The related issues of how to conserve biodiversity and reduce the impacts of climate change have never had such a high public profile as they do at the moment. The activities of Extinction Rebellion caught the attention of the media around the world, for example here in London. Numerous organisations, cities, regions and countries have declared a Climate Emergency. And IPBES – the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services – has released a summary of its first global assessment with the full report due later this year, and explicitly makes the link between conservation of biodiversity and reducing the effects of climate change.
Timed to coincide with all of this, the University of Cambridge has announced that it is setting up a Centre for Climate Repair in order to explore hi-tech “fixes” to climate change, such as spraying sea water into the atmosphere in order to reduce warming at the poles, and sucking CO2 out of the air using large machines. I think it’s fair to say that this was met with some scepticism on social media; here’s some examples:
Other people have pointed out that nature-based solutions are the most likely to be successful, and provide a boost for biodiversity at the same time:
All of this reminds me of the Waste Hierarchy in its various iterations – you know the sort of thing – “Reduce > Reuse > Recycle”, where reduction in waste produced is best, followed by reuse of waste resources, with recycling being the least good option (but still better than just land-filling the waste). As far as the link between conservation of biodiversity and reduction of the effects of climate change goes, there’s a parallel hierarchy – see the image at the top of this post – that sets out the order of priorities:
PROTECTION of ecosystems using the full force of national and international laws and conventions has got to be the top priority. Otherwise any of the other activities will result in, at best, humanity running to catch up with what the world is losing. Let’s stop cutting down ancient forests and degrading peatlands that have accumulated millions of tons of carbon over thousands of years!
FIX – by which I mean the kind of hi-tech solutions proposed above – should be the lowest priority: they do little or nothing directly for biodiversity and there is no compelling evidence that they will even work as intended.
Between these two are RESTORATION of currently degraded habitats (such as re-wetting peatlands as in the Great Fen Project) and PLANTING of trees, which can be a form of habitat restoration under some circumstances. Large scale examples of this include
Grain for Green – China’s attempt to restore vegetation to abandoned farmland to reduce soil erosion and flooding.
Great Green Wall – a multinational initiative in Africa aimed at restoring the vegetation on the southern edge of the Sahara to combat desertification and mitigate climate change.
While doing a bit of research for this blog post* I became aware that a Conservation Hierarchy has already been developed by the Convention on Biological Diversity but that really only deals with habitat destruction, mitigation of destructive activities, etc. What I’m suggesting is related more to the direct link between conservation of biodiversity and mitigation of climate change. So what to call this particular hierarchy? Perhaps the BioCC Hierarchy? Can anyone suggest a better name? Maybe it doesn’t need a name at all, it just needs people to be aware of it and for governments to act logically.
*I googled the term “Conservation Hierarchy” – you get the quality of research you pay for on this blog….