Silent Symphony: Unraveling the Causes and Consequences of Biodiversity Loss

The main dangers to biodiversity loss worldwide are population growth and resource consumption, global climate change, habitat loss and degradation, invasive species introduction, over-harvesting, pollution, and emerging infectious diseases. So how can we make sure that we don't lose more species, and that all levels of biological diversity are maintained? 
CONSUMPTION
One way to measure your impact on the planet, is a carbon footprint. A carbon footprint represents the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused directly and indirectly by an individual, organization, event or product. It is calculated by summing the emissions emanating from all facets of a persons life. This includes all aspects of consumption. For example, all emissions from every stage of a product or service’s lifetime (material production, manufacturing, use phase, and end-of-life disposal). Developed nations typically have high carbon dioxide emissions per capita, while some developing countries lead in the growth rate of carbon dioxide emissions. Obviously, these uneven contributions to the climate problem are at the core of the challenges the world community faces in finding effective and equitable solutions.

People can be encouraged and educated about what products to purchase - or not purchase - that limit their impact on the planet. For example, see how eating meat greatly increases your impact, or the use of non-certified palm oil contributes to deforestation. And your impact isn't limited to food. Consider that having another child, driving your car, and trans-atlantic flights all contribute significant amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere. There are no shortage of ways to limit your impact by changing behavior. But recent research suggests that people are willing to adjust their consumption if given enough information: Carbon Footprint Labeling Impacts Shopper Behavior

However, bottom-up approaches that place the solution squarely on consumers is just one side of the equation. We need top-down government imposed policies that help increase efficiency and limit consumption of resources that are threatened. And through these policies, carbon consumption can be drastically reduced, limiting the catastrophic impacts of anthropogenic global climate change. This is why we need consumption-based policies. These policies are designed to discourage the consumption of carbon-intensive products and services. Governments can enact carbon consumption taxes, which tax products on their carbon intensity, irrespective of where they were produced. This would require a carbon tax at home, and border adjustment tax on imports. To mobilize the support of the business community, the carbon tax might be designed to be revenue-neutral: that is, accompanied by tax cuts elsewhere. This would likely need to take into account the true cost of services and products. For example, emissions from burning gasoline are attributed to the person who owns the car. But emissions generated in the process of manufacturing this car abroad are not. We refer to this as the True Cost. Of course, carbon is only part of the problem. Governments need to ramp up investment in nature restoration and raise the tax burden on companies that degrade wildlife and nature (Watts 2019).

Other ideas include consumption-focused policies such as carbon taxes and carbon labels which would allow consumers to make informed choices and creates incentives for producers to respond to these choices. Other steps you can take:
  • Talk. Talk to your friends and family, and make sure your representatives are making good decisions. By voicing your concerns—via social media or, better yet, directly to your elected officials—you send a message that you care about the warming world. Encourage Congress to enact new laws that limit carbon emissions and require polluters to pay for the emissions they produce. The main reason elected officials do anything difficult is because their constituents make them. You can help protect public lands, stop offshore drilling, and more here.
  • Power your home with renewable energy. Choose a utility company that generates at least half its power from wind or solar and has been certified by Green-e Energy, an organization that vets renewable energy options. If that isn’t possible for you, take a look at your electric bill; many utilities now list other ways to support renewable sources on their monthly statements and websites.
  • Weatherize. Building heating and cooling are among the biggest uses of energy. Indeed, heating and air-conditioning account for almost half of home energy use. You can make your space more energy efficient by sealing drafts and ensuring it’s adequately insulated. You can also claim federal tax credits for many energy-efficiency home improvements.
  • Invest in energy-efficient appliances. Since they were first implemented nationally in 1987, efficiency standards for dozens of appliances and products have kept 2.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide out of the air. That’s about the same amount as the annual carbon pollution coughed up by nearly 440 million cars. Energy efficiency is the lowest-cost way to reduce emissions. When shopping for refrigerators, washing machines, and other appliances, look for the Energy Star label. It will tell you which are the most efficient.
  • Reduce water waste. Saving water reduces carbon pollution, too. That's because it takes a lot of energy to pump, heat, and treat your water. So take shorter showers, turn off the tap while brushing your teeth, and switch to WaterSense-labeled fixtures and appliances. The EPA estimates that if just one out of every 100 American homes were retrofitted with water-efficient fixtures, about 100 million kilowatt-hours of electricity per year would be saved—avoiding 80,000 tons of global warming pollution.
  • Actually eat the food you buy—and make less of it meat. Approximately 10 percent of U.S. energy use goes into growing, processing, packaging, and shipping food—about 40 percent of which just winds up in the landfill. If you’re wasting less food, you’re likely cutting down on energy consumption. And since livestock products are among the most resource-intensive to produce, eating meat-free meals can make a big difference, too.
  • Pull the plug(s). Taken together, the outlets in your home are likely powering about 65 different devices—an average load for a home in the U.S. Audio and video devices, cordless vacuums and power tools, and other electronics use energy even when they're not charging. This "idle load" across all U.S. households adds up to the output of 50 large power plants in the U.S. So don't leave fully charged devices plugged into your home's outlets, unplug rarely used devices or plug them into power strips and timers, and adjust your computers and monitors to automatically power down to the lowest power mode when not in use.
  • Drive a fuel-efficient vehicle. Gas-smart cars, such as hybrids and fully electric vehicles, save fuel and money. And once all cars and light trucks meet 2025’s clean car standards, which means averaging 54.5 miles per gallon, they’ll be a mainstay. For good reason: Relative to a national fleet of vehicles that averaged only 28.3 miles per gallon in 2011, Americans will spend $80 billion less at the pump each year and cut their automotive emissions by half. Before you buy a new set of wheels, compare fuel-economy performance here.
  • Maintain your ride. If all Americans kept their tires properly inflated, we could save 1.2 billion gallons of gas each year. A simple tune-up can boost miles per gallon anywhere from 4 percent to 40 percent, and a new air filter can get you a 10 percent boost.
  • Rethink planes, trains, and automobiles. Choosing to live in walkable smart-growth cities and towns with quality public transportation leads to less driving, less money spent on fuel, and less pollution in the air. Less frequent flying can make a big difference, too. Air transport is a major source of climate pollution. If you can take a train instead, do that.
  • Shrink your carbon profile. You can offset the carbon you produce by purchasing carbon offsets, which represent clean power that you can add to the nation’s energy grid in place of power from fossil fuels. But not all carbon offset companies are alike. Do your homework to find the best supplier.  (Source: How You Can Stop Global Warming, NRDC)

