity—is most important for us as a nonprofit and us as a society to work on. I can’t escape the conclusion that we must do both—we must see both as top priorities. When we think of the climate crisis, we must think of biodiversity. When we tackle biodiversity, we must address climate.
Fortunately, in the area of food systems, when we use food to address climate, we end up helping wildlife and biodiversity (think chemical-free agriculture). Efforts to maintain farm and ranch biodiversity are very often very good for our climate (think healthy soil biota). To adapt to a more biologically based food production system that doesn’t require fossil fuel and synthetic inputs, biodiversity is essential for fertility and crop protection. Strategies that address both climate and biodiversity are no-brainers.
Which is the most urgent? Reed Noss and several biodiversity colleagues (Protecting the Wild, page 19) have made the argument that too much of a focus on climate at the expense of biodiversity action right now could be counterproductive. They argue that the current direct effect of climate change on nature “is dwarfed” by the impact of today’s land use changes from wild spaces to agriculture as population increases. Further, they assert that land use conversion could make it nearly impossible for species to adapt to climate change. Strategies that address land use conversion while contributing to carbon sequestration would be obvious win-wins. It is clear that both climate and biodiversity must be of our most urgent priorities.
Are we doing the right things fast enough?
To the second question—are we doing them fast enough?—again, the reports cited above say no. The IPCC climate report shows how hard it will be to keep warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius—let alone 2C, the very short amount of time we have to avoid either of these temperature rises, and the enormity of the additional impacts between 1.5 and 2C. Jones and Schendler put this required herculean effort in the context of how society has responded to other crises—with some lessons for overcoming the “impossible.” As for biodiversity, all accounts I have seen indicate that we are well into the “Sixth Extinction” with a heartbreaking loss of both species and wildlife numbers. We must open our eyes to see where we are going and do all we can to make sure we don’t get there!
Business as usual: This phrase epitomizes the difficulty of making changes that are of the scale and timeliness needed. We must acknowledge and celebrate improvements and innovations and “wins”, but unless we are making net progress, and net progress that is fast enough to avoid catastrophic impacts, we must also acknowledge that we aren’t truly rising to the challenge. If we reduce soil erosion in a foodshed, but we are still losing soil faster than it is regenerating, the effort is laudable, but not sufficient.
Enough improvements, working around the edges, evolving the system, and incremental advances together can theoretically produce the net progress we need, but the scale combined with the urgency of the climate and biodiversity crises call for system-wide change. Unless we have a dramatic change in the way we see the improvements needed and the speed with which these changes must occur—and mobilize accordingly, we won’t avoid most what scientists tell us is coming our way. Leaving fossil fuels in the ground, committing to a non-industrial agriculture, rethinking consumerism and an ever expanding economy, looking first to the local foodshed, and preserving half the earth for wildlife are the sort of “impossibilities” we must consider.
Why do we do this work?
This third question prompts us to look deeply at why we are working on climate, biodiversity, or hopefully, both. It seems that climate gets more attention currently than loss of wildlife and species. Both crises have profound implications for society, but my guess is that the impact of climate seems more real and personal (for those who do see it) in spite of the fact that many of the more severe impacts on humans will be unfolding largely in the future for those of us in affluent countries. What I find refreshing is that the motivations to address biodiversity and wildlife losses—in spite of the very real consequences for humans—are often more aesthetic and moral in nature. Even though aesthetics and morality may be ultimately self-centered motivations in part, I again find it refreshing to be in a struggle that includes these less human-centered aspirations. None of this is meant to divert our attention from climate at all since climate is one of the greatest threats to biodiversity, but simply to add some additional reasons for caring and engaging in the fight to minimize losses in both crises. For me, a bit of altruism adds richness to these efforts.
What to do? We must end such serious thoughts as these with a clear path forward—why not start with food and take a look at our strategies for addressing climate change and addressing biodiversity with local food. Taking the time and making the effort to re-envision all our choices around food can be very effective, and at the same time, very rewarding, nurturing, and delicious!
Leave a Reply