Friday, 18 October, 2024
Scientists warn that some strategies aimed at tackling global warming can unintentionally harm nature and biodiversity, urging for a more coordinated response to these interconnected challenges.
"By attempting to solve one issue, we risk causing damage in other areas," stated Anne Larigauderie from the Intergovernmental Scientific and Political Platform on Biodiversity (IPBES), an independent expert body, in an interview with AFP.
In December, the IPBES will release a report emphasizing the interconnectedness of various crises, including climate change and biodiversity loss, and the necessity of addressing them collectively rather than in isolation.
Both the IPBES and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) cautioned in 2021 that a fragmented approach could lead to actions that inadvertently hinder the resolution of either or both issues.
For instance, in the UK, a well-intentioned policy of planting trees on wetlands backfired when these carbon-rich landscapes dried up, releasing previously stored greenhouse gases.
The Climate Action Network, a coalition of non-governmental organizations, has issued warnings against "false solutions" that promise environmental benefits but may impose hidden costs on people or ecosystems.
One controversial approach involves intentionally injecting iron into the oceans to enhance microplankton growth. While it appears promising, this "geoengineering" technique raises significant concerns about potential environmental repercussions.
Alison Smith, a researcher at the University of Oxford, cautioned that iron fertilization is "likely to cause massive environmental damage for uncertain climate gain."
"Mitigation strategies for climate change must be assessed based on their overall benefits and risks, not just their carbon footprint," emphasized the Foundation for Biodiversity Research in 2022.
While wind turbines generate clean energy and reduce reliance on fossil fuels, they can pose threats to migratory birds and bats in certain areas. Similarly, constructing dams for hydroelectric power can obstruct fish migration, adversely impacting their populations.
"Given the vast, complex, and interconnected nature of climate change and biodiversity loss, focusing solely on one aspect will never suffice," asserted Tom Oliver from the University of Reading. He underscored the need to move beyond "sticking plaster fixes," such as geoengineering, which can lead to significant unintended consequences.
For example, the proposal of installing "underwater curtains" to shield Antarctic glaciers from warming waters could disrupt nutrient flows, as noted by Lars Smedsrud from the University of Bergen in a recent article in Nature.
In pursuing solutions to our most pressing challenges, it is crucial to adopt a holistic perspective that encompasses more than just climate change, according to Smith. She advocates for nature-based solutions that provide simultaneous benefits for biodiversity, climate, and human populations.
A 2020 study published in Global Change Biology found that "nature-based interventions were often as effective, or even more so, than alternative strategies for addressing climate impacts."
Research from 2023 in Nature revealed that simply protecting existing forests and allowing them to regenerate could yield significant carbon removal benefits.
"There is no singular solution; we must leverage all available strategies across sectors, countries, and methodologies," Smith concluded. "Breaking down silos is the only way forward that will not create more problems than it solves."
Comments
Scientists warn that some strategies aimed at tackling global warming can unintentionally harm nature and biodiversity, urging for a more coordinated response to these interconnected challenges.
"By attempting to solve one issue, we risk causing damage in other areas," stated Anne Larigauderie from the Intergovernmental Scientific and Political Platform on Biodiversity (IPBES), an independent expert body, in an interview with AFP.
In December, the IPBES will release a report emphasizing the interconnectedness of various crises, including climate change and biodiversity loss, and the necessity of addressing them collectively rather than in isolation.
Both the IPBES and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) cautioned in 2021 that a fragmented approach could lead to actions that inadvertently hinder the resolution of either or both issues.
For instance, in the UK, a well-intentioned policy of planting trees on wetlands backfired when these carbon-rich landscapes dried up, releasing previously stored greenhouse gases.
The Climate Action Network, a coalition of non-governmental organizations, has issued warnings against "false solutions" that promise environmental benefits but may impose hidden costs on people or ecosystems.
One controversial approach involves intentionally injecting iron into the oceans to enhance microplankton growth. While it appears promising, this "geoengineering" technique raises significant concerns about potential environmental repercussions.
Alison Smith, a researcher at the University of Oxford, cautioned that iron fertilization is "likely to cause massive environmental damage for uncertain climate gain."
"Mitigation strategies for climate change must be assessed based on their overall benefits and risks, not just their carbon footprint," emphasized the Foundation for Biodiversity Research in 2022.
While wind turbines generate clean energy and reduce reliance on fossil fuels, they can pose threats to migratory birds and bats in certain areas. Similarly, constructing dams for hydroelectric power can obstruct fish migration, adversely impacting their populations.
"Given the vast, complex, and interconnected nature of climate change and biodiversity loss, focusing solely on one aspect will never suffice," asserted Tom Oliver from the University of Reading. He underscored the need to move beyond "sticking plaster fixes," such as geoengineering, which can lead to significant unintended consequences.
For example, the proposal of installing "underwater curtains" to shield Antarctic glaciers from warming waters could disrupt nutrient flows, as noted by Lars Smedsrud from the University of Bergen in a recent article in Nature.
In pursuing solutions to our most pressing challenges, it is crucial to adopt a holistic perspective that encompasses more than just climate change, according to Smith. She advocates for nature-based solutions that provide simultaneous benefits for biodiversity, climate, and human populations.
A 2020 study published in Global Change Biology found that "nature-based interventions were often as effective, or even more so, than alternative strategies for addressing climate impacts."
Research from 2023 in Nature revealed that simply protecting existing forests and allowing them to regenerate could yield significant carbon removal benefits.
"There is no singular solution; we must leverage all available strategies across sectors, countries, and methodologies," Smith concluded. "Breaking down silos is the only way forward that will not create more problems than it solves."
Comments
