27/05/2021

(Independent Media Institute) If We Don’t Protect 30% Of The Natural World By 2030, Earth May Be Unfit For Life

Independent Media InstituteReynard Loki

We are to blame for the biggest extinction event in human history. But there is a solution if we take urgent action now.

Paradise lost: An estimated 15 to 20 tons of plastic trash wash ashore every single year on a 0.6-mile uninhabited stretch of Kamilo Beach on the island of Hawaii. (Photo credit: M. Lamson/Hawaii Wildlife Fund via National Institute of Standards and Technology).

Author
Reynard Loki is Editor, Chief Correspondent and Writing Fellow for Earth | Food | Life. He had previously served as the environment, food and animal rights editor at AlterNet.
The natural world is in a state of crisis, and we are to blame.

We are in the midst of the Sixth Extinction, the biggest loss of species in the history of humankind.

So many species are facing total annihilation. Nearly one-third of freshwater species are facing extinction. So are 40 percent of amphibians84 percent of large mammals; a third of reef-building corals; and nearly one-third of oak trees.

Rhinos and elephants are being gunned down at rates so alarming that they could be completely wiped out from the wild by 2034. There may be fewer than 10 vaquita—a kind of porpoise endemic to Mexico’s Gulf of California—due to illegal fishing nets, pesticides and irrigation. There are 130,000 plant species that could become extinct in our lifetimes.

All told, about 28 percent of evaluated plant and animal species across the planet are now at risk of becoming extinct.

The rapid decline in species has occurred in recent years: 60 percent of the planet’s wildlife populations have been lost in just the last 50 years. Scientists warn that in the coming decades, if we don’t take action, more than 1 million species may vanish from the Earth forever.

Our fellow Earthlings are being overhunted, overfished and overharvested for our food, clothing and medicines. And the ones that we don’t kill are losing their homes as we destroy their natural habitats to make space for our farms and cities and to extract fuels, minerals, timber and other resources for human society. And the habitats that we don’t completely eradicate we pollute with a vast array of toxic elements, from pesticides and plastics to carbon dioxidefracking chemicals and invasive species.

We are even polluting wildlife habitats with our light and noise. And scientists fear that the worst is yet to come. As the International Union for Conservation of Nature warns, the worldwide extinction crisis is “expected to worsen as the human population grows.”

According to the Population Reference Bureau, the world’s human population is expected to reach 9.9 billion by 2050. That’s more than 25 percent more people on the planet than the 7.9 billion people currently living on the Earth. Other species will certainly be squeezed out.

Biodiversity isn’t just nice to have—it’s essential to the health and maintenance of the planet’s ecosystems, which, in turn, are critical to human health. In addition to providing sustenance, medicines and livelihoods to billions of people, biodiversity helps maintain the Earth’s basic life-supporting elements like clean water, clean air and crop pollination, as well as critical ecosystem services like soil fertility, waste decomposition and recovery from natural disasters.

“Whether in a village in the Amazon or a metropolis such as Beijing, humans depend on the services ecosystems provide,” writes Julie Shaw the director of communications of the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, a biodiversity conservation joint initiative of the French Development Agency, Conservation International, the European Union, the Global Environment Facility, the government of Japan and the World Bank.

“Ecosystems weakened by the loss of biodiversity are less likely to deliver those services, especially given the needs of an ever-growing human population.”

IDL TIFF file

There is also a massive economic benefit to biodiversity.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)—a three-decade-old international treaty adopted by 193 countries (not including, most notably, the United States)—points out that “at least 40 percent of the world’s economy and 80 percent of the needs of the poor are derived from biological resources.”

Damian Carrington, the environment editor of the Guardian, writes that ecosystem services are “estimated to be worth trillions of dollars—double the world’s GDP. Biodiversity loss in Europe alone costs the continent about 3 percent of its GDP [$546 million] … a year.”

So what can be done to prevent the rapid extinction of species and protect the world’s biodiversity?

In April 2019, a group of 19 prominent scientists answered that question when they published the “Global Deal for Nature” (GDN), a “time-bound, science-driven plan to save the diversity and abundance of life on Earth,” which, when paired with the Paris Climate Agreement, is meant to “avoid catastrophic climate change, conserve species, and secure essential ecosystem services.”

To achieve its goal of “ensuring a more livable biosphere,” the GDN’s main objective is crystallized in its “30×30” proposal: Conserve 30 percent of the Earth in its natural state by 2030.

