From the “I thought [ ] my heater and [my] air conditioner was the best defense” department and the society of brain-dead wishful group-think at the Wildlife Conservation Society (and friends) comes this stunner of a press release. Perhaps they haven’t noticed the other environmentalists wailing about the coral reefs already being dead, or the global loss of native forests (they had to go all the way to Madagascar for the photo), or that fact that the world has already pledged 100 billion dollars as part of the wealth redistribution climate healing campaign. I guess if they just issue a press release saying so, all these things will be magically fixed/healed/solved.
Intact nature offers best defense against climate change
CREDIT Julie Larsen Maher/WCS
Key points:
- Many climate adaptation strategies such as sea wall construction and new agricultural practices do more harm than good
- Native forests reduce the frequency and severity of floods
- Coral reefs can reduce wave energy by an average of 97 per cent, providing a more cost-effective defense from storm surges than engineered structures
- The cost of adaptation to climate change could reach 100 billion per year
NEW YORK (January 28, 2016) – Worldwide responses to climate change could leave people worse off in the future according to a recent study conducted by CSIRO, Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and the University of Queensland.
The paper, “Intact ecosystems provide the best defense against climate change,” published today in Nature Climate Change, discusses how certain adaptation strategies may have a negative impact on nature which in turn will impact people in the long-term.
“In response to climate change, many local communities around the world are rapidly adjusting their livelihood practices to cope with climate change, sometimes with catastrophic implications for nature,” according to CSIRO’s principal research scientist Dr. Tara Martin.
The authors say that in Australia and Canada, conservation reserves are being used as drought relief to feed livestock, while forests in the Congo Basin in Africa are being cleared for agriculture in response to drought, and coral reefs are being destroyed to build sea walls from the low-lying islands in Melanesia.
Dr. Martin added: “These are just few of the human responses to climate change that, if left unchallenged, may leave us worse off in the future due to their impacts on nature. Functioning and intact, forests, grasslands, wetlands and coral reefs represent our greatest protection against floods and storms.”
The paper states that intact native forests have been shown to reduce the frequency and severity of floods, while coral reefs can reduce wave energy by an average of 97 per cent, providing a more cost-effective defense from storm surges than engineered structures.
Likewise, coastal ecosystems such as mangroves and tidal marshes are proving to be a more cost-effective and ecologically sound alternative to buffering storms than conventional coastal engineering solutions.
Co-author Dr James Watson, a lead scientist with WCS and Principle Research Fellow at the University of Queensland, said that with more than 100 million people per year at risk from increasing floods and tropical cyclones, ill-conceived adaptation measures that destroy the ecosystems, which offer our most effective and inexpensive line of defense, must be avoided.
“The cost of adaptation to climate change could reach 100 billion per year in the coming decades but this is small change when we consider the environmental and economic fallout from not using nature to help us cope with climate change,” said Dr. Watson.
Dr. Watson added: “If we consider another perverse mechanism contributing to climate change, fossil fuel subsidies, it is small change. A recent report by the International Monetary Fund estimates global energy subsidies for 2015 at $US5.3 trillion per year. Eliminating fossil fuel subsidies would slash global carbon emission by 20 percent and raise government revenue by 2.9 trillion, well over the funds needed for intelligent policy and action on climate adaptation.”
“Fortunately some adaptation strategies are being developed that do not destroy nature, some of which are even ecosystem-based. The protection and restoration of mangrove forests that is actively funded by agencies such as USAID is a prime example,” Dr. Watson said.
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Intact nature offers best defense against climate change”
Would this be the same intact nature that has continually produced Ice ages. Oh sorry, perhaps that wouldn’t qualify has true climate change.
ie: if an ice age occurred and there was no one to observe it would it be CC?
It makes perfect sense to me that intact Nature offers the best defense against climate change. Government policies to change economic performance have a 100% failure rate, because they introduce the use of coercion into what is otherwise a completely voluntary system. It would make sense that the same would be true when government policies try to “force” nature to do something they would like, when no one understands well enough how nature works to know whether: a) The “problem” is really a problem, b) The “solution” will achieve its desired goal, and c) The “desired goals” are actually desirable. It seems like a total crap-shoot to me, without the well-defined odds.
I live in Queensland. On my house block I have a mini rain forest. The green vegetation falls to the ground, and decays.Thats what happens in rain forests. It decays to CO2 and Methane. I think I may produce more CO2 and Methane than any other house in the street.
If I chopped down the greenery and cemented it over, like they do in the cities, then I would no longer produce so much CO2!
Methanogens–methane producing microbes–can only survive in anaerobic environments with a supply of hydrogen or acetic acid to power them.
The decomposing leaves on the oxygen-rich floor of your rain forest probably don’t produce methane.
“The cost of adaptation to climate change could reach 100 billion per year”
But we’re already throwing 100 $B away on worthless prevention measure. Why not just jump straight to the end-game, adaptation measures. It could be as much as 100 $B, but will probably be lots less. Lots.
Is plantlife a positive or negative feedback when it comes to c02 and methane? (from decomposition) On one hand plants absorb c02 but as mentioned, if there’s more biomass from increased c02 then the output of methane is increased too.
Could anyone set me straight on this? Would be greatly appreciated, thanks.
The amount of Methane in the atmosphere is tiny ! 1800 parts per BILLION !! That equals 1.8 parts per million..CO2 is about 400 PPM !!
However it is far more effective as a greenhouse gas, being about a 100 times better at it according to a source on inet.
So again, in terms of warming/cooling ratio, I’d like some real, verifiable data if at all possible. There has to be a paper on the effect plants have on temp change or something or is it like the feedback of clouds uncertainty?
So much of this science is incomplete I do wonder how they could have ever said it’s settled.
Anywho, thanks for your time on this. Any more data or links to research would be very welcome.
CH4 absorbs at frequencies that CO2 and H2O do not that’s why it is claimed CH4 is a “better” GHG than CO2. Of course it is utterly meaningless.
benofhouston at 8.18
said
It’s not in the books because there’s nothing to write about. There’s no grand meeting of people trying to implement this plan in your local city council. Any idea is good or bad on it’s own merits. Trying to tie it to this overriding master plan just makes you look crazy. If it’s a good idea who cares if it helps Agenda 21, do it anyway because it’s a good idea. If it’s a bad idea, then shoot it down based on the facts, not due to any connection to a failed conference.
er?
then go look up CIGIAR and see how councils ARE targeted and charged…to follow the agenda 21/ millenium development goals..ALL coming from the bloody EUrocrats /ipcc and buddies ideas.
I kicked up a stink for a couple of yrs about OUR local council dragging us into it
I see we are now OFF the Cigiar lists of aus councils
🙂
====================
seperately
the pratt saying allowing grazing in qld wildrefuge areas?
well if they dont allow grazing..when the fires go through , and they will.. there wont be a stick standing
Victoria etc all keep learning this the hard way
Because democrats want to tax us at 70% but we are ‘only’ paying 40% we are all being “subsidized” – shame on us all!
1) That picture sure looks like second growth
2) Managed forests provide virtually the same protection from floods and the same wildlife habitat as “intact” forest.
3) Managed forests provide income to land owners so that the forest is not converted to golf courses or pasture.
4) If $100 billion/yr must be spent on adaptation, $3Trillion/yr must be spent on prevention (assuming it works) by reducing CO2–does that sound cost-effective?
Intact managed forests are a carbon sink, and a good one. So the “intact” part they got right as long as they understand what “managed” means. Neglecting them under our current way of life (close the roads, keep human-related activity out, snuff any and all lightening strikes to “keep it natural”, etc) would leave them open to catastrophic fire. Allowing cattle in to mimic the natural abundance of grazers, along with controlled burns, logging, etc, is the part they don’t get.