Would You Bet on a One-Legged man in a Footrace? We are Placing our Bets on a One-Legged Theory of Climate Change
The (unfortunately) mainstream theory of climate change places all our bets on lowering greenhouse gases, while ignoring land degradation as a major cause of climate change (and species extinction).
The United Nations Environment Program published an article with an exciting headline, but with content that is both dull and erroneous. In this post, I will comment on how the article could be both more engaging and more accurate.
Link to article: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/nature-staging-comeback-un-recognizes-seven-world-restoration
The headline reads: "Nature is staging a comeback: UN recognizes seven World Restoration Flagships. Initiatives in Africa, Latin America, the Mediterranean and South Asia cited as best practices for reversing ecosystems degradation"
First, I will talk about their messaging strategy. They need to capture attention by being clear, concise and relevant to the needs and interests of the reader. And then I will talk about their erroneous version the facts on the ground. Mainly, they ignore the vital role of land degradation in climate change as well as species extinction.
First, the messaging strategy …
IS THE ARTICLE CLEAR, CONCISE OR RELEVANT TO THE NEEDS OF THE READER?
I found this article to not be very clear, concise or relevant to the needs of the reader. Although I have a high level of interest in the subject matter, it took a lot of time for me to find anything that was clear or relevant. For example, it refers to “ten principles for ecosystem restoration,” a topic of high interest to me. But I had to click five times before I found the list. Most readers—understandably—do not have this level of patience or persistence.
Here are the ten principles.
The list of principles and the explanation of each principle is couched in vague and bureaucratic language. There’s a time to be vague. There’s a time to be bureaucratic. To be sure. But not if you’re trying to reach busy people.
Try explaining any of the above to a fifteen year old … or even to a knowledgeable, motivated adult.
With all due respect to the well-intentioned people involved, we ecosystem advocates have to get our act together and package our message in a way that is clear, compelling and relevant. It’s not hard or tricky. But it requires a basic and fundamental commitment to CLARITY.
George Orwell said that the key to good writing is to 1) have something to say, and then 2) say it as clearly as you possibly can. Some people have nothing to say and that’s why they don’t speak or write very clearly. Others have something to say, but no obvious commitment to clarity.
We who advocate for ecosystems have something to say. We have a strong message. We have a compelling vision. We have plans and proposals that will benefit almost everyone everywhere. But we bury them underneath mountains of irrelevance. And yet, we are competing for the attention of busy people who have a hundred million alternatives for how they spend their time and money.
Not even exaggerating ...
But here is something else that matters ...
TAKING ISSUE WITH THEIR VERSION OF THE "FACTS ON THE GROUND"
My second concern with this article relates to the facts on the ground.
Does climate change cause forests to suffer? Or does deforestation cause climate change? Do forest species go extinct because of greenhouse gases? Or do forest species go extinct because of chainsaws, bulldozers, plows and pesticides? Are drought, heat waves and wildfires caused primarily by greenhouse gases? Or are they caused primarily by what we have done to the land, with chainsaws, bulldozers, plows and pesticides? (Note well: We could grow plenty of nutritious food without deforestation, plows or pesticides. But we have not tried this at any scale. Nor do we even understand the theoretical foundation for this my outrageous claim: That we could grow plenty of nutritious food without deforestation, plows or pesticides. Please see ”Dirt to Soil” by Gabe Brown and “Cows Save the Planet” by Judith Schwartz.)
The article echoes the (unfortunately) mainstream view that climate change is the root of all evil and that greenhouse gases are the cause of climate change. In this (unfortunately) mainstream view, we are to understand greenhouse gases as being the primary cause of flooding, drought, heat waves and wildfires. While the article does not make this claim directly, "climate change" is alone worthy of mention, among the causes of flooding, drought, wildfires and heat waves.
Chain saws, bulldozers, plows and pesticides are not worthy of mention.
The article states:
“The Mediterranean basin is the world’s second largest biodiversity hotspot, but 16 per cent of its forest species are threatened with extinction, in part due to climate-driven longer drought periods, extreme heat waves and wildfires. In the past decade, the region has experienced the worst fire seasons on record.”
When we manage agriculture with plowing and/or pesticides, this causes flooding and drought, while adversely impacting biodiversity. When we cut down oak trees and replace them with pine plantations--as has been done in Spain, part of the Mediterranean basin--we adversely impact biodiversity. The foregoing is a guess, based on limited information, but I think it's a good guess.
As for the removal of oak trees and replacing them with pines, please see this interview of mine with Judith Schwartz and Tony Eprile, who visited Spain's Millan Millan, who lamented the removal of oak trees, to be replaced with pines trees, which are fast growing and provide timber, but are more flammable than oaks and do not support truffles, an edible fungus, a fact which Millan also lamented.
Are we supposed to focus solely on greenhouse gases and not the destruction of land-based ecosystems? Millan Millan--who possibly understood the climate of Spain better than any other--said that's like having one leg. The (unfortunately) dominant theory of climate change has one leg. A two legged theory of climate change would account for greenhouse gases and land degradation. A one legged theory of climate change focuses solely and exclusively on greenhouse gases. A two legged theory of climate change acknowledges the role of greenhouse gases, but acknowledges the arguably equal or greater role of land degradation. Would you bet on a one-legged man in a footrace? You might wish him well, but you would not place your bets on a one-legged man in a foot race. And yet we are placing our bets on a one-legged theory of climate change, a theory that (with rare and limited exceptions) ignores what we've done to the land.
According to Canadian scientist Vaclav Smil, humans have eliminated about half the biomass (the total quantity of living things) in the last 5,000 years. This includes much of the forests and wetlands of the Mediterranean basin.
Consider the effects of deforestation, an important form of land degradation. The forest that you removed had a positive effect on evaporation, condensation, cloud formation and precipitation, four main steps in the water cycle. The forest you removed once acted as a sponge to capture rainfall, holding it for use by plants, animals, fungi and soil microbes. The forest you removed used to prevent flooding, because it captured rainfall and caused it to soak into the ground, thus preventing runoff, i.e., flooding. The forest you removed used to hold onto rainfall, thus preventing the worst effects of drought. The forest you removed used to evaporate prodigious amounts of water vapor, contributing it to the next rainfall. The forest you removed used to emit condensation nuclei, which make condensation possible. The condensation makes cloud formation possible. Clouds block the sun and contribute to the next rainfall. The forest you removed created a cool, moist environment, which makes it more likely that a raindrop will reach the ground, as opposed to a hot, dry environment, which makes it more likely that the raindrop will evaporate before it reaches the ground.
And, not least of all, the forest that you removed, provided habitat for the 16 percent of forest species that are at risk of extinction, according to the article.
The forest you removed used to act as an air pump (The Biotic Pump Theory), that would provide for a continuous influx of moist air, causing rain. The forest you removed used to act as a cooler, cooling the air due to prodigious amounts of evaporation, which has a cooling effect. The forest you removed used to act as a heat bank or a buffer, preventing extremes of hot and cold, because the forest is rich with water, and water is very slow to warm up and slow to cool down, creating a lag effect, which prevents extremes. The forest you removed used to act as a windbreak, preventing extreme winds. The forest you removed used to serve as a humidifier, keeping the soil moist and preventing drought. The forest you removed contained deep root systems that prevented soil erosion, a major source of flooding, water pollution and carbon emissions. The forest you removed captured and retained rainfall, creating a moist environment that made wildfires hard to get going.
But how much are these issues discussed in the (unfortunately) mainstream climate media? Hardly at all, except in passing. This is a major problem, in my view.
If you agree with some of the above and you also agree that we need to work on our message and our delivery, please email me at practiceyourpitch@gmail.com, so we can discuss via a free consultation. The best candidates for my Practice Your Pitch program will have 1) a presentation, 2) an organization and 3) a call to action. But we can explore possibilities regardless of where you are in your process.
Bonus: Here is a short video I recorded last year entitled "Forests Bring Rain" that addresses some of the issues raised above.
Bonus #2: Here is an article written by a wildlife biologist summarizing the findings of wildlife biologists and asserting that ...
"Addressing Climate Change will not 'Save the Planet'"
by Christopher Ketcham
https://theintercept.com/2022/12/03/climate-biodiversity-green-energy/
The above article by Christopher Ketcham cites this very important research study by wildlife biologists:
"An inconvenient misconception: Climate change is not the principal driver of biodiversity loss"
https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/conl.12868
Thanks for reading.
Great post.
Way to make it CLEAR.