Community | January 25, 2010 | 55 comments

Biodiversity nears 'point of no return'

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8461727.stm

Image
JanforGore
The decline in the world's biodiversity is approaching a point of no return, warns Hilary Benn. In this week's Green Room, the UK's environment secretary urges the international community to seize the chance to act before it is too late.

In 2002, the world's governments made a commitment to significantly reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010.

Although it is hard to measure how much biodiversity we have, we do know these targets have not been met.

Our ecological footprint - what we take out of the planet - is now 1.3 times the biological capacity of the Earth.

In the words of Professor Bob Watson, Defra's chief scientific adviser and former chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we are in danger of approaching "a point of no return".

So the action we take in the next couple of decades will determine whether the stable environment on which human civilisation has depended since the last Ice Age 10,000 years ago will continue.

To do this, we need to widen the nature of the debate about biodiversity. Flora and fauna matter for their own sake; they lift our spirits and nurture our souls.

But our ecosystems also sustain us and our economies - purifying our drinking water, producing our food and regulating our climate.

Climate change and biodiversity are inextricably linked. We ignore natural capital at our peril.

Interdependence

The UK and Brazil are hosting a workshop in preparation for the next UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

Representatives from more than 60 countries - from the Maldives to China - will attend the three-day event to discuss how we can ensure that the post-2010 targets stand a better chance of being met than those set in 2002.

The number of species facing extinction continues to grow

Action urged on nature 'crisis'

The majority of those attending are from developing countries, including those with the rarest and greatest biodiversity. They need to be listened to.

It is easy to have principles when you can afford then - economics and ecology are interdependent.

So when it comes to biodiversity, we desperately need to start restoring links between science and policy, between taking action and evaluating it and between economies and ecosystems.

The big challenge will be for the real benefits of biodiversity and the hard costs of its loss to be included in our economic systems and markets.

Perverse subsidies and the lack of value attached to the services provided by ecosystems have been factors contributing to their loss. What we cannot cost, we don't value - until it has gone.

Investing in the future

Much greater concerted effort is needed to stop the plunder of our ecosystems.

The restoration of our ecosystems must be seen as a sensible and cost-effective investment in this planet's economic survival and growth

Overfishing has reduced blue fin tuna numbers to 18% of what they were in the mid-1970s.

The burning of Indonesia's peat lands and forests for palm oil plantations generates 1.8bn tonnes of greenhouse gases a year, and demand is predicted to double by 2020 compared to 2000.

More than seven million hectares are lost worldwide to deforestation every single year.

The restoration of our ecosystems must be seen as a sensible and cost-effective investment in this planet's economic survival and growth.

I am optimistic. Talking about the danger of climate change has brought with it opportunities to tackle the biodiversity crisis.

While the 2010 targets have not been met, more than 160 countries now have national biodiversity action plans.

cont.
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Green,   Earth and Science,   4 more
  2. tags:
    Culture,  Environment,  Climate Change,  Earth,  9 more
  3.     
    |

55 comments // Biodiversity nears 'point of no return'

  • Agent_Alpha
  • EthicalVegan
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • That are run by humans. Or then again, maybe not. But typical response with you thinking you don't have to do anything regarding the planet and carry no responsibilty for it.

    • 2 years ago
  • maasanova
  • EthicalVegan
  • thewarnerla
  • EthicalVegan
  • Inventor
    • 0
      Inventor  

    • Haiti used to be a tropical rain forest. Then a nearby regional military power turned the country into a Tonton Macoutes-ridden starvation camp, and every sapling and stick in the entire country was cut down by the Haitian people. Now the area looks on Google Earth like a desert.

    • 2 years ago
  • good_stuff
    • 0
      good_stuff  

    • So, we the 1.3 number supposadly means that we consume 30% more resources than the earth can provide, right?

      Wouldn't that mean we are past the point of no return, since clearly the world population isn't leveling off anytime soon?

    • 2 years ago
  • idealist
  • idealist
  • idealist
    • 0
      idealist  

    • imagine millions of hungry mouth's to feed.... other land mammals beware. if a big group of people are hungry enough i don't think there gonna check and see if its on the endangered species list first.
      biodiversity is pretty important, its about balance. and without balance you fall.

    • 2 years ago
  • mcjk
    • 0
      mcjk  

    • Meanwhile, most of the world won't be reading this article. And most of the ones that do will go, "Wow, thats awful." And then proceed to drink their bottled beverages, eat at KFC, drive their SUV to wal-mart, and suck up lots of coal and oil powered electricity.

    • 2 years ago
  • phukna
    • 0
      phukna  
    • Image

    • thank god i just bought a hummer, and looking forward to go out to dinner to eat veal with pate de fois gras (stuffed geese)

    • 2 years ago
  • idealist
  • mindcruzer
  • EthicalVegan
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UotgGud9HKQ

      Unfortunately, we are not on target regarding addressing biodiversity loss, and it is one environmental topic that gets little attention, yet is the most important facet to the continuation of our species and other species on our planet. This is also why addressing climate change and corporate policies contributing to it (such as monocultures) is so very important. We are all links in the chain of life.

    • 2 years ago
  • royulery
    • 0
      royulery  

    • long ago; north america had a sustained population of 100 million human beings, for centuries people lived in harmony with all other creatures.

      is this progress?

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIJrpSrpJss

      And yes, while we humans are playing a role in the loss of biodiversity, we can also work to preserve it. This is the mission of Dr. Vandana Shiva and Navdanya. The hope of the future lies within our seeds and within ourselves. Groups are working to reforest our world to preserve trees, forests, and rainforests, and the species that inhabit them. People are working to restore our waters and to fight overfishing. People are working to see action taken regarding climate change which is leading to biodiversity loss and invasive species which is also leading to biodiversity loss in certain areas of the world. People are working for sustainable agricultural methods which respect the Earth, other species, and humanity while fostering seeds that work with nature and not against her. So while we must be aware of the point we are approaching, we must also take that information and that urgency and use it to work to reverse the damage we have done in any way we possibly can.

    • 2 years ago
  • tommic
    • 0
      tommic  

    • Humans are creating the perfect match for their own extinction. Its just amatter of time.
      Earth will clense itself and start all over again, a million years is a blip on the scale of time in the life of our planet. We have no humility as humans.

    • 2 years ago
  • EmperorThan
    • 0
      EmperorThan  

    • It's careless to say that biodiversity nears a 'point of no return'. Any REAL scientist knows not to deal in absolutes. And especially not to use FEAR TACTICS as a method of making a point to the public. (Why I HATE this modern environmental movement, they use REPUBLICAN tactics "BOOOOOO")

      Just because we don't have the ability to see the future life of what will come millions of years from now doesn't mean it won't exist. Life is more resilient than people give it credit for. I would bet money any 'future life' will evolve from the extremophiles living on the sea floor vents today.

    • 2 years ago
  • mcjk
    • 0
      mcjk  
    • EmperorThan:

      So you're saying that life will have to evolve from organisms on the sea floor? But you're also saying that the scientists are wrong, and are using scare tactics saying that life on earth is at a biological point of return?

      Choose an argument. Like I already told you- just because the planet will keep spinning doesn't mean its alright to plunder it.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • EmperorThan:

      In case you didn't bother to read or understand this, this is happening NOW. And it isn't fear tactics it is reality. And it isn't jsut about the 'environmental movement' it is about our survival as a species on many levels.

    • 2 years ago
  • EmperorThan
    • 0
      EmperorThan  
    • EmperorThan:

      Choose an argument? I didn't have two differing arguments.

      It was: even if life as we know it ends it WON'T BE a biological point of no return. I consistently said they're wrong because they're implying that life can't evolve after humans have killed all the megafauna off. I'm saying it will CONTINUE to evolve from the smaller extremophile species we can't kill off no matter what we do.

    • 2 years ago
  • idealist
    • 0
      idealist  
    • EmperorThan:

      actually "emp" those hard to kill organisms could be devistated bye humans.. we have entire factorys dedicated to makeing poisions. and nuke/waste thats been tossed to the bottom of the ocean in the past decades. im surprised humans have the numbers they have.
      you are.. a walking argument. yes the world can have a life after humans. but after what weve done i bet it will be bismal

    • 2 years ago
  • EmperorThan
    • 0
      EmperorThan  

    • I COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY DISAGREE. This planet has survived much worse than the human race. The Permian-Triassic mass extinction killed 95% of all species on Earth. Meaning the smallest of them, everything that came after from birds, reptiles, mammals, fish, dinosaurs, and even humans, evolved from the last 5% of what was left. Life as WE KNOW IT may go extinct but life itself will survive humanity's plundering. Even if it's only microbial life. That's all it takes to restart planetary life, and many microbes have larger genomes than humans so don't underestimate them!

    • 2 years ago
  • mindcruzer
  • aid616
    • 0
      aid616  
    • EmperorThan:

      Why do we have the right to wipe out 95% of the species on the planet exactly? I understand that life will go on living but do we really need to push the evolutionary process back a few million years because we can't figure out how to coexist?

    • 2 years ago
  • mindcruzer
  • idealist
    • 0
      idealist  
    • EmperorThan:

      so your cool with humans completely annihilating the earth and its culture of beautiful species.... because the earth will make a comeback with fish that can live in toxic waste and birds that survive off pollution? who knows if what we leave behind will ever be filtered out of the planet,even after millions of years.

    • 2 years ago
  • mcjk
  • ras_menelik
    • 0
      ras_menelik  
    • EmperorThan:

      earth is over 4,500 million years old what happened 250 million yeas ago no one knows but as you say it wiped out 95 % of as least 3,250 million years of evolution under the sun it was BIG and this world has not recovered to that extent on the surface only

      the BIGGEST bio mass on earth live under the surface then and now it was left pretty much intact so that 95% is not really what it seams....

    • 2 years ago
  • EmperorThan
    • 0
      EmperorThan  
    • EmperorThan:

      To Idealist: I don't believe I said I was cool with it. I simply said their conclusion is wrong. Stop making assumptions about my argument as to hear what you want to hear in it.

      And I’m not implying that future animals or plants will have to live off of pollution. I’m saying whatever would survive a mass extinction caused by current human pollution itself in modern times in the future would adapt to live in whatever climate comes after human extinction and would be hardier because of the extreme circumstances it's ancestral DNA experienced. Earth was once had a mile thick ocean at it's equator billions of years ago and life survived that extreme. And the life that did, is us.

      The Earth will be able to filter out any trace of humanity’s pollution after humans go extinct. All and I repeat ALLLLLLLL of the stuff man has made on this planet, all of the pollution, all of it, was made by things found on Earth. ON EARTH LONNNNNGGGGG before humans were here. The plastic came from rubber grown in rubber trees, the oil came from compress carbon based life forms. WE DIDN’T GET THIS STUFF FROM SPACE! It was on Earth all along. Meaning Earth existed with it before us we just dispersed it into foreign places it wouldn‘t have been in a stable biome.

      Earth can filter it out after we’re gone EASY. And it will. I would bet money 10,000 years after human disappear there will be no noticeable trace we were ever hear to begin with.

    • 2 years ago
  • EmperorThan
    • 0
      EmperorThan  
    • EmperorThan:

      IN FACT there is no extreme hot or cold where life has not been found to life. Some people believe life can survive on the surface of stars or the coldest of Jupiter's moons. Because as science teaches us a lack of proof is not proof of anything. Until it can be proven otherwise you can not discredit the idea that life exists everywhere in the Universe.\

      Life was even discovered in Earth's stratosphere last year that had not been discovered anywhere on Earth leading some to assume it was extremophiles that fell to Earth from deep space. I'm confident in survival of the fittest ensuring the future of life on Earth no matter what happens from humans, to mantle plumes, to asteroids. It will exist here until the day the Sun explodes (if not after as well).

      Source for life in stratosphere from space claim I made:

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090318094642.htm

    • 2 years ago
  • EmperorThan
  • idealist
    • 0
      idealist  
    • EmperorThan:

      really? cus it sounds like your cool with it. .. there are animals allready that can survive in boiling tempetures and one meal a year but biodiversity is about everything being connected(and it is) if one creature falls then so does another.... even animals that live of other dead animals will have a limited supply... anywhooo. your saying its ok cus life will go on,,,,, without humans.. ok your stupid. thats simple enough. but humans might be the only animals to even understand the word exstinction. therefore we have a responsibility not to think its allright to let everything go to hell.
      questions? you probably have a few..

    • 2 years ago
  • idealist
    • 0
      idealist  

    • stopping the genocide of native trees in natives lands for cold hard cash to wipe are ass would be a good start.
      i ....pray that its not all ready to late, and that more country's change there game plan. (coughU.S.A.cough)

    • 2 years ago
  • likeamazing
  • aid616
    • 0
      aid616  

    • I wish this story would hit the national news. Telling the story on this web site is preaching to the choir. Oh yeah I forgot. All the major news corporations are owned by the same companies that are destroying and exploiting the environment!

    • 2 years ago
  • tenletters
    • 0
      tenletters  

    • Then can we assume you people were wildly ecstatic when you recieved news of a couple hundred thousand evil humans dispatched by an angry Mama Nature??

    • 2 years ago
  • ahappymintleaf
    • 0
      ahappymintleaf  
    • tenletters:

      Who is "we" and who are "you people"? I think you'd find most people would support the ability of this planet to thrive as a home for living things, as much as your careful rhetoric might assume otherwise. And how can you possibly equate wanting to protect the natural world with cheering for the deaths of countless innocent people? I don't understand how you could have found it sensible to insinuate that.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • scabbio
    • 0
      scabbio  

    • don't cry for the earth, she will outlast us. and don't cry for biodiversity, evolution happens naturally, eternally. cry for people, too simple to see that we have one job here, to take care of our world.
      people could never make that simple connection, that we come OUT of the world, not into it.
      that when we abuse our world, our resources, we are abusing ourselves. when we destroy our world, we destroy ourselves.
      my advice is to get out into what wilderness is left and witness it, to see that it is resilient, that no matter what we do, it will outdo.
      and pick up some litter along the way.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • "And people always forsake the environment if their direct economic value is at stake."

      Yes, forgetting that without that environment their direct economic value would be non existant.

    • 2 years ago
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  

    • Make no mistake, humans are causing another mass extinction.

      Like when Lynxes are too successful at hunting rabbits and starve, humans are just too successful of an animal. The problem is that there is only so much bioenergy to go around. Feeding 200 million people on Japan with mostly fish, for example, is not a situation that can last that long.

      The problem is that as the situation worsens, the economy will likely get worse as well. And people always forsake the environment if their direct economic value is at stake.

      In 100 years, the Earth will be a very different place.

    • 2 years ago
  • versasrev
  • kilo88
  • JanforGore
  • lamborghini
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA3xNMJnFuo&feature=player_embedded

      In writing about the environment over the years the overriding reason for my doing so has been my moral purpose. As a human I believe our ability to see that moral purpose is what should guide us in our actions. That is no more important than in discussions about our environment, particularly biodiversity and our environmental impact upon our only home.

      And I have spent those years protesting, signing petitions, speaking out, writing, and being proactive because nothing else we strive for is possible unless we recognize our first priority as humans: preserving biodiversity, clean air, clean water, and fertile arable land that keeps all other species thriving. Without these things we have nothing else regardless of how rich we may be with the "other" green stuff. These things are invaluable, they are sacred, and they are what make us compassionate humans.

      However, in our consumptive society we have now placed value on tangible things that really carry no intrinsic value. We have devalued that which is important to our lives and it has in turn devalued the quality of the lives we lead. There is nothing more valuable to us than our Earth and the splendor and life it brings to us in its diversity.

      This is why I write. This is why I speak up. This is why I live.

    • 2 years ago
  • klsdesigns
  • googolplexer
more from Community:
from the community

top videos