This week the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) in cooperation with Wageningen University announced in a press release a study on adaptive nature policies: ”Adaptatiestrategie voor een klimaatbestendige natuur” Official English versions of neither the press releyase nor the report are available, so my short summary may be of some help:
Short summary
Expected climate changes will lead to the extinction of about 15% of local animal and plant species. On the other hand new species may migrate and take over functions of the extinct species and keep biodiversity on level. To facilitate these changes nature policies should be changed. No more focus on preservation of species in specified areas, but enhancing of nature’s overall adaptive capacity.
That means larger joined nature areas, where possible joined cross-border as to facilitate migration and living conditions for all species by extending their possibilities to move along changing climate zones. The authors recommend that this adaption should be incorporated in the Ecologische Hoofdstructuur (National Ecological Network), a project started in the early nineties.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
It's my personal opinion that the real danger for biodiversity is not climate change.
Wikipedia:
"Jared Diamond describes an "Evil Quartet" of habitat destruction, overkill, introduced species, and secondary extensions. Edward O. Wilson prefers the acronym HIPPO, standing for Habitat destruction, Invasive species, Pollution, Human Over Population, and Overharvesting."
This is more complete:
http://www.conservationmeasures.org/initiatives/threats-actions-taxonomies/threats-taxonomy
Climate alamarmism is hijacking the whole environmental movement and is imho often counterproductive.
Yeph
@Yeph 1: How tiring it is to read about "climate alarmism" whenever someone proposes countermeasures against known developments regarding to climate change.
Fast changing temperatures affect species, and some species will become extinct due to that (see this article about lizards). Species will try to adapt and this will result in migration.
One can try to mitigate the damage, or try to adapt to a changed environment, but ridiculing every effort for being the work of "climate alarmists" isn't helpful at all, because it achieves nothing.
@Flin 2:
http://www.scidev.net/en/news/debate-erupts-over-effects-of-climate-change-on-di.html
"But Sarah Randolph of Oxford University, United Kingdom, writes in her Ecology paper that "exaggerated simplistic rhetoric" about climate change's role "is morally indefensible if it distracts public health agencies from more effective ameliorative action targeted at the real causes"."
Why should we not concentrate on the real causes of the ecologic disasters? Why are we told that climate change is the most important threat to humanity, biodiversity etc. when people working in the different areas say it's not and when we can see after a century of global warming with our own eyes that it is not?
Even if I'm not allowed to contradict climate models and global warming science because I am a layman, I think I have the right to discuss the other issues.
Imho all efforts to preserve biodiversity today are more important than concentrating on possible future scenarios, just because the prayin mantis for instance has invaded our countries.
The beech is here for a very long time and it survived 10 million years if Wikipedia is correct. I still can't see things change in a dramatic way because of climate change.
But biodiversity is a serious problem today and we have to seriously talk about it and find real solutions.
Yeph
My answer disappeared. :-(
I try one more time:
@Flin 2:
http://www.scidev.net/en/news/debate-erupts-over-effects-of-climate-change-on-di.html
"But Sarah Randolph of Oxford University, United Kingdom, writes in her Ecology paper that "exaggerated simplistic rhetoric" about climate change's role "is morally indefensible if it distracts public health agencies from more effective ameliorative action targeted at the real causes"."
Why should we not concentrate on the real causes of the ecologic disasters? Why are we told that climate change is the most important threat to humanity, biodiversity etc. when people working in the different areas say it's not and when we can see after a century of global warming with our own eyes that it is not?
Even if I'm not allowed to contradict climate models and global warming science because I am a layman, I think I have the right to discuss the other issues.
Imho all efforts to preserve biodiversity today are more important than concentrating on possible future scenarios, just because the prayin mantis for instance has invaded our countries.
The beech is here for a very long time and it survived 10 million years if Wikipedia is correct. I still can't see things change in a dramatic way because of climate change.
But biodiversity is a serious problem today and we have to seriously talk about it and find real solutions.
Yeph
Post a Comment (pop-up window,non-moderated)