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

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

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.

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!

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?

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.

"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!

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.

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.

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.

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