To make change happen, I think we need to go even broader. That’s why I like the Doughnut Economics framework that combines staying with planetary boundaries with the social side.
You might like to take a look at my book, We Can Reverse the Planet's Eco-crises, which solves the problem of the planet's intricately linked ecological crises - including the biodiversity loss crisis and the climate crisis -- as a whole. It does so by: First, mapping the decision-making system (called "the Human Enterprise") that is creating the eco-crises; and, Second, using that mapping to design an information-based decision-making process (called "regenerative decision-making") for adopting win-win solutions (called "regenerative options") -- such as ecosystem restoration options -- for reversing the eco-crises as a whole. Grateful for everything you are doing.
I'm trying to think through this issue at the moment. Mostly as an aide memoire for me I'll suggest two things that I want to come back to: (1) I reckon that biodiversity is more affected by land use than by climate change; in that altering land use is a potentially far more effective lever than directly addressing climate change. (2) There are two types of response to climate change, and one type of response on biodiversity. On climate change, responses can be divided into (a) attempting to - long run - reduce climate change per se by reducing GHG gases (and maybe other things like geoengineering projects); and (b) mitigating the effects of climate change (addressing urban heat islands, different watershed management regimes and so on). (a) and (b) are not mutually exclusive, the same intervention could contribute to both, but they are different. There is only one category of response on biodiversity, and that is attempting to increase biodiversity!
I agree, currently at least land loss threatens biodiversity far more than climate change. However, I do think that the loss of biodiversity does have a very strong impact on climate change. As mentioned in the article loss of biodiversity leads to broken and dying ecosystems, the loss of these ecosystems has an immense impact on our climate, and the health of the earth. Land loss, or the transformation of these ecosystems for industrial purposes, leads to loss of environments which would otherwise help to stabilize the planets condition.
For example the loss of marshlands to land development. Marshes are major carbon sinks, along with that they regulate the flow of water and help to prevent flooding.
So while climate change may not be the leading cause of biodiversity loss at the moment, loss of biodiversity and the consequences it entails are certainly a factor when it comes to climate change
Thanks for your thoughts! Yes, so far, land-use change has been a bigger driver of biodiversity loss than climate change by a big margin, given the amount of land-use change that has gone on. Here's a recent paper on the topic showing that the main driver will shift to climate change in coming years: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.adn3441
Re: stopping biodiversity decline, fixing land use is clearly a major. But doing that in the right way has win-wins for both biodiversity and climate change. Both are major issues, and stemming biodiversity has the added benefit of slowing climate change.
To make change happen, I think we need to go even broader. That’s why I like the Doughnut Economics framework that combines staying with planetary boundaries with the social side.
There’s a lot to like about doughnut economics. The typical growth centric model of capitalism certainly makes it hard to solve our major problems.
Thank you for article Jonathan
You might like to take a look at my book, We Can Reverse the Planet's Eco-crises, which solves the problem of the planet's intricately linked ecological crises - including the biodiversity loss crisis and the climate crisis -- as a whole. It does so by: First, mapping the decision-making system (called "the Human Enterprise") that is creating the eco-crises; and, Second, using that mapping to design an information-based decision-making process (called "regenerative decision-making") for adopting win-win solutions (called "regenerative options") -- such as ecosystem restoration options -- for reversing the eco-crises as a whole. Grateful for everything you are doing.
Thanks Erik. I'll check it out. Appreciate you reading.
I'm trying to think through this issue at the moment. Mostly as an aide memoire for me I'll suggest two things that I want to come back to: (1) I reckon that biodiversity is more affected by land use than by climate change; in that altering land use is a potentially far more effective lever than directly addressing climate change. (2) There are two types of response to climate change, and one type of response on biodiversity. On climate change, responses can be divided into (a) attempting to - long run - reduce climate change per se by reducing GHG gases (and maybe other things like geoengineering projects); and (b) mitigating the effects of climate change (addressing urban heat islands, different watershed management regimes and so on). (a) and (b) are not mutually exclusive, the same intervention could contribute to both, but they are different. There is only one category of response on biodiversity, and that is attempting to increase biodiversity!
I agree, currently at least land loss threatens biodiversity far more than climate change. However, I do think that the loss of biodiversity does have a very strong impact on climate change. As mentioned in the article loss of biodiversity leads to broken and dying ecosystems, the loss of these ecosystems has an immense impact on our climate, and the health of the earth. Land loss, or the transformation of these ecosystems for industrial purposes, leads to loss of environments which would otherwise help to stabilize the planets condition.
For example the loss of marshlands to land development. Marshes are major carbon sinks, along with that they regulate the flow of water and help to prevent flooding.
So while climate change may not be the leading cause of biodiversity loss at the moment, loss of biodiversity and the consequences it entails are certainly a factor when it comes to climate change
Great points -- thanks! I agree -- lots of unknown feedbacks going on too.
Thanks for your thoughts! Yes, so far, land-use change has been a bigger driver of biodiversity loss than climate change by a big margin, given the amount of land-use change that has gone on. Here's a recent paper on the topic showing that the main driver will shift to climate change in coming years: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.adn3441
Re: stopping biodiversity decline, fixing land use is clearly a major. But doing that in the right way has win-wins for both biodiversity and climate change. Both are major issues, and stemming biodiversity has the added benefit of slowing climate change.