Vote for those that support environmentally responsible legislation, such as:
  • Global warming limits. Every year, carbon emissions from cars, factories and power plants across the planet rise inexorably. The resulting elevation in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere mean that in 30 years temperatures on Earth will be 2C hotter than they were in pre-industrial times, scientists say. This is the maximum temperature that they believe the world can tolerate without there being devastating environmental consequences: spreading deserts, worsening storms and widespread flooding. Therefore, the first and most important decision that world leaders need is to agree, through a binding commitment, that 2C is the upper, acceptable limit of global warming on Earth. All other decisions taken in Paris will follow as a consequence of that agreement.
  • Real commitments. Delegates to the Paris talks will then have to establish a network of creditable commitments from individual countries, as well as power blocks such as the EU, that will achieve carbon emissions cuts to ensure the 2C limit is achieved. 
  • Emissions must be monitored. Once nations have agreed to make a particular cut in their carbon output, it will be necessary to set up a commission or group whose job will be to monitor nations’ emissions to check that they are keeping to their commitments.
  • Developed nations must pledge billions. Most of the carbon dioxide that has been added to the atmosphere is the handiwork of the industries of developed nations. Developing countries, which have produced relatively little carbon dioxide, will demand a clear commitment from these rich nations to provide financial support to help them adapt to a hotter planet and to mitigate against the worst effects of global warming. Last week a total of $9.3bn was pledged by the west to setting up such a green climate fund. However, by 2020, the amount of money needed for this purpose is expected to be around $100bn a year. If this sort of money is not pledged by the developed world, developing nations will refuse to sign any deals in Paris.
  • The most vulnerable places must be compensated. Even if nations can come up with a binding agreement that will keep the global temperature rise to 2C, there will be environmental impacts that, for some nations, will be not just damaging but utterly devastating. For example, islands such as the Maldives and archipelagos in the Pacific already face inundation, as do large tracts of coastline in Bangladesh. Levels of carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere make the future of these look increasingly untenable. Compensation for loss and damage to populations who could lose their homelands will need special attention and a mechanism will have to be agreed in Paris to ensure these people are properly recompensed for many generations to come.
  • Green technologies must be shared. Technology will be a key factor in holding temperatures to a modest level. New forms of tide, wave and wind power plants will have to be developed to replace generators that rely on fossil fuels. Other engineering solutions will need to include systems for preventing carbon dioxide from being emitted by power plants, a process known as carbon capture and sequestration. Some of these systems will be funded by governments, some will be developed by private companies. A method to allow systems created in one country to be shared with other countries in an equitable manner will have to be agreed to ensure the rapid take-up of technologies that will be crucial to efforts to keep global warming within bearable limits. (Source: Six vital steps world leaders must agree to take to protect Earth, Robin McKie, Guardian)
​
DEFORESTATION, HABITAT DEGRADATION, FOREST FRAGMENTATION
We have a deforestation problem of epic proportions driven mainly by the consumption of just four commodities--beef, soy, palm oil, and wood products. Not only is this a problem that impacts global climate change, but it also is a driving force behind species extinctions. 

Companies can make an impact by introducing “zero deforestation” policies that clean up their supply chains. That means holding their suppliers accountable for producing commodities like timber, beef, soy, palm oil and paper in a way that does not fuel deforestation and has a minimal impact on our climate. Companies should set ambitious targets to maximize the use of recycled wood, pulp, paper and fiber in their products.

