Climate plus one

_Media Download_1022586
Shag: Photo: Andy Hay, RSPB

Global temperatures are set to reach 1°C above pre-industrial levels this year (Daily Mail, Independent, BBC) and world leaders are going to Paris in a few weeks time to sort it out.

Today the RSPB released an important report and some very interesting polling information.

Let’s deal with the polling first. The polling suggests that we need more posh, young, Labour women living in the southwest of England, for that is the section of society which is most likely to agree with the view ‘Climate change is happening and is mainly caused by human activity’.

Women are generally a bit more likely to believe this than men, and the young are more likely than the old; social category AB are more likely than others and the English more likely than those living in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Thank heaven for bright young women!

To be fair, hardly anyone thinks that climate change isn’t happening (4% overall) and very few (28%) think that it’s happening but it isn’t mainly caused by human activity. Alongside the 9% of us who ‘don’t know’, the 59% of the population, led by posh, young, Labour women from the southwest, is very impressive. Believing that we have a problem is a majority belief.

And the common sense of the British population does not stop at recognising the problem – if you look at the details of their responses they want action too. And one of their reasons, a strong reason, for wanting action is that they believe that wildlife will suffer from climate change.

79% of Britons are worried about climate impacts on UK wildlife, making it a greater concern than flooding (72%), heat waves (50%), or increased variability and prices of food (60%).

Richard Black, Director of ECIU (Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit), said: ‘It’s quite a surprising finding because you’d think people would be more concerned about potential impacts to their homes, their larders and their wallets. Instead it shows that Britain’s long-standing love affair with birds, flowers and animals shows no signs of abating, and that recent studies demonstrating climate change impacts on animals such as puffins, bumblebees and frogs have raised the alarm.’

The RSPB report on wildlife impacts of climate change is a very good and clear summary of what is happening and is likely to happen. I can’t see who the authors were, but they did a very good job.

Here are the summary statements from the sections of the report;

Shifting ranges: Many species are already moving, predominantly northwards and to higher elevations. This is exactly what we would expect as a response to a warming climate.

New arrivals: Species are starting to successfully colonise new territories as they track suitable climate. Conservation strategies will need to support this.

Changing populations and communities: Changes to the species present in an area, and the abundances of these species, show that climate change is already affecting ecological communities.

Changing interactions between species: Some of the strongest impacts of climate change on wildlife come from changes in interactions between species, in particular the relationships between predators and prey.

Extreme weather: Increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events can be expected to have an increasing impact on wildlife populations.

The future: Further, large shifts could occur in species’ ranges in the future, with many species losing large areas of suitable climate, creating a substantial threat to their survival.

Protected areas and climate change: As species’ ranges shift, both existing and new protected areas will play an important role in helping wildlife cope with the effects of climate change.

Managing sites and landscapes for adaptation: Different site management techniques will become more important to help wildlife to adapt to climate change.

Creating new sites and expanding site networks: Creating, re-creating and protecting new sites for wildlife conservation will play important roles, from helping populations to disperse through inhospitable landscapes, to increasing the size of existing protected areas to enhance their resilience, to providing entirely new locations for populations to inhabit.

Helping people to adapt: Humans and wildlife both need to adapt to climate change. Restoring and conserving natural ecosystems could, in some cases, provide benefits to nature and humans at the same time.

Implications for conservation: This report provides widespread evidence that climate change is already affecting wildlife across Europe, and that impacts are likely to escalate in the not-too-distant future. This will add to, and interact with, many other pressures faced by wildlife. How should we respond?
– Greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced to limit the degree of warming: although wildlife
is already being affected, future climate change is likely to lead to more severe impacts. Reducing emissions is a key step in reducing impacts.
– Species’ ranges are changing as they track suitable climate: providing sufficient, suitable habitat is key in ensuring species can track the conditions to which they are adapted.
– Some species could benefit from climate change, at least at certain geographical scales, whilst many could be adversely affected: resulting changes in ecological communities should be monitored to ensure efficient targeting of conservation action, and identification of mechanisms behind impacts.
– Extreme weather will increasingly affect populations, and wider climatic conditions could become less suitable for many species: under these circumstances it is important to identify site and landscape management actions to aid population resilience and adaptation.
– Non-climatic pressures on wildlife should be reduced. As climate change will have an increasing impact on wildlife, it will be important to ensure other threats are reduced.
– Robust protected area networks are essential now, and will continue to be essential under
climate change. Protected areas support larger populations and more diverse communities, and
aid colonisation of new areas and survival in existing ranges.
– The existing protected area network could be enhanced: “more, bigger, better and joined”
sites will aid population persistence and species’ movement across the landscape.
– Ecosystem-based adaptation could aid human climate change adaptation and benefit
biodiversity at the same time. Working with nature could provide much wider benefits than
considering humans separately from the environment.

Martin Harper, the RSPB Conservation Director said: ‘The report has a clear message that the world’s governments need to act on fast, to limit climate change. They’ve no better opportunity to do this than the upcoming UN climate negotiations in Paris. Countries such as the UK also need to make sure they’re making every possible effort to back up international ambition with action back home, in part by supporting the transition to a low carbon energy system. For wildlife to be able to cope with a changing climate, we’ll need to manage more areas of land and sea for nature, in both protected areas and the wider countryside and seas. There is good evidence that protected areas across the European Union, such as Special Protection Areas, are already helping wildlife to respond to the changing climate. Projections show that protected areas will remain important for wildlife in the future, even as species move due to climate change, and that we will need more of them. The laws they rely on, such as the Nature Directives, need to be maintained and better implemented. This means designating more areas on land and at sea and managing them to a high standard for wildlife.‘.

Will you be at the Climate March in London on 29 November? I will. There seem, today, to be many good reasons for good people to occupy the streets of our capital cities at this time.

_Media Download_1062494
Photo: Grahame Madge/RSPB





9 Replies to “Climate plus one”

  1. Mark, first off, thank you for this posting. I’m on a steep learning curve with environmental and conservation issues, and I really appreciate having you read reports, attend conferences, monitor the media, and more, and then report it all so succinctly.

    But although some of the polling figures lead me down the positive path, it still seems to be that almost a third of us don’t believe it’s happening, or if it is, we aren’t causing it… This astounds me. Is there any information available about what these people think IS causing it? What, apart from the rapid increase in the number of humans and their harmful activities, can be causing such changes? I’m genuinely interested in the answer to this, not just being disparaging towards those people… are we doing enough to educate them and raise awareness? What else can we (I) do?

    1. Daphne – I don’t know. But the figures are getting ‘better’ all the time – in terms of more people believing the orthodoxy.

      What else can we do? Governments, including our government, should take these figures as definitely good enough to indicate a large amount of public support for action. And they should take notice of the science anyway. but lack of public agreement can’t be taken as an excuse for government inaction.

      1. Belief, orthodoxy – so it’s true. It’s a religion! A survey “framed” q.v. by a warmist lobby group throwing loaded questions at a sample of 2015 (was that the sample size or the date?) people representing ~0.003% of the population asserts that the proportion of Britons who think the majority or almost all climate scientists believe climate change to be mainly caused by human activity. This is like asking whether they think that priests believe there is a Pope. They might have asked them whether spending €250M/year for the next 85 years to avoid 0.1ºC of warming was value for money. But they didn’t.

    2. “… are we doing enough to educate them”

      Wer ist “sie”? The ” … dog walking, ice-cream dribbling, jabbering-gibbering, mobility-scooter riding masses (sometimes all the above in one unpleasant combination) How come you even dare speak to me at all? Why do you exist?”?. Die Untermenschen von Teignmouth?

    3. Hi Daphne,
      Why would any changes in the last 50 years be caused by anything different from previous changes in temperature, before we started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. e.g the medieval and other well known warming periods? Surely, we need to understand this before spending trillions every year to avoid a small fraction of a degree rise in temperature.

      It is 100% certain that damaging world economies by trillions will cause untold damage, not least, to the environment. It is also 100% proven that a modest rise in temperature and increased CO2 has benefits. It is controversial and questionable whether the temperature will rise to a level causing a catastrophe, especially as the global temperature has remained stable for the last 15 years or so, and the most recent estimates of climate sensitivity are not dangerous.

      When I asked Mark awhile back why he believed in AGW, he replied “I have read the science!”. Mark is no more a climate scientist than I am, so I took it as an attempt at a put-down. When I asked an RSPB scientist what he thought was wrong with a well-argued (I thought) piece written by Matt Ridley, he replied that Matt Ridley is an a***hole. That’s the best reasoned argument he could come up with. Come on you guys on the alarmist side, you need to come up with better arguments if you are to covert the rest of us to your beliefs.

      1. Matt Ridley is an a***hole

        He may be – that view may be reinforced if you were a client of Northern Rock. But man at RSPB made an irrelevant ad hom comment to you instead of answering your question. How very scientific of him. He is in “good” company – Professor Brian Cox of the Staaaaarz says he only communicates with those who challenge the Climastrology orthodoxy by taking the piss out of them.

  2. Shifting ranges. Whilst some species, such as many birds, are potentially capable of moving their range to keep track of the shifting climatic zones, many more are much less mobile and may not be able move far or fast enough. In particular, whilst a bird can readily fly over miles of in hospitable habitat, this option is not open to many invertebrates or to most plants. It is therefore particularly important to do everything possible to join up areas of good habitat to provide at least a chance that such species can spread along the corridors created. Ensuring a more wildlife friendly agricultural landscape would be an important contribution to this.

Comments are closed.