The idea has taken off, with 50 nations led by Costa Rica, France and the United Kingdom joining the movement to realize the 30×30 vision of defending big swaths of intact ecosystems from exploitation. 

“Protecting 30 percent of the planet will undoubtedly improve the quality of life of our citizens, and help us achieve a fair, decarbonized and resilient society,” said Andrea Meza, Costa Rica’s environmental minister. “Healing and restoring nature is a key step towards human wellbeing, creating millions of quality green and blue jobs and fulfilling the 2030 agenda, particularly as part of our sustainable recovery efforts.”

Nongovernmental organizations have answered the rallying cry as well. The Wyss Foundation, a private charitable foundation based in Washington, D.C., “dedicated to… empower[ing] communities… and strengthen[ing] connections to the land,” has joined forces with National Geographic to launch the Wyss Campaign for Nature—“a $1 billion investment to help [nations], communities, [and] Indigenous peoples” mobilize to achieve the 30×30 goal.

The campaign has launched a public petition urging immediate action to protect those ecosystems that have not yet been completely despoiled by the unrelenting expansion of humanity.

 “Protecting 30 percent of our entire planet by 2030 (30×30) is an ambitious but achievable goal,” asserts the campaign. “To achieve it, all countries must embrace the goal and contribute to it; Indigenous rights must be respected; and conservation efforts must be fully funded.”

Stripped bare: To access the coal contained in the Appalachian Mountains in southern West Virginia, extractive companies engage in a controversial mining method called “mountaintop removal,” which is as destructive to the ecosystem as it sounds. Scientists have found that this process negatively impacts groundwater and biodiversity. (Photo credit: NASA Earth Observatory)

And while the U.S. is not a signatory of the CBD treaty, President Biden can take unilateral action by declaring the wildlife extinction crisis a national emergency.

“The declaration, under the National Emergencies Act, isn’t just symbolic,” says the Center for Biological Diversity, a conservation nonprofit based in Tucson, Arizona, which has launched a public petition urging the president to take this important and powerful step. “It will unlock key presidential powers to stem the loss of animals and plants in the United States and beyond,” the group says.

Biden’s declaration would marshal the federal resources necessary to start safeguarding the hundreds of species—including the monarch butterfly, eastern gopher tortoise and northern spotted owl—that have been languishing on the waiting list to receive protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Those actions could include directing federal agencies to rein in wildlife exploitation, defend critical wildlife habitat on federal land and use the nation’s economic influence to help protect wildlife habitat around the world from deforestation and environmental damage caused by the private sector.

Little wise ones: Threatened northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) fledglings stick close together on a branch. Earlier this year, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit to reinstate federal protections on the species’ essential habitat covering more than 3.4 million acres of federal old-growth forests. (Photo credit: Tom Kogut/USFS/USFWS Endangered Species/Flickr)

Thankfully, there is international traction to make the 30×30 vision a reality.

When the 15th Conference of the Parties to the CBD convenes in October in Kunming, China, chances are good that delegates will secure a firm multilateral commitment: The current “zero draft” of the global framework meant to steer conservation efforts through 2030 includes the 30×30 vision as an explicit aim.

“We lose a species to extinction every hour, but extinction is not inevitable,” said Tierra Curry, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, in December. “We can end extinction with funding and political will. We need to stop making excuses and take the bold policy actions necessary to save life on Earth.”

Cause for concern…

Killing fields: Oil rigs dot the landscape in Bakersfield, California, in 2020. In 2019, the state was ranked the seventh-largest producer of crude oil among the 50 states. (Photo credit: Babette Plana/Flickr)

Even though new renewable-energy capacity grew by 45 percent in 2020 (more than Germany’s entire energy-generation capacity), fossil fuel production is expected to grow in 2021, fixing dirty, carbon-emitting energy as the world’s dominant power source for some time to come.

Round of applause…


Pollution pause: In shutting down the Limetree Bay refinery in St. Croix, President Biden has made a significant step toward fulfilling his campaign promise to uphold environmental justice. (Photo credit: vi.gov)

“These repeated incidents at the [Limetree Bay] refinery have been and remain totally unacceptable,” said EPA Administrator Michael Regan in a press release Friday afternoon, after the agency ordered a temporary shutdown of Limetree Bay refinery in St. Croix. “Today, I have ordered the refinery to immediately pause all operations until we can be assured that this facility can operate in accordance with laws that protect public health.”

Links

(AU The Guardian) Seven In 10 Australians Want Government To Take More Action On Climate, Survey Finds

The Guardian - 

The Lowy Institute’s annual survey of sentiment on climate action found strong support for net zero emissions by 2050 and a ban on new coalmines

Students and other protesters participate in a School Strike 4 Climate rally in Sydney on Friday. A Lowy Institute poll found concern about climate change has increased over the past year. Photograph: Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

The Morrison government is under increasing pressure to act on the climate crisis, with a new poll showing seven in 10 Australians want the Coalition to lock in stronger commitments in the lead-up to this year’s Glasgow summit.

The Lowy Institute’s annual survey of sentiment on climate action finds strong domestic support for Australia committing to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 and majority support for a ban on new coalmines.

The findings appear to undercut resistance from some prominent members of the Nationals, who have publicly cautioned the government against making a net zero commitment and have been pushing for a continued embrace of coal.

Biden administration says Australia needs to cut greenhouse gas emissions soonerRead more

The Lowy Institute-commissioned poll of 3,286 Australians found overall concern about climate change had increased over the past year, with 60% of respondents describing global warming as “a serious and pressing problem” and agreeing “we should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs”.

That represented a four-point increase from 2020.

In the latest climate poll, a majority (55%) also said the government’s main priority for energy policy should be “reducing carbon emissions” – an eight percentage point increase since 2019.

That compares with 32% of the sample who said the priority should be reducing household bills – a decline of six points over the same period.

Reducing the risk of power blackouts – a key focus of the government’s messaging on the issue – was nominated by just 12% of respondents as the energy policy priority in the most recent poll, down three points.

With the government facing international pressure to endorse deeper emission cuts in the lead-up to the expanded G7 summit in June and the Cop26 climate summit in Glasgow in November, the poll finds strong domestic support for doing so.

When presented with a question about the forthcoming UN climate negotiations, 70% agreed that “Australia should join other countries, such as the United Kingdom and the United States, to increase its commitments to address climate change”.

That compared with about three in 10 respondents (29%) who chose the alternative statement that “Australia should continue with its current policies to address climate change”, while 1% said they did not know.

Some 78% of those surveyed said they would support a net zero emissions target by 2050 – an idea Scott Morrison has expressed as a “preference” rather than a formal commitment – while 20% said they would oppose it.

Just over six in 10 Australians said they would support a ban on new coalmines opening in Australia, while the same proportion said they would support reducing Australian coal exports to other countries. Just 30% of the sample would support providing subsidies for building new coal-fired power plants.

The director of the Lowy Institute’s public opinion and foreign policy program, Natasha Kassam, said the politics and economics of climate action were shifting and a number of elected officials “would take heart” from the results.

Kassam said the level of support for moving away from coal would not have been seen several years ago. She noted that 70% of Australia’s coal and gas exports went to countries in Asia that had set net zero commitments.

“We’ve seen Australians’ concern about the climate increase since 2012,” she said, while noting there had been a slight dip in the poll last year when “understandably much of the public was feeling pretty anxious about the pandemic”.

“What has really shifted in the last couple of years is the willingness of the public to bear costs for climate action … and now we can see the vast majority accept benefits outweigh the costs.”

When asked to weigh the consequences of acting on climate change, nearly three-quarters of the respondents (74%) said the benefits of taking further action would outweigh the costs, while about a quarter (24%) said the costs would outweigh the benefits.

‘No action on anything’: Australia increasingly isolated as US and others ramp up climate ambitionRead more

Other popular potential policies include providing subsidies for the development of renewable energy technologies (91% support) and providing subsidies for the purchase of electric vehicles (77%).

With the government pursuing its so-called “gas-fired recovery” from the pandemic, and planning to spend up to $600m on a new gas-fired power plant in New South Wales, 58% of the sample said they would support increasing the use of gas for Australia’s energy generation.

And seven years after the Abbott government repealed the Gillard government’s carbon price after a relentless political campaign, some 64% of the sample said they would support an emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax.

The Lowy Institute said its climate poll was based on a nationally representative online and telephone survey conducted by the Social Research Centre between 12 and 26 April, with a margin of error of about 1.8%.

The Sydney-based thinktank has been tracking attitudes to global warming since 2006, when 68% of respondents agreed that it was “a serious and pressing problem” requiring Australia to take steps even if it involved costs.

That dropped to a low of 36% in 2012 at the height of the acrimonious political battle over the Gillard government’s carbon pricing scheme, before steadily rising in subsequent years.

Links