Consumers should be encouraged to make informed decisions about the products that they purchase. People can make a difference by consuming less, eating sustainable food, and choosing recycled or certified sustainable wood products. For example, consumption of non-certified palm-oil is having a devastating impact on tropical forests.

Introduction of protected areas has had solid success in some areas, protecting resources that would otherwise have been extracted. In fact, the Half Earth strategy is designed to protect half the planet in hopes of avoiding a global extinction crisis. Why one-half? ​"The crucial factor in the life and death of species is the amount of suitable habitat left to them. As defined by the theory of island biogeography, a change in area of a habitat results in a change in the sustainable number of species by approximately the fourth root. As reserves grow in size, the diversity of life surviving within them also grows. As reserves are reduced in area, the diversity within them declines to a mathematically predictable degree swiftly – often immediately and, for a large fraction, forever (Discover Half Earth)." However, the success of these protected areas is largely dependent on design. 

There is sufficient evidence to support habitat restoration as a tool in combating climate change. However, it should be noted that mass planting of trees - without taking into account the actual restoration of ecological systems - does not necessarily benefit wildlife and may do little to eliminate species extinction. For example, some areas are far more important than others (i.e., biodiversity hot spots).

Similarly, another approach is community-based conservation which may also be successful, but does depend on certain criteria.

And lastly, governments need to crack down on corruption and ensure fair enforcement of forest conservation rules. Corruption fuels illegal logging and unsustainable forest management, which in turn can fuel organized crime or even armed conflict. We also need world leaders to embrace ambitious domestic and international forest conservation policies based on the latest science. 

HUMAN POPULATION GROWTH
Worldwide population growth alone isn't the problem. Rising consumption in all countries - particularly those in developed countries - is even more problematic. In many cases, growth rates are slowing, but even slower growth rates in areas with high consumption rates is fueling our impact on the planet. So how do you curb global growth in an egalitarian society? Education is likely the most effective way. Effective family planning, sex education, and K-12 education worldwide have great potential to slow growth or reduce the size of the human population and alleviate pressure on resource availability over the long-term, in addition to generating other social advantages, such as fewer abortions, lower maternal mortality, and social justice for women. In many countries including the United States, the government actually encourages population growth through tax breaks for parents with children. Clearly, if we are to reduce populations, we should be incentivizing people to not have them, but most governments want to grow their tax base (and spending), not reduce it. Interestingly, with a growing divide in wealth in developed countries, we are actually beginning to see fewer young people having children - largely driven by finances. A reduction in the population growth rate can have large consequences on climate change, deforestation, and presumably extinction rates. Other steps that can reduce global population growth rates:
  • Provide universal access to safe and effective contraceptive options for both sexes. With nearly two in five pregnancies reported as mistimed or never wanted, lack of access to good family planning services is among the biggest gaps in assuring that each baby will be wanted and welcomed in advance by its parents.
  • Guarantee education through at least secondary school for all, especially girls. In every culture surveyed to date, women who have completed at least some secondary school have fewer children on average, and have children later in life, than do women who have less education.
  • Eradicate gender bias from law, economic opportunity, health, and culture. Women who can own, inherit, and manage property; divorce; obtain credit; and participate in civic and political affairs on equal terms with men are more likely to postpone childbearing and to have fewer children compared to women who are deprived of these rights.
  • Offer age-appropriate sexuality education for all students. Data from the United States indicate that exposure to comprehensive programs that detail puberty, intercourse, options of abstinence and birth control, and respecting the sexual rights and decisions of individuals, can help prevent unwanted pregnancies and hence reduce birth rates.
  • End all policies that reward parents financially based on the number of children they have. Governments can preserve and even increase tax and other financial benefits aimed at helping parents by linking these not to the number of children they have, but rather to effective parenting.
  • Integrate lessons on population, environment, and development into school curricula at multiple levels. Refraining from advocacy or propaganda, schools should educate students to make well-informed choices about the impacts of their behavior, including childbearing, on the environment.
  • Put prices on environmental costs and impacts. In quantifying the cost of an additional family member by calculating taxes and increased food costs, couples may decide that the cost of having an additional child is too high, compared to the benefits of a smaller family that might receive government rebates and have a lower cost of living. Such decisions, freely made by women and couples, can decrease birth rates without any involvement by outside entities.
  • Adjust to an aging population instead of boosting childbearing through government incentives and programs. Population aging must be met with the needed societal adjustments, such as increased labor participation, rather than by encouraging women to simply have more children.
  • Convince leaders to commit to stabilizing population growth through the exercise of human rights and human development. By educating themselves on rights-based population policies, policymakers can ethically and effectively address population-related challenges by empowering women to make their reproductive choices.  (Source: Nine Population Strategies to Stop Short of 9 Billion: Worldwatch)
There is no one solution and likely the answer involves both top-down government action plans and a change in mindset of individuals worldwide to ignite change locally. ​In either case, change starts with people voicing their concerns with legislators, changing consumption habits, and leading by example.
Sources News