Earth’s Shrinking Biodiversity Crisis

According to the World Wildlife Fund, since 2009, 211 new species have been discovered in the Eastern Himalayas. Two such species are that of a fish that can breathe air for up to four days and wriggle its way between water sources, plus a monkey nicknamed ‘snubby’ who, locals say, can be heard sneezing during rainy days due to the entrance of water into its upturned nose.

Despite being one of the most biodiverse places on Earth, only around 25% of the Himalayas’ original habitats remain intact, threatening many of the species that live there. One such species is the snow leopard, whose population nw dwindles between a meager 4,000 and 6,000, leading to its classification of endangered under the IUCN red list. Sadly, the discovery of new species in the Himalayas is not representative of the global picture as a whole. The worldwide rate of species loss is estimated to be between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate, i.e. the rate of extinction that would naturally occur without human interference. This means that if the upper estimate of species numbers is true, then between 10,000 and 100,000 species become extinct every year, partly or wholly due to human causes.

We see examples of this loss everywhere around the globe. Although holding an important part in the marine ecosystem as a top predator, the Bluefin tuna has been overfished to such an extent that the Pacific Ocean tuna has suffered a 96% decline in stock levels. Considered an endangered species, 90% of the specimens caught are too young to have had the chance to reproduce, meaning they may be the last generation of Bluefin tuna. The flesh of the Bluefin is highly valued amongst sushi restaurants in Japan, where 80% of the global catch is consumed. Conservation groups have called for a complete ban on the fishing of Bluefin tuna in order to allow stocks to be replenished, however no agreement has been reached between governments, partly due to the economic and social value of the fish.

In South Africa, poachers kill more than a thousand white rhinos annually and in November this year, the death of Nola the Northern White Rhinoceros meant that there are only three members of her subspecies left on Earth. The Western Black Rhino has been officially extinct since 2011, the primary cause identified as poaching. In Taiwan, the Formosan clouded leopard is now classified as extinct due to the loss of its habitat and prey, poaching for its meat, bones and pelt (skin), and as a result of retaliation from native farmers whose livestock the cats sometimes preyed upon. Deforestation was a major contributing factor towards the extinction of the species due to the increasing need for human living space and timber. According to some scientists, we are now facing what could be the sixth extinction crisis. The current extinction challenge is particularly disturbing as, unlike the previous five mass extinction events within Earth’s geological history, the current crisis is one for which a single species is solely responsible – humans.

What is biodiversity and how does a loss of species affect it? 

As identified above there are many species on the planet at risk of becoming, or have already become, extinct due to the actions of humankind, thereby threatening the biodiversity of the Earth. Biodiversity is a term used to describe not only the amount of species within an ecosystem but also the variety. It is a way of measuring and reflecting the healthiness of ecosystems, within which every single living organism has a role and a function. The human population relies on a healthy environment for the provision of what scientists call ecosystem services, in other words, the benefits obtained by humans from ecosystems. These can include the provision of food, water and timber for shelter, but also services such as the purification of water, soil nutrient recycling and regulation of the climate. Without a healthy ecosystem, humans suffer the consequences. Under current statistics, the global human population is currently using around 25% more natural resources than the planet can comfortably sustain and as a result, ecosystems are under increasingly more stress to replace what is being removed.

What is this doing to the planet?

The overexploitation of the planet’s resources is currently at a highly unsustainable level; The Living Planet Index shows that since 1970, there has been a 52% decline in global biodiversity levels.

Collapse of the Newfoundland Cod Fishery:

During the 1950s, the Newfoundland cod fishing grounds were some of the most productive in the world. In 1968 the cod catch peaked at 800,000 tonnes, but little more than seven years later the annual catch had fallen by 60%. Technological developments during the 1960s allowed fisherman to trawl for longer, covering larger areas and deeper waters. As such, the rate at which the cod was removed from the sea was much higher than sustainable levels and the fish that remained found less food available, as their main source of prey, capelin, were also hauled as bycatch. In 1992 the Canadian government was forced to implement a moratorium (a ban on all fishing of cod in the area), a ban that still stands today. The collapse of the fishing industry put 40,000 people out of work and resulted in a mass migration out of the region in search of employment.

Hypoxic areas in the Gulf of Mexico: 

Every spring in the Gulf of Mexico, farmers fertilize their lands in preparation for crop season. The heavy rains of spring wash the fertilizer into streams and rivers where it finally disperses into the ocean. The nitrogen and other nutrients within these fertilizers results in an overgrowth of algae within the ocean which, as it decomposes, consumes the majority of the oxygen in a particular area creating hypoxic zones containing too little oxygen to sustain life. If organisms cannot leave the hypoxic areas then they will perish, while more mobile organisms migrate to less hostile areas leading to the creation of ‘dead zones’ as a result of human pollution.

Every organism on Earth is categorized within a trophic level according to the position it occupies within a food chain. Trophic systems can be sensitive to changes, particularly in areas of low biodiversity due to a lack of organisms that can fill the role of the missing animal.

An example of a terrestrial and aquatic food chain or ‘trophic system’: 

For example, a sea otter would fall within the level of secondary consumers as it is a carnivorous organism who is preyed upon by other predators. The sea otter consumes sea urchins which would, without the presence of the otter, go on to consume and destroy the kelp forests which provide an important habitat for other species. As a result, the sea otter is considered a keystone species, as its removal from an ecosystem would affect many other species. Despite this fact, sea otters are in fact endangered due to hunting and the demand for their thick fur.

Why is this happening? 

In the last 35 years, the majority of Earth’s biodiversity loss has been a direct result of human activities, including:

• Destruction of habitats to accommodate population growth
• Pollution of oceans and rivers
• The illegal wildlife trade (poaching)
• Overexploitation of organisms for food (overfishing)

The pressure of human-induced climate change is further adding to the stress upon ecosystems, as changing habitats around the globe force species to adapt or die.

Human exploitation of ecosystems may produce a short-term advantage, but this can lead to excessive losses in the long term. If a country were to allow its fisheries to be depleted, as they did in Newfoundland, then this might have a positive economic effect in the short-term due to the income generated. In the long term however, the loss of capital assets and the collapse of the fisheries produces a negative effect which has wider social consequences such as the movement of individuals out of the community.

What does a shrinking biodiversity mean for us?

If the erosion of the planet’s biodiversity continues, ecosystems will become unstable and could begin to collapse, severely affecting our access to vital ecosystem services such as fresh water, food, fuel and the regulation of the climate. Like climate change, the decline in global biodiversity effects the poorest in the world who depend on nature the most. Communities living off the coast of Mozambique rely heavily on marine life as a source of food and employment, yet overfishing is pushing the coastal ecosystems to the point of no return, forcing the government to implement no-take zones to allow fish stocks to replenish.

According to The Guardian, wildlife conservation remains massively underfunded and unsupported. Multiple governments need to work together to protect fish stocks, regulate pollution and deforestation and change the way nature is valued through economics. In 2014, funding for environmental groups represented a mere 3% of all charitable giving in the US, yet actions towards protecting Earth’s biodiversity would naturally have positive effects on counteracting climate change as well as creating a more sustainable way of living. The many ecosystems that make up planet Earth are sustained by healthy levels of biodiversity, the erosion of which will directly impact every life on Earth, including the humans responsible.

Learn more about Earth’s biodiversity crisis:

• What is Biodiversity – World Wildlife Fund
• Five Ways to Stop Mass Extinction – The Guardian
• Overfishing Causes Pacific Bluefin Tuna Numbers to Drop by 96% – The Guardian
• Threats to Biodiversity – Harvard Center for Health and the Global Environment
• Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss – Harvard Center for Health and the Global Environment

Overfishing of the Bluefin Tuna (Extract from The End of the Line):

Human Activities that Threaten Biodiversity:

-California Academy of Sciences

Is Climate Change to Blame for the Syrian Refugee Crisis?

During the four and a half years of armed conflict in Syria, over 250,000 people have lost their lives and a further 4 million have been forced to flee to neighbouring countries. In Lebanon, 1 in 5 people is a Syrian refugee and Europe is now experiencing what the UN calls the largest refugee crisis in a quarter of a century.

How has this happened?

In the last few years, scientists have recognised that amongst other contributing factors, climate change plays a central role in initiating conflict or exacerbating already unstable regions. It is no consequence that the Syrian uprising which began in 2011 was preceded by a drought identified as the most severe on record.

A study published earlier this year in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has now concluded that there is definitive evidence to suggest that the 2007−2010 Syrian drought directly contributed to its ongoing conflict and civil war. Although Syria experiences droughts on a regular basis, the study found that the severity and duration of the drought which began in 2007 was more than twice as likely as a consequence of human changes to the planet’s atmosphere, i.e. human induced climate change, over natural variabilities alone. The study also proved the link between climate change and this particular drought through model studies of the planet’s response to increases in greenhouse gases which observed a consistent pattern in drying and warming of the region. These models conclusively agree that the Middle-East and North Africa regions will become even drier under current climate change levels and point to an increase of multiyear droughts.

Despite growing water scarcity, the actions of the autocratic government ruled by the al-Assad family aggravated the situation by allowing unregulated irrigation projects and overexploitation of groundwater to continue. Groundwater (water stored beneath Earth’s surface in spaces between rock formations) supplies 60% of water for irrigation purposes to Syrian farms without access to irrigation canals. Due to the drought and overexploitation of groundwater supplies, agriculture in Syria suffered greatly; in 2003 it accounted for 25% of Syria’s GDP whereas in 2008 it fell to 17%. Wheat crops began to fail and Syria was forced to import much of its supply leading to an increase in the price of food. In rural areas, unemployment grew because of the decline in agriculture which led to a mass migration of approximately 1.5 million people into urban areas and cities. All of this happened as a result of a severe and long-lasting drought identified as a product of human-induced climate change.

What did this mean for Syria and its people?

The study discussed above determined that climate change caused the record-breaking drought that immediately preceded the escalation of violent conflict in Syria. But why can the drought be said to have caused the conflict or at least have contributed to its escalation?

One of the biggest consequences of the drought was its effect on farming and resultant mass migration from rural areas into urban areas. By the end of 2010, the total urban population of Syria had increased by more than 50% to 13.8 million in just 8 years. This influx was only made worse with the number of Iraqi refugees who had fled to Syria following the invasion of Iraq in 2003, estimated to be around 1.5 million. These urban areas, situated on the outskirts of cities, were often centres for crime due to the high number of unemployed and overcrowding. Resentment towards the Assad regime quickly grew out of their reluctance to aid those affected by the drought and according to the study, these urban settlements became the heart of developing unrest which led to the civil war taking place today.

As a precursor to conflict, lack of access to basic human needs is a major driver and it’s only getting worse.

Pete Newell

Concluding the study, the authors stated that even seemingly small changes in temperature or volume of rainfall can significantly increase the risk of conflict ranging from individual aggression, such as rape, to nationwide political instability, particularly when the country or region is already somewhat politically or socially unstable. Co-author of the study, Solomon Hsiang, told the National Geographic: “when individuals have very low income or the economy of the region collapses, it changes people’s incentives to take part in various activities – one activity they could take part in is joining a militant group.”

How did the conflict make people leave Syria?

The UN refugee agency UNHCR, states that the total number of Syrian refugees in Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and other parts of north Africa stands at 4,013,000 people, around a sixth of the original Syrian population. According to The Guardian, as early as the end of 2014, one in every five displaced people worldwide was Syrian. The ongoing war has made Syria an increasingly hostile place to live; the life expectancy of the average Syrian citizen has fallen by 20 years and 80% of the population are living in poverty. 6% of the Syrian population have been either killed or at least injured during the conflict and over half of school-age children no longer attend school.

Neighbouring countries hosting Syrian refugees

The affects of the Syrian conflict have understandably driven huge amounts of Syrians to flee the country, but many scientists have argued that this is nothing new and that rising temperatures are always likely to spur waves of human migration and clashes over scarce resources—particularly water. Now Europe is facing a refugee crisis on a massive scale. According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM ) over 750,000 migrants have arrived in Europe so far this year (excluding those who have not been detected) and over 3,000 people have died while crossing the Mediterranean. Unless action is taken against climate change, the Syrian conflict and refugee crisis could become a trend as scientists state that further drying of the Middle-East is expected under current climate change levels. By the end of 2014, every one in every 122 humans on the planet was a refugee, displaced or seeking asylum. The situation has worsened to such an extent that the UNHCR has warned that we are wittnessing an “age of unprecedented mass displacement“.

Richard Seager – Columbia University

It is becoming more obvious that the effects of climate change must be considered as a contributing factor to the conflicts around the globe, particularly in countries and regions where it is combined with other factors such as corrupt leaderships and population growths synonymous with the Middle East. The study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences proves this fact and reiterates the importance of tackling climate change in order to prevent similar conflicts and the destabilization of other regions, which can only lead to further displacement.

For further reading and more information check out the following sites to learn more about the Syrian conflict and why climate change has played such a pivotal role:

• Middle East Unrest Coincides with Drought – Business Insider (video)
• Prince Charles on the Far-reaching Effects of Global Climate Change – Sky News (video)
• Climate Change and Conflict – The African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes
• Syria: The Story of the Conflict – BBC

 

 

 

 

 

United Nations Conference on Climate Change

From the 30th of November until the 11th of December this year, Paris will play host to the 21st session of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Representatives from 196 countries will be attending the conference to sign a new legally binding, global agreement on climate change.

So why do we care?

Established in 1992 the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change meant that for the first time, countries came together to recognise that human activities were responsible for the generation of anthropogenic greenhouse gases not naturally present in Earth’s atmosphere. These emissions, it was recognised, are altering the very composition of our planet’s atmosphere thus causing a greenhouse effect leading to global warming and climate change.

The previous conferences have all attempted to find a global solution to this crisis by setting legally binding targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions for industrialised countries, aimed at keeping global temperature increases below 2°C. At the Copenhagen conference of 2009, experts estimated that in order to reach this aim before the end of the century, greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced by between 40-70% by 2050 but current figures suggest that the world is still on track for a warming of 3-4°C by 2100.

What’s different about this year?

The main aim of the summit is pretty similar to previous years, to keep the average global temperature rise below 2°C.  Given that it has been brought to light that deforestation accounts for 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions per economic sector, a feasible agenda for action on this process and a discussion concerning sustainable land management will also be important while moving towards a new agreement. 

According to the Green Alliance, nine out of ten Europeans now think that climate change is a serious problem, yet attitudes in the US and China, the two biggest emitters of greenhouse gasses, have been significantly different. Only recently has President Obama introduced America’s Clean Power Plan, the first ever carbon polluting standards for power plants which aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.

Obama’s climate change action plan:

China has also introduced new policies to limit its consumption of coal and expand its renewable energies industry. Coupled with the agreement that the two countries signed last year to collectively reduce carbon emissions, this year’s conference could potentially be the most pivotal yet.

Previous conferences focused on developed and industrialised countries’ efforts to tackle greenhouse emissions. More recently however, countries have recognised that even lesser-developed nations play an important role and at the 2009 conference, they committed to raising $100 billion per year by 2020 to financially assist developing countries, allowing them to prioritise climate change.

A lot is changing with regards to global attitudes towards climate change, but the most important reason we should care about this UN conference is the potential effect on our planet, our lives, and the lives of our children if we were to do nothing.

Why should we care about the success of the United Nations Framework on Climate Change?

Climate change doesn’t just mean warmer temperatures for us here in the UK, it means the melting of ice caps in Polar regions and higher sea levels across the globe. It means more extreme weather patterns which results in devastating hurricanes and tsunamis. A report published by the World Economic Forum estimated that the total economic loss from Hurricane Katrina was $125 billion. Droughts in the Middle East and Africa exacerbate the already limited water shortages meaning that 663 million people, that’s 1 in 10, lack access to safe water and as a result, every 90 seconds a child dies from water-related diseases. This means that by the time you finish reading this post, at least 2 children will have died. In the UK, the Committee on Climate Change has estimated that by taking early action against climate change, the UK economy could save £100 billion from improving air quality thus reducing healthcare expenditure and by reducing our reliance on expensive fossil fuels. 

Shrinking ice in Iceland: 1986 – 2014

A 2015 report from the Green Alliance states that concentrations of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are now higher than they have been for almost a million years. According to The Guardian, we are currently heading towards a temperature rise of around 5°C, way above the 2°C threshold beyond which the effects of global warming will become irreversible. A 3°C difference does not sound particularly frightening, except when we consider that the difference between the temperature of Earth today and the last ice age is around 5°C. 

Climate change is a real and serious danger to Earth, but only in the last 25 years have governments come together to try and tackle the issue. This year’s climate summit is pivotal and its outcome affects us all, in the words of Barrack Obama: