#c!limate change

[exhaled-spirals]

« To mention the global loss of biodiversity, that is to say, the disappearance of life on our planet, as one of our problems, along with air pollution or ocean acidification, is absurd—like a doctor listing the death of his patient as one symptom among others.

The ecological catastrophe cannot be reduced to the climate crisis. We must think about the disappearance of life in a global way. About two-thirds of insects, wild mammals and trees disappeared in a few years, a few decades and a few millennia, respectively. This mass extinction is not mainly caused by rising temperatures, but by the devastation of natural habitats.

Suppose we managed to invent clean and unlimited energy. This technological feat would be feted by the vast majority of scientists, synonymous in their eyes with a drastic reduction in CO2 emissions. In my opinion, it would lead to an even worse disaster. I am deeply convinced that, given the current state of our appetites and values, this energy would be used to intensify our gigantic project of systemic destruction of planetary life. Isn't that what we've set out to do—replace forests with supermarket parking lots, turn the planet into a landfill? What if, to cap it all, energy was free?

[...C]limate change has emerged as our most important ecological battle [...] because it is one that can perpetuate the delusional idea that we are faced with an engineering problem, in need of technological solutions. At the heart of current political and economic thought lies the idea that an ideal world would be a world in which we could continue to live in the same way, with fewer negative externalities. This is insane on several levels. Firstly because it is impossible. We can't have infinite growth in a finite world. We won't. But also, and more importantly, it is not desirable. Even if it were sustainable, the reality we construct is hell. [...]

It is often said that our Western world is desacralised. In reality, our civilisation treats the technosphere with almost devout reverence. And that's worse. We perceive the totality of reality through the prism of a hegemonic science, convinced that it “says” the only truth.

The problem is that technology is based on a very strange principle, so deeply ingrained in us that it remains unexpressed: no brakes are acceptable, what can be done must be done. We don't even bother to seriously and collectively debate the advisability of such "advances". We are under a spell. And we are avoiding the essential question: is this world in the making, standardised and computed, overbuilt and predictable, stripped of stars and birds, desirable?

To confine science to the search for "solutions" so we can continue down the same path is to lack both imagination and ambition. Because the “problem” we face doesn't seem to me, at this point, to be understood. No hope is possible if we don't start by questioning our assumptions, our values, our appetites, our symbols... [...] Let's stop pretending that the numerous and diverse human societies that have populated this planet did not exist. Certainly, some of them have taken the wrong route. But ours is the first to forge ahead towards guaranteed failure. »

— Aurélien Barrau, particle physicist and philosopher, in an interview in Télérama about his book L'Hypothèse K

[t-shirts14]

Check out this awesome 'Asteroids Dinosaurs Global Warming' design on @TeePubli

[robertreich]

The Truth About the U.S. Border-Industrial Complex

The story you’ve heard about immigration, from politicians and the mainstream media alike, isn’t close to the full picture. Here’s the truth about how we got here and what we must do to fix it.

A desperate combination of factors are driving migrants and asylum seekers to our southern border, from Central America in particular: deep economic inequality, corruption, and high rates of poverty — all worsened by COVID-19.

Many are also fleeing violence and instability, much of it tied to historic U.S. support for brutal authoritarian regimes, right-wing paramilitary groups, and corporate interests in Latin America. 

Some long-term consequences of this U.S. involvement have been the rise of violent transnational gangs and drug cartels, as well as the internal displacement of hundreds of thousands of people. 

And thanks to lax U.S. gun laws and export rules, a flood of firearms that regularly flows south makes this violence even worse.

In other words, the United States is very much part of the root of this problem. 

Meanwhile, climate change-fueled natural disasters like droughts and hurricanes have led to widespread food insecurity in Central America, forcing thousands to migrate or risk starvation. 

Some politicians want you to believe the way to address this humanitarian tragedy is to double down on border security and build walls to deter people from coming. 

They’re wrong.

Several administrations have tried this approach. It’s failed every time. A recent study found that  increased prosecutions and incarceration did not deter migration, but instead clogged courts, shifted resources from more serious cases and stripped people of due process.  

The expansion of this militarized border apparatus and the increased criminalization of crossings has forced immigrants and asylum seekers to take riskier routes where they face extortion, assault, and even death.

The true beneficiaries have been the corporations who profited from the militarization of the border. 

Between 2008 and 2020, the federal government doled out an astounding $55 billion in contracts to this border-industrial complex. Billions have been spent on everything from Predator drones to intrusive biometric security systems. Immigration enforcement budgets have more than doubled in the last 13 years, and since 1980, have increased by more than 6,000%.

Let’s be clear: What’s really out of control at the border is our spending on the border-industrial complex, which has done nothing but increase human suffering without dealing with the root causes of migration.

So what can we do?

Begin by acknowledging the role U.S. policies have played, and build a positive, sustained relationship with our Mexican and Central American neighbors to reduce economic inequality, uplift the marginalized, and uphold democratic ideals.

Donald Trump’s abrupt and arbitrary cancelling of crucial aid to the Northern Triangle nations of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador is the opposite of what we should be doing.

We must also ensure that aid doesn’t benefit transnational corporations and local oligarchs. Our goals must instead be aligned with the calls of local labor unions, environmental defenders, and agricultural movements to improve conditions so people are not forced to migrate in the first place.

And we should seek to reverse the militarization of borders in Central America, and instead help build a system that respects the human rights of migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees.

Here at home, this means shifting away from the wasteful and violent militarization of our own borders, and ending the corporate profiteering it enables. 

We need more asylum specialists, social workers, lawyers, and doctors at the border — not soldiers and walls.

And we must never again allow the inhumane and ineffective policies that resulted in the separation and detention of families and their children. 

We must embrace the values we claim as our own, and never again allow a presidential administration to arbitrarily shrink the number of refugees accepted into the U.S. each year to almost none. 

Congress should expand legal avenues of immigration, along with a roadmap to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already here — a policy with broad public support.

It’s not enough to roll back the cruel and xenophobic policies of our past. Most of us now living in America are the descendants of refugees, asylum-seekers, and immigrants. This new generation should be treated in ways that are consistent with our most cherished ideals. Now is the time to act.

[sciencespies]

Study Suggests At-Risk African Heritage Sites Are Often Overlooked

https://sciencespies.com/history/study-suggests-at-risk-african-heritage-sites-are-often-overlooked/

Study Suggests At-Risk African Heritage Sites Are Often Overlooked

Climate change poses a significant threat to cultural and architectural heritage sites around the world—but the majority of relevant research centers solely on the losses faced by wealthier countries. In 2017, for instance, a study found that just one percent of research on climate change’s effects on heritage focused on iconic landmarks in Africa.

A new survey published in the journal Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa strives to addresses this shortage by highlighting at-risk heritage sites and practices across the African continent.

“Without significant intervention some of Africa’s most important heritage will be lost as a result of the direct and indirect impacts of climate change over the coming decades,” write co-authors Joanne Clarke, Elizabeth Edna Wangui, Grace W. Ngaruiya and Nick Brooks for the Conversation. “… The next ten years will be a critical period in which research agendas can be developed that will have a practical application for the management of African heritage in the face of climate change.”

The group’s paper analyzes a range of case studies from countries in West, East and North Africa. Some—like the wetlands and lagoons of Ghana, Togo, Bénin and Nigeria—represent natural heritage vulnerable to coastal erosion. Their ecosystems are essential for maintaining biodiversity, but storm surges and rising sea levels present a looming threat. Erosion has also severely damaged Guinean coastal forests.

Golden Gate Highlands National Park

(Pavel Špindler via Wikimedia Commons under CC BY 3.0)

In Kenya, the largely human-led destruction of mangrove forests threatens Unesco World Heritage Site Lamu Old Town, which has been continuously inhabited for more than 700 years.

The forests “protect the island from flooding,” Clarke, an archaeologist at the University of East Anglia, tells BBC News’ Pablo Uchoa.

She adds, “[A] lot of what we would call natural heritage is a protection for cultural heritage. And as we destroy the natural heritage, we also leave cultural heritage sites exposed.”

Rising seas also present problems for heritage locations like Mozambique’s Ibo Island, Shanga and Pate islands in Kenya, and the ruins of Kaole in Tanzania, according to the paper. Built less than 33 feet above sea level, these sites’ low elevation and placement atop of coral, sand or mud puts them at risk.

Clarke studies the rate of erosion sparked by rising waters at Sudan’s Suakin Island. Once a bustling port city, Suakin served as a stopping point for 19th-century African slave traders sailing across the Red Sea.

“What we do know is that the Red Sea coast will be impacted in the coming decades, which means what currently survives will be lost [without intervention],” the archaeologist tells BBC News.

Rising sea levels and coastal erosion aren’t the only threats faced by African heritage sites. The team also identifies factors like increasing humidity, which encourages bacteria and algae to grow over rock art, as well as flash floods and more extreme cycles of hot and cold weather. Rock art at Golden Gate Highlands National Park in South Africa, for example, hosts “luxuriant growth” of lichen linked to “intense biodeterioration,” according to a 2012 study.

Suakin Island in Sudan

( J-pics.info via Flickr under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0)

In Djenné, Mali, the unpredictable climate and reduced rainfall have degraded the quality of mud bricks used to construct the city’s monumental buildings. Locals previously relied on calcified fish bones to make the bricks more resistant to climate extremes, but the area’s fish stocks have become increasingly scarce in recent years.

To maintain Djenné’s mud-brick structures, residents must import materials from farther away, increasing costs and making traditional fixes less readily available. Today, many modern masons make repairs with materials like concrete and clay bricks.

As Clarke tells BBC News, “[C]limate change has the ability to be a threat multiplier [in Djenné].”

“It has indirect impacts which are arguably more serious than the direct impact,” she explains.

Climate change has impacts beyond tangible heritage sites, the researchers write in the paper. Intangible heritage, like traditional ways of life as pastoralists, is also at risk.

“Heritage is often viewed through the lens of what can be seen—for example, disappearing coastlines with their famous archaeological sites—but Africa’s unseen heritage is just as important to preserve, and arguably more vulnerable to a changing climate,” the authors add.

Expanding on this line of thinking in the Conversation, the researchers conclude, “Resetting the research agenda towards a sustainable heritage in the face of climate change will not only enable reengagement with the past, but will help mitigate the impacts of climate change beyond heritage.”

#History

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from The Revelator:

In the past 100 years, the planet has warmed in the range of 10 times faster than it did on average over the past 5,000. In response, thousands of species are traveling poleward, climbing to higher elevations, and diving deeper into the seas, seeking their preferred environmental conditions. This great migration is challenging traditional ideas about native species, the role of conservation biology and what kind of environment is desirable for the future.

In a 2017 review for Science, University of Tasmania marine ecology professor Gretta Pecl and colleagues wrote, “[C]limate change is impelling a universal redistribution of life on Earth. For marine, freshwater, and terrestrial species alike, the first response to changing climate is often a shift in location.” In fact, Pecl says, data suggest that at least 25% and perhaps as much as 85% of Earth’s estimated 8.7 million species are already shifting ranges in response to climate change.

But when they arrive, will they be welcome? Traditional definitions classify species according to place. “Native” species arrived without human help and usually before widespread human colonization, so are likely to have natural predators and are unlikely to go rogue. Non-natives are newcomers and suspect. Though 90% cause no lasting damage, 10% become invasive — meaning that they harm the environment, the economy or human health. Last year a multinational report flagged invasive species as a key driver of Earth’s biodiversity crisis.

How we define species is critical, because these definitions influence perceptions, policy and management. The U.S. National Invasive Species Council (NISC) defines a biological invasion as “the process by which non-native species breach biogeographical barriers and extend their range” and states that “preventing the introduction of potentially harmful organisms is … the first line of defense.” But some say excluding newcomers is myopic.

“If you were trying to maintain the status quo, so every time a new species comes in, you chuck it out,” says Camille Parmesan, director of the French National Centre for Scientific Research, you could gradually “lose so many that that ecosystem will lose its coherence.” If climate change is driving native species extinct, she says, “you need to allow new ones coming in to take over those same functions.”

[fatchange]

We have to actively fight to change our political systems. The biggest contributors to climate change are oil and gas companies. Saudi Aramco, Chevron, Gazprom, and Exxon Mobil, National Irania Oil Co., BP, Shell, etc. Refusing plastic straws won't stop these corporations from killing the planet. ⁣

WE NEED GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION TO STOP THE CORPORATIONS from destroying our planet, poisoning our food, and turning us into serf-like wage-slaves. They won’t stop unless they are forced to. We have tried asking nicely, wrote letters, started campaigns, boycotted, and marched in the streets. The only solution is for those of us who live in a democracy to force our governments to WORK FOR THE PEOPLE they represent, not corporate interests.  Fighting for change in our political systems includes fighting for living wages, maternity and paternity leave, and healthcare. The lack of basic needs makes for distracted citizens. So join or create a local grassroots group in your community.⁣ We can also share our low waste lifestyle, scaled up or down for any income. Not the trash jar fiction, but the real deal, like lowering emissions and changing the political systems that prevent action on climate change.⁣ ...⁣.................. 1.) divest from fossil fuels at www.gofossilfree.org ⁣

2.) get active in a grassroots organization like Extinction Rebellion, Greenpeace, and Fire Drill Fridays.  ⁣

3.) Contact your legislators, donate to legislators who will fight climate change, VOTE, drive others to the polls, help register people to vote, and consider running for office yourself.⁣

4.) refuse, reduce, reuse, repair, repurpose, rot, recycle. ⁣

5.) listen to indigenous voices. From the Amazon to the Australian outback to standing rock to Hawaii, the indigenous are fighting the fossil fuel industry. Support indigenous voices on social media and donate (no amount is too small) to help their cause (which is your cause too).   

6.) join a Buy Nothing Project or Give and Take group. It's based on the barter economy. ⁣

7.) lower consumption of animal-based products.⁣

8.) lower your food waste by following US EPA guidelines, start composting yourself, or find a composter to take food waste to.

9.) grow a potager garden. ⁣

10.) stop flying or lower your airplane travel to 3,100 miles (4,988 km) per year.⁣ 11.) watch out for greenwashing. ⁣

I hope you enjoyed these real-life examples of how we can fight climate change. Don’t let anyone tell you it’s impossible. We can and did lower our greenhouse gas emissions, but it’s still not enough. All major greenhouse gas contributors in the first world need to dramatically lower our CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions to save the planet. It’s up to us to make this happen. 

If you’d like to join me on this journey, check me out over at fatchange.com or @fatchange101 on Instagram.

[banana1514]

chloe for the name ask

yes there we go

Climate change

Hermione can’t draw

Listen to your heart

Orphaned at thirty-three

Everything and more

[digitalagriculturefarmsio]

Farmsio focuses mainly on the smallholders, who face challenges in food insecurity and climatic change. Farmsio works with the Agriculture Developing Agencies at the grassroots levels providing solutions through the Climate Smart Agriculture Technologies and resilient Practices.

[lokbobpop]

Climate

Climate (from Ancient Greek klima, meaning inclination) is commonly defined as the weather averaged over a long period

1 : a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions His physician advised moving to a warmer climate. 2a : the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation a healthful climate a warm, humid climate

Climate climb mate c li mate c limate

Writing the word climate

Climate change what we have aloud to happen with our thoughts feelings and emotions that has affected this planet this change that has happened will affect us all thoughts of stuck trapped and worried what will actually happen with the people of this planet.

Reading the word climate

Well you probably will see this word where ever you go some are in belief and some are in disbelief i have to say i believe both are the affects right now what we have done and a circle of what we have aloud within ourselves and weather that so obviously has done this over millions of years we have records for so short of time even though we know of the ice age the planet is heating up and i have fear where we have a house will be to hot in just a few years and nothing will grow as we have major droughts and if it gets worse how will we survive.

Climate change how will it change comes up will i be in a place thats safe comes up what do i need to survive comes up and so on.

What are people doing about climate change many are protesting many dont know what to do many are fearful of what will happen and governments move i feel slowly on what is in there faces.

Saying climate out loud

Climb it comes up

Climate change the world weather is changing and no one can predict what is going to happen

I like a warm climate with lots of rain like cairns but what with the coming tsunami im not so keen many after this had happened I would consider moving there.

Sf

Does this definition support me no i see i have fear of the up coming climate change that is happening right now and dont know what i will do and what to do if it happens

Climate climb it

Climate

The weather conditions of areas

Climb it adapt to it

How will you live this word> i will live this word with adapting to my climate moving within what is freely with out feeling and emotions adapting to my environment with living words of self love self respect self determination self motivation

[enviroblog-spring21]

Blog X: Rhode Island's Marshland Must Be Saved from the Current Real Estate Boom.

As mentioned in previous posts, especially last week, the primary leitmotif of our socio-environmental system is humanity’s unprecedented population growth and our rapid urbanization–– where more and more people live in expansive and enlarging metropolitan areas than at any point in human history. As the population of our species increases vertically and laterally across space and time, it does so at the expense of landscapes fortunate enough to remain unexploited, albeit not necessarily free from anthropogenic impacts. For our purposes here, I intend to emphasize the importance of biodiversity that we cherish and rely upon every day in the Ocean State–– additionally, I will point out some of the human dynamics of our socio-environmental system that are problematic and threaten to erode or destroy the unique environment we are blessed to inhabit.

The ninth chapter of Living in the Environment focuses on the importance of biodiversity as it applies to wild animal species across different habitats, and the problems anthropogenic influences present to the survival, functions, and maintenance of biodiversity in ecosystems. Oftentimes I find that initiatives to save particular species (even keystone species) do not emphasize the important roles they play in the ecosystems they inhabit. For example, the book mentions the endangered orangutan’s role in dispersing seeds in their waste that would not propagate without them. The tenth chapter of Living in the Environment delineates the parasitic relationship between humans and ecosystems that threaten the natural patrimony which all species of the Earth rely upon. Sustaining and saving the biodiversity of ecosystems is imperative to maintaining the economic value and support they provide through, for example, reducing soil erosion, providing for recreation, and nutrient cycling–– all of which, unfortunately, is hidden due to the absence of full-cost pricing. The authors estimate that the economic value of the various services forest ecosystems provide are worth least $125 trillion per year, one and a half times higher than the world’s total GDP in 2018. Despite the mammoth economic benefits humans derive from forest ecosystems, they are the first to be sacrificed in blind pursuits of economic growth–– evident in the expansion of agriculture and the construction of highways and housing. The various pressures humans impose onto species and ecosystems erode their biodiversity with near impunity. The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity’s fifth “Global Biodiversity Outlook” and the New York Times article entitled “A Crossroads from Humanity: Earth’s Biodiversity Is Still Collapsing” underscore the magnitude of anthropogenic erasure of biodiversity and the latent effects it will have on our species.

What I found most striking about the United Nations report is its insistence that we must depart from business as usual, and that doing so entails reducing our consumption in order to ensure that justice for the generations that will inevitably inherit the natural patrimony we have taken for granted and are tasked to restore. The Rhode Island town I reside in, Jamestown, is a state-champion in sentimentalizing nature, evident in the conservation and restoration efforts of our natural landscapes. Unfortunately conservation and restoration efforts are on the bottom-rung of actions to reduce loss of biodiversity, yet it is arguably all that one needs to not feel guilty or anxious about the climate crisis.

Biodiversity researchers use the abbreviation HIPPCO (Habitat destruction, degradation, and fragmentation; Invasive species; Population growth and increasing use of resources; Pollution; Climate change; and Overexploitation) to summarize the most pervasive anthropogenic threats to species biodiversity. Unfortunately, Rhode Island harbors critical levels of such threats to biodiversity, especially habitat degradation, pollution, invasive species, and of course, climate change.

I want to focus on The H in HIPPCO is quite extensive–– standing for habitat destruction, degradation, and fragmentation. Out of the three threats to biodiversity within habitats, I view habitat fragmentation as most consequential for Rhode Island’s species biodiversity. Just down the road from me in Jamestown, RI, the town maintains a public golf course. I have no idea why. Much as the rest of the state does, Jamestown prides itself on its natural patrimony. Eco-friendly stickers seemingly adorn the bumpers of every other car on the island, indicative of Jamestown’s oxymoronic dynamic with Conanicut Island. Next to the golf course lies a delightful bird sanctuary that I stroll in from time to time. Being that the island is at most only a mile wide, it only takes me a little over ten minutes to make it to the opposite end of the sanctuary, where it touches Jamestown’s Marsh Meadows Wildlife Refuge. Marshlands are special ecosystems, perpetually at the transition between sea and land, as a result they accommodate species not found in any other ecosystem. Much of the natural capital from commercial fisheries derives from the ecosystem services of salt marshes and estuaries for nursery and spawning grounds. The Marsh Meadows are marshlands within an estuary. Marshlands also provide indispensable ecosystem services to society as a whole by intrinsically filtering pollutants, producing oxygen, recycling nutrients, and removing sediment. The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Protection estimates that over half of the state’s salt marshes have been lost, and today only under 4,000 acres remain–– most of which are impacted by human activity, unfortunately Marsh Meadows is an exception. Pollutants like pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers naturally runoff into the marsh from the nearby golf course. The North Road Bridge partially fragments the ecosystem’s western flank, while the highway to the Newport Bridge completely blocks the marsh from draining out into the cove by my house. You can still tell that the area was once marshland though. A freshwater pond popular with Canadian Geese and the occasional egret is present next to the building occupied by the Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority. The lands next to the building routinely flood since the faux ecosystem of maple oak and pine trees that the RITBA planted there simply does not belong. The force which causes the most habitat fragmentation, degradation and pollution, however, is the public golf course. While it does not exactly fragment the landscape like a road or a bridge it is so cumbersome that in my opinion the marshlands hardly have any room to breathe. Not all the course sits on top of the marshlands, and the parts that do obviously are not suitable for golf, however, the chemical pollution from lawn treatment is enough justification for me to call for the dismantling of the course. Even if its size is reduced to give the marshlands more breathing room, the incursion of pollution is still too great a cost to the natural capital and ecosystem services that marshlands provide us. The town of Jamestown ought to put its money where its mouth is if it wants to retain its brand of a crunchy eco-friendly town.

While Marsh Meadows is not under an immediate threat of total habitat destruction, as it is a protected area, substantial amounts of unprotected marshland also exist on the island around Mackerel and Sheffield Coves. The two coves are only feet away from each other, separated only by a small land bridge. Mackerel Cove is a popular beach with tourists and locals alike as it offers picturesque views of the Atlantic Ocean. Sheffield Cove is more of a local secret, it has a rocky shoreline and a decent amount of marshland with adjoining private properties far enough away that they do not appear to render any significant incursions within the ecosystem. Mackerel Cove is a different story. Last summer a huge McMansion was built on the last remaining marshland the cove has. Even more worryingly, the dunes created to protect the beach seemingly also incurred destruction, as the fences protecting them from getting trampled by beachgoers, pets, and cars have been inundated by storms. This is a grave mistake and indicative of the town’s environmental negligence. The Netherlands, which has been battling the seas for over a millennia, routinely uses plants and maintains dunes to keep back the tides of the sea. Closer to home, East Providence recently rebuilt their dunes to protect their shorelines from flooding and sea level rise, and Jamestown squanders the ones they already built. The town’s environmental negligence, however, may not be intentional. Jamestown has incredibly low municipal taxes and a NIMBY sentiment so strong that even pre-pandemic business tax revenue is scarce. If one dares to build a multi-family or mixed use building, they face the ire of the opposition who have nothing better to do than peddle in racist and classist dog whistles. At the cove near my house a volunteer effort was coordinated to restore a good portion of its natural habitat, dunes, and even some marshland, but we cannot rely on volunteers to do all the work that needs to be done. Jamestown ultimately needs to combat its NIMBY sentiment, allow growth in its small urban core, and raise taxes (which mostly everyone here can afford) in order to deal with its coming environmental woes.

In conclusion, when it comes to a species approach or an ecosystem approach to combating terrestrial biodiversity loss and extinction, I tend to fall heavily in the ecosystem approach. I must point out though, that the two approaches go hand and hand and need each other to achieve their common goal of preserving, protecting, and restoring biodiversity. Without the wolves of Yellowstone National Park, for example, the ecosystem would fall out of balance as it was prior to their reintroduction. If wolves again ceased to exist in Yellowstone, the animal populations they kept in check would erode much of the park’s natural capital once again, beavers would not have materials to build their dams, and riverbanks would erode. Therefore, in a sense, animals are their ecosystems and ecosystems are the animals within them. I believe that I tend to fall under the ecosystem approach, however, due to my love for geography and environmental planning. Plus, New England is such a tamed ecosystem (as in, if I walk outside a wild animal likely won’t kill me.) Maybe I simply do not notice the ways in which animals in my neck of the woods affect the ecosystem I live in because of an evolutionary complex that allows me not to expend as much energy thinking about them. I’ve always been able to scan my ecosystem in the various geographies I inhabit here, I’ve never had to scan it for animals that could kill me. If bears and wolves made their return here, however, as they allegedly have in north and west of Providence, that would probably be better for the ecosystem, hence the intertwined nature of both approaches to restoring biodiversity.

WC: 1,760

Question: Would tax credits for increasing the biodiversity of one’s yard (as is proposed in Rhode Island) be effective in increasing biodiversity in general?

[wetheworldmagz]

A prediction assessed, if the climate change policies bear fruit under the Biden administration, they would chop off 75 Gt CO2eq which is translated to a decrease of one-degree Celsius by 2100, the report says.

[kathleenseiber]

When is an invasive species not so?

By Jenny Morber

Caribbean corals sprout off Texas. Pacific salmon tour the Canadian Arctic. Peruvian lowland birds nest at higher elevations.

In the past 100 years, the planet has warmed in the range of 10 times faster than it did on average over the past 5,000. In response, thousands of species are travelling poleward, climbing to higher elevations, and diving deeper into the seas, seeking their preferred environmental conditions. This great migration is challenging traditional ideas about native species, the role of conservation biology and what kind of environment is desirable for the future.

In a 2017 review for Science, University of Tasmania marine ecology professor Gretta Pecl and colleagues wrote, “[C]limate change is impelling a universal redistribution of life on Earth. For marine, freshwater, and terrestrial species alike, the first response to changing climate is often a shift in location.” In fact, Pecl says, data suggest that at least 25% and perhaps as much as 85% of Earth’s estimated 8.7 million species are already shifting ranges in response to climate change.

But when they arrive, will they be welcome? Traditional definitions classify species according to place. “Native” species arrived without human help and usually before widespread human colonisation, so are likely to have natural predators and are unlikely to go rogue. Non-natives are newcomers and suspect. Though 90% cause no lasting damage, 10% become invasive — meaning that they harm the environment, the economy or human health. Last year a multinational report flagged invasive species as a key driver of Earth’s biodiversity crisis.

How we define species is critical, because these definitions influence perceptions, policy and management. The U.S. National Invasive Species Council (NISC) defines a biological invasion as “the process by which non-native species breach biogeographical barriers and extend their range” and states that “preventing the introduction of potentially harmful organisms is … the first line of defense.” But some say excluding newcomers is myopic.

“If you were trying to maintain the status quo, so every time a new species comes in, you chuck it out,” says Camille Parmesan, director of the French National Centre for Scientific Research, you could gradually “lose so many that that ecosystem will lose its coherence.” If climate change is driving native species extinct, she says, “you need to allow new ones coming in to take over those same functions.”

As University of Florida conservation ecologist Brett Scheffers and Pecl warned in a 2019 paper in Nature Climate Change, “past management of redistributed species … has yielded mixed actions and results.” They concluded that “we cannot leave the fate of biodiversity critical to human survival to be randomly persecuted, protected or ignored.”

Existing Tools

One approach to managing these climate-driven habitat shifts, suggested by University of California, Irvine marine ecologist Piper Wallingford and colleagues in a recent issue of Nature Climate Change, is for scientists to adapt existing tools like the Environmental Impact Classification of Alien Taxa (EICAT) to assess potential risks associated with moving species. Because range-shifting species pose impacts to communities similar to those of species introduced by humans, the authors argue, new management strategies are unnecessary, and each new arrival can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Karen Lips, a professor of biology at University of Maryland who was not associated with the study, echoes the idea that each case is so varied and nuanced that trying to fit climate shifting species into a single category with broad management goals may be impractical. “Things may be fine today, but add a new mosquito vector or add a new tick or a new disease, and all of a sudden things spiral out of control,” she says. “The nuance means that the answer to any particular problem might be pretty different.”

In recent years, northern flying squirrels in Canada have found themselves in the company of new neighbours – southern flying squirrels expanding their range as the climate warms. Credit: Public Domain / USFW

Laura Meyerson, a professor in the Department of Natural Resources Science at the University of Rhode Island says scientists should use existing tools to identify and address invasive species to deal with climate-shifting species. “I would like to operate under the precautionary principle and then reevaluate as things shift. You’re sort of shifting one piece in this machinery; as you insert a new species into a system, everything is going to respond,” she says. “Will some of the species that are expanding their ranges because of climate change become problematic? Perhaps they might.”

The reality is that some climate-shifting species may be harmful to some conservation or economic goals while being helpful to others. While sport fisherman are excited about red snapper moving down the East Coast of Australia, for example, if they eat juvenile lobsters in Tasmania they could harm this environmentally and economically important crustacean. “At the end of the day … you’re going to have to look at whether that range expansion has some sort of impact and presumably be more concerned about the negative impacts,” says NISC executive director Stas Burgiel. “Many of the [risk assessment] tools we have are set up to look at negative impact.” As a result, positive effects may be deemphasised or overlooked. “So that notion of cost versus benefit … I don’t think it has played out in this particular context.”

Location, Location, Location

In a companion paper to Wallingford’s, University of Connecticut ecology and evolutionary biology associate professor Mark Urban stressed key differences between invasive species, which are both non-native and harmful, and what he calls “climate tracking species.” Whereas invasive species originate from places very unlike the communities they overtake, he says, climate tracking species expand from largely similar environments, seeking to follow preferred conditions as these environments move. For example, an American pika may relocate to a higher mountain elevation, or a marbled salamander might expand its New England range northward to seek cooler temperatures, but these new locations are not drastically different than the places they had called home before.

Climate tracking species may move faster than their competitors at first, Urban says, but competing species will likely catch up. “Applying perspectives from invasion biology to climate-tracking species … arbitrarily chooses local winners over colonizing losers,” he writes.

Urban stresses that if people prevent range shifts, some climate-tracking species may have nowhere to go. He suggests that humans should even facilitate movement as the planet warms. “The goal in this crazy warming world is to keep everything alive. But it may not be in the same place,” Urban says.

Parmesan echoes Urban, emphasising it’s the distance that makes the difference. “[Invasives] come from a different continent or a different ocean. You’re having these enormous trans-global movements and that’s what ends up causing the species that’s exotic to be invasive,” she says. “Things moving around with climate change is a few hundred miles. Invasive species are moving a few thousand miles.”

In 2019 University of Vienna conservation biology associate professor Franz Essl published a similar argument for species classification beyond the native/non-native dichotomy. Essl uses “neonatives” to refer to species that have expanded outside their native areas and established populations because of climate change but not direct human agency. He argues that these species should be considered as native in their new range.

The marbled salamander, a native of the eastern U.S., is among species whose range could expand northward to accommodate rising temperatures. Credit: Seánín Óg from Flickr, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

They Never Come Alone

Meyerson calls for caution. “I don’t think we should be introducing species” into ecosystems, she says. “I mean, they never come alone. They bring all their friends, their microflora, and maybe parasites and things clinging to their roots or their leaves. … It’s like bringing some mattress off the street into your house.”

Burgiel warns that labeling can have unintended consequences. We in the invasive species field … focus on non-native species that cause harm,” he says. “Some people think that anything that’s not native is invasive, which isn’t necessarily the case.” Because resources are limited and land management and conservation are publicly funded, Burgiel says, it is critical that the public understands how the decisions are being made.

Piero Genovesi, chair of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s Invasive Species Specialist Group, sees the debate about classification — and therefore about management — as a potential distraction from more pressing conservation issues.

“The real bulk of conservation is that we want to focus on the narrow proportion of alien species that are really harmful,” he says. In Hawaii “we don’t discuss species that are there [but aren’t] causing any problem because we don’t even have the energy for dealing with them all. And I can tell you, no one wants to remove [non-native] cypresses from Tuscany. So, I think that some of the discussions are probably not so real in the work that we do in conservation.”

Indigenous frameworks offer another way to look at species searching for a new home in the face of climate change. According to a study published in Sustainability Science in 2018 by Dartmouth American and environmental studies associate professor Nicholas Reo, a citizen of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, and Dartmouth anthropology associate professor Laura Ogden, some Anishnaabe people view plants as persons and the arrival of new plants as a natural form of migration, which is not inherently good or bad. They may seek to discover the purpose of new species, at times with animals as their teachers. In their paper Reo and Ogden quote Anishnaabe tribal chairman Aaron Payment as saying, “We are an extension of our natural environment; we’re not separate from it.”

The Need for Collaboration

The successful conservation of Earth’s species in a way that keeps biodiversity functional and healthy will likely depend on collaboration. Without global agreements, one can envision scenarios in which countries try to impede high-value species from moving beyond their borders, or newly arriving species are quickly overharvested.

In Nature Climate Change, Sheffers and Pecl call for a Climate Change Redistribution Treaty that would recognise species redistribution beyond political boundaries and establish governance to deal with it. Treaties already in place, such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, which regulates trade in wild plants and animals; the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; and the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora, can help guide these new agreements.

“We are living through the greatest redistribution of life on Earth for … potentially hundreds of thousands of years, so we definitely need to think about how we want to manage that,” Pecl says.

At the heart of these questions are values. Genovesi agrees that conservationists need a vision for the future. “What we do is more to be reactive [to known threats]. … It’s so simple to say that destroying the Amazon is probably not a good idea that you don’t need to think of a step ahead of that.” But, he adds, “I don’t think we have a real answer in terms of okay, this is a threshold of species, or this is the temporal line where we should aim to.” Defining a vision for what success would look like, Genovesi says, “is a question that hasn’t been addressed enough by science and by decision makers.”

At the heart of these questions are values. “All of these perceptions around what’s good and what’s bad, all [are based on] some kind of value system,” Pecl says. “As a whole society, we haven’t talked about what we value and who gets to say what’s of value and what isn’t.”

This is especially important when it comes to marginalised voices, and Pecl says she is concerned because she doesn’t “think we have enough consideration or representation of Indigenous worldviews.” Reo and colleagues wrote in American Indian Quarterly in 2017 that climate change literature and media coverage tend to portray native people as vulnerable and without agency. Yet, says Pecl, “The regions of the world where [biodiversity and ecosystems] are either not declining or are declining at a much slower rate are Indigenous controlled” — suggesting that Indigenous people have potentially managed species more effectively in the past, and may be able to manage changing species distributions in a way that could be informative to others working on these issues.

Meanwhile, researchers such as Lips see species classification as native or other as stemming from a perspective that there is a better environmental time and place to return to. “There is no pristine, there’s no way to go back,” says Lips. “The entire world is always very dynamic and changing. And I think it’s a better idea to consider just simply what is it that we do want, and let’s work on that.”

This article was originally published on Ensia and is republished here with permission under the terms of a Creative Commons’ Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported licence. View the original article here.

Jenny Morber trained as a scientist and engineer at Georgia Tech, US, and now works as a freelance journalist based in the Pacific Northwest.

When is an invasive species not so? published first on https://triviaqaweb.weebly.com/

[allisonford11-blog]

Greta Thunberg- 16 yr. old Environmental Activist

At a young age of 16, Greta Thunberg has a developed a strong passion for the world around her. Fighting climate change is her speciality as she has continuously travelled the world activating for change. Just a year ago Thunberg started spending her school days calling for stronger action on global warming by holding up a sign saying (in Swedish) “School strike for the climate.” Soon, other students engaged in similar protests in their own communities and together, they organised a climate strike movement under the name Fridays for Future. Student strikes started taking place every week in schools across the world and this year there were at least two coordinated multi-city protests involving over one million students each. Thunberg quick rise to fame has made her a powerful world leader. 

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this EcoWatch story:

COP25, the UN Climate Change Conference, begins today in Madrid, and UN Secretary-General António Guterres wants everyone to know the stakes are high.

"[C]limate change is no longer a long-term problem. We are confronted now with a global climate crisis," Guterres said before the conference on Sunday. "The point of no-return is no longer over the horizon. It is in sight and hurtling towards us."

When the Paris agreement was reached in 2015, the Associated Press explained, world leaders said they would limit warming to below two degrees celsius compared to pre-industrial levels, with an ideal goal of limiting it to 1.5 degrees. But the emissions reductions pledges currently on the books would still lead to a temperature rise of more than three degrees Celsius, Guterres pointed out Sunday, and many countries are not even meeting these inadequate commitments.

"Our war against nature must stop," Guterres said.

Conference chair and Chilean environment minister Carolina Schmidt echoed Guterres' sense of urgency in her opening remarks Monday, calling on attendees to acknowledge the severity of the climate crisis.

"Those who don't want to see it will be on the wrong side of history," she said, as the Associated Press reported.

In addition to emissions reductions, there are two other major issues that need to be ironed out at the conference, BBC News explained.The first is whether there will be a fund established to pay for climate-related losses and damages that cannot be prevented or mitigated, like a certain amount of sea level rise. The second issue is how to establish new rules for carbon markets under Article 6 of the Paris agreement. The issue was supposed to be resolved at COP24 in Katowice, Poland last year, but parties could not come to an agreement.

[christinamac1]

Nuclear lobby's confidence tricks - film "THE NEW FIRE"

Nuclear lobby’s confidence tricks – film “THE NEW FIRE”

The “New Nuclear” lobby is kicking off its New Nuclear propaganda for 2017 with its favourite tactic – FILM. They started this method with great success in 2013 with a very glossy and quite seductive advertisement calld “Pandora’s Promise”  That has now been rehashed many times, e.g on Youtube. It pretends to be a documentary about c limate change, but is really a hymn to new nuclear “Generation…

[courtneytincher]

Our Message at Davos: Water & Sanitation Are a Critical Line of Defence Against Climate Change

LONDON, Jan 31 (IPS) - Tim Wainwright is Chief Executive of WaterAid UK.There was only one topic on everyone's lips at Davos this year – climate change. The headlines focused on the cold war between Greta Thunberg and Donald Trump, but there was much greater consensus among those gathered for the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF).

Read the full story, “Our Message at Davos: Water & Sanitation Are a Critical Line of Defence Against Climate Change”, on globalissues.org →

from Global Issues News Headlines

LONDON, Jan 31 (IPS) - Tim Wainwright is Chief Executive of WaterAid UK.There was only one topic on everyone's lips at Davos this year – climate change. The headlines focused on the cold war between Greta Thunberg and Donald Trump, but there was much greater consensus among those gathered for the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF).

Read the full story, “Our Message at Davos: Water & Sanitation Are a Critical Line of Defence Against Climate Change”, on globalissues.org →

via IFTTT