The BBC comments on a report on biodiversity that has recently been released by the World Wildlife Fund:
Wildlife populations have fallen by more than two-thirds in less than 50 years, according to a major report by the conservation group WWF.
The report says this “catastrophic decline” shows no sign of slowing.
And it warns that nature is being destroyed by humans at a rate never seen before.
Wildlife is “in freefall” as we burn forests, over-fish our seas and destroy wild areas, says Tanya Steele, chief executive at WWF.
“We are wrecking our world – the one place we call home – risking our health, security and survival here on Earth. Now nature is sending us a desperate SOS and time is running out.”
The article is alarming but grossly misleading. When you dig a little farther by going to the IUCN Red Sheet of endangered species, it conveys a somewhat different message. No less alarming but a lot less actionable.
The largest number of endangered species is in East Asia (129), sub-Saharan Africa (82), and then South and South-East Asia (65). The number in North America is 37 while the number in Europe is 15.
“We”, defined as the people of North America and Europe, can do very little about it. Oh, yes, we could start paying other countries to take steps to curb the destruction of habitat that is most responsible for reducing biodiversity but those countries don’t actually have the societal infrastructure to accomplish it. So we’d pay them and they’d keep right on doing what they’re doing.
We’ve been trying to curb the activities of Chinese and Japanese factory fishing trawlers for decades without a great deal of success. When they pass over a stretch of ocean, nothing living is left behind.
Sadly, short of measures that are unthinkable, those species of plants, animals, reptiles, and fish in Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia, and South or South-East Asia are doomed.
What you say is true, but does that mean we should just ignore habitat destruction in our own country? I have always been surprised that hunters and environmentalists haven’t worked more together. Loss of habitat is key for hunters. We have had a bit of that in our area but not much.
Steve
Definitely not. But we need to recognize the limits of our efforts. IMO the greatest threat to habitats is urban sprawl. I think we need to limit that. One effective way would be to end building new interstates. I also think there should be an outright ban on developing prime farmland but I guess that’s just me.
The originators of the national park system were hunters. Today’s environmentalists are of a very different stamp. One big challenge to reducing the destruction of habitats is that California is so dependent on sprawl for the state economy.
‘IMO the greatest threat to habitats is urban sprawl. I think we need to limit that.’
I would say suburban rather than urban sprawl is the bigger problem (at least in this country). And after COVID-19 good luck making people live in close contact unless they have no other choice (i.e., the poor).
‘What you say is true, but does that mean we should just ignore habitat destruction in our own country?’
That is the nasty evil false dichotomous choice too many ignorant greenies constantly push. If you don’t support the greenie position 100% no matter how loony, you want to rape the earth. Compromise in favor of human existence is considered a dirty word.
‘I have always been surprised that hunters and environmentalists haven’t worked more together.’
They did far more than in the past. But too many of the remaining responsible environmentalists these days willing to work with hunters are long in the tooth (as are a lot of the hunters). Far too many of the activists these days think global, not local, as in the Green New Deal, or have simply given up, as in Extinction Rebellion. It would be interesting to learn how many of them have actually been to our local parks and preserves to appreciate what we’ve still got as opposed to protests. We old timers badly need new enthusiastic blood willing to learn and protect and preserve.
Same thing—they’re synonymous. “Urban sprawl” means the uncontrolled expansion of urban areas, usually into ever-expanding suburbs. I know of no suburbs in the U. S. that didn’t start with a city. The closest I’ve seen would be Los Angeles.