Whether in Davos or almost anywhere else that leaders arediscussing the world’s problems, they are missing by far the biggest issue: therapidly deteriorating global environment and its ability to supportcivilization. The situation is pretty much an endgame. Unless pressing issuesof the biology of the planet and of climate change generated by greenhouse gasemissions are addressed with immediacy and at appropriate scale, the mattersthat occupy Davos discussions will be seen in retrospect as largely irrelevant.
This week, in Bonn, out of sight and out of mind,international negotiators will design the biodiversity and ecosystem equivalentto the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A full eight years havepassed since President Jacques Chirac of France acted as host at a meeting inParis to create this ''Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and EcosystemServices.''
Progress has been painfully slow. Only now is the ''platform’'and its work program - to assess status, trends and possible solutions - beingdesigned. In the meantime, rates of extinction and endangerment of species havesoared. Ecosystem destruction is massive and accelerating. Institutionalresponsiveness seems lethargic to a reptilian degree.
It is abundantly clear that the target of a 2-degree Celsiuslimit to climate change was mostly derived from what seemed convenient anddoable without any reference to what it really means environmentally. Twodegrees is actually too much for ecosystems. Tropical coral reefs are extremelyvulnerable to even brief periods of warming. The elevated atmospheric CO2 alsohas raised the acidity of the oceans, which affects the ability of coral andmollusks such as oysters to build shells and skeletons. A 2-degree world willbe one without coral reefs (on which millions of human beings depend for theirwell-being).
At current global warming of 0.8-0.9 degrees, thefingerprints of climate change can be seen virtually everywhere in nature. Theconiferous forests of western North America are currently experiencing massivetree mortality because climate change has tipped the balance in favor of nativebark beetles. The Amazon seems to be edging close to dieback in the southern andsoutheastern portions of the great forest.
At essentially double that current temperature increase,there undoubtedly will be massive extinctions and widespread ecosystemcollapse. In addition, the last time the planet was 2 degrees warmer, theoceans were four to six (perhaps eight) meters higher. We may not know how fastthat will happen (although it is already occurring more rapidly than initiallyestimated), but the end point in sea-level rise is not in question. A majorportion of humanity lives in coastal areas and small island states that will gounder water.
The first thing is to recognise both the climate andbiodiversity agenda as deadly important, of utmost urgency and fundamental tothe future of humanity. The second is to find ways to keep temperature increasebelow 1.5 degrees. One of those is to use the biology of our planet to pullabout half a degree of warming potential out of the atmosphere before thatpotential is realized. Lag times between attaining an atmospheric CO2concentration and the consequent heat accumulation make this possible.
In addition, because all living things are built of carbon,restoring ecosystems (e.g., reforestation and restoration of grasslands) canrecapture carbon lost to the atmosphere through past deforestation andecosystem degradation. Ecosystem restoration has multiple benefits, includingbetter grazing and enhanced soil fertility. Simultaneously, we need to identifyways to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere nonbiologically. There already are waysto burn carbon-based fuels and capture the CO2 before it leaves chimneys.Better yet would be to find ways to pull CO2 from the atmosphere that areeconomic, even with the lower atmospheric concentrations.
''Geoengineering’' schemes to reduce planetary temperaturerather than atmospheric CO2 concentrations are to be avoided. They only addressthe symptom (temperature) to the neglect of the cause (elevated greenhouse gaslevels). As a consequence they are mostly irrelevant, dangerous and do nothingto reduce ocean acidity. Environmental change is happening rapidly andexponentially. We are out of time. Only three generations back - in the samedecade as the original scientific publication of the greenhouse effect - mygreat-grandfather chaired the commission that designed the New York subwaysystem. How was he to anticipate the sea-level rise that contributed in part tothe impact of Hurricane Sandy?
How will things look just two or three generations ahead?Can we avoid the greatest intergenerational environmental injustice of alltime? While there is some welcomeprivate sector interest, what is needed is a world in which governments facethe environmental challenge squarely, and truly lead. The current mode ofnibbling around the edges is pretty much pointless.
Thomas Lovejoy is professor of science and public policy atGeorge Mason University and biodiversity chairman at the H. John Heinz III Centerfor Science, Economics and the Environment
