Sunday Evening Reads
Preserving Biodiversity Preserves Our Planet
“Today, we are the asteroid that’s causing many, many species to go extinct simultaneously.”
Quote taken from the video clip below.
Sir David Attenborough and scientists discuss how preserving the biodiversity of our planet might save us all from extinction.
It’s up to us and the decisions we make now, individually and collectively, to stop the extinction of our fellow creatures and plant life, and so prevent our own extinction. In a previous post, I pondered why we continue to destroy the very thing that is necessary for our survival. I still don’t know “the” answer or even “an” answer to this question.
Leading environmental scientists, anthropologists and biodiversity experts agree that we’re heading down the wrong path when we clear the remaining animal and plant habitat to make way for our own never-ending growth. What we eat and drink, how and where we live, how many children we have, the industrial pollution we fail to control and its concomitant climate change are the major areas that demand our immediate action. But short-term monetary interests, whether from the fossil fuel industry, elