Just a reminder that, while climate change may be a proximate cause of
biodiversity loss, it is not the ultimate cause.
A number of recent studies have pointed out the fundamental conflict
between economic growth and biodiversity loss and a recent study by
Canadell et al. (2007. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:18866¨C18870;
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18866.full), discussed the connection
between economic growth and increasing CO2 emissions:
Recent growth of the world economy combined with an increase in its
carbon intensity have led to rapid growth in fossil fuel CO_2
emissions since 2000: comparing the 1990s with 2000¨C2006, the
emissions growth rate increased from 1.3% to 3.3% /y/ ^-1 . The third
process is indicated by increasing evidence (/P/ = 0.89) for a
long-term (50-year) increase in the airborne fraction (AF) of CO_2
emissions, implying a decline in the efficiency of CO_2 sinks on land
and oceans in absorbing anthropogenic emissions. Since 2000, the
contributions of these three factors to the increase in the
atmospheric CO_2 growth rate have been ¡Ö65 ¡À 16% from increasing
global economic activity, 17 ¡À 6% from the increasing carbon
intensity of the global economy, and 18 ¡À 15% from the increase in AF.
The increasing intensity suggests that technological efficiencies appear
to be losing their effectiveness (i.e., technology is not likely to
solve the problem), while a decline in the efficiency of CO2 sinks on
land can also be at least partially attributed to the economic growth
driver (e.g., deforestation).
Climate change is essentially a symptom of the problem, the ultimate
cause of which is economic growth. Czech
(http://www.wildlife.org/publications/wsb2801/2sc_czech.pdf) points out
that, because of the enormous breadth of the human niche, the human
economy grows at the competitive exclusion of wildlife in the aggregate.
As long as the economy continues to grow, more and more biodiversity
will be lost through competitive exclusion.
He uses an ecological analogy derived from Liebig's law of the minimum,
and suggests economic growth is the limiting factor for biodiversity
conservation. Recall that a limiting factor is a factor whose presence
or absence controls a process such as the success of an organism. It's a
factor that, if not addressed, will affect the success of the organism
no matter what other benefits are provided.
With respect to biodiversity conservation, unless the limiting
factor--economic growth--is addressed, it doesn't matter what else we do
in terms of conservation effort, the likelihood of our success is
essentially naught.
If we are truly concerned about biodiversity loss, now is the time for
ecologists to speak out about the ultimate cause of this loss: economic
growth.
It's also important that we not assume that economic growth is more off
limits or inaccessible as a policy issue. A wide variety of public
policy tools are adjusted to stimulate growth. Those can be gradually
re-set for lower growth rates, moving toward a steady state economy.
Then, additional public policies will come into play as well, including
cap-and-trade frameworks that will overlap with lowering greenhouse gas
emissions. And of course education on the perils of economic growth
should help to reform the consumer ethic, affect growth rates from the
demand side as well.
Neil K. Dawe
Mary Orland wrote the following on 20/11/2008 10:34 PM:
Dear Fellow Ecologists,
Over the course of the 21st century, global climate change will likely
become the single largest cause of biodiversity loss in the world.
Determining how to manage ecosystems undergoing rapid climate change in
order to preserve biodiversity and ecosystem function is a scientific
challenge to ecologists of unparalleled complexity and importance. Careful
synthesis of diverse ecological sub-disciplines will be required to meet
this challenge. In the coming decades, essentially all ecologists will be
climate change ecologists.
As a result of AB 32, policy makers in California have recently drafted a
strategy to help ecosystems adapt to climate change. The plan will provide
the fundamental architecture for California's ecological climate change
adaptation efforts in the coming decades, and will likely become a template
for other western states as they begin their climate change adaptation
efforts in coming years. The biodiversity strategy is currently in a draft
form written by state agency personnel with comments from nonprofit
stakeholders, and is open to public comment on December 5, 2008.
Unfortunately, little input from the greater ecological scientific community
was solicited in the drafting of this strategy, despite the scientific
complexity of the topic. The biodiversity climate change adaptation strategy
currently being drafted in California may prove to be one of the most
influential policies for protecting biodiversity in the coming century. It
will not likely be effective, however, without guidance from expert
ecologists and incorporation of the best available science. It is crucially
important that the voice of the scientific community be heard at the
December 5th public comments meeting.
As an ecologist you are invited to review the strategy yourself and form
your own comments to share with the agencies. A readily apparent problem
with the current version of the strategy is the misuse of the term
ecological resilience, and consequently ill-defined objectives. At this
time the primary document you need to review is called Strategies (Water,
Biodiversity/Habitat, Forestry) from the September 11th stakeholders meeting
page; the agencies are supposed to post a revised version of this document
that incorporates the stakeholders comments before the public hearing on
December 5th, but had not yet done so at the time this message was written
two weeks before the meeting. They have promised to post it early in the
week of November 24th, just before the Thanksgiving holiday. The agencies
also left the stakeholder participant list for the biodiversity strategy
blank on their website so we do not know which scientists have already given
input. Following the steps below will help maximize the effectiveness of
your participation in this process.
1) Read the strategy yourself -- the first web address is for the currently
available version from the September 11th meeting, the second is where the
revised strategy is supposed to be posted early in the week of November
24th. http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/meetings/index.html#091108
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/biodiversity/index.html
2) Develop your own comments -- these may be in-depth comments based upon
your expertise, or the simple statement that you think the scientific
community needs to be more explicitly involved.
3) Attend the public meeting either in person or by telephone and share you
comments -- Dec. 5th, 1-4 pm, Resources Agency Auditorium, 1416 9th Street,
Sacramento, CA
Conference Call: (916) 657-4113,
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/biodiversity/index.html
4) Email your comments to the following contact people at the state of
California on or before December 5th -- Richard Rayburn, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Amber Pairis, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
5) CC the email of your comments to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - a
consolidated record of the comments from ecologists might prove very
informative.
6) To go http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/and enter you email
address in the side bar to be added to the state of California's climate
change adaptations list server so you will be kept informed of future policy
developments.
7) Consider posting your comments on ECOLOG to stimulate discussion among
the ecological community
Please forward this message to any of your colleagues, students, or
professors who may be interested. The goal is to get as many ecologists as
possible attending the public meeting on December 5th and saying more input
from scientists needs to be incorporated into California's climate change
adaptation strategy. Even if you cannot attend the meeting, please do email
your comments to the agencies. This may be the most important thing you do
to protect biodiversity all day!
Thank you,
Mary C. Orland, Ph.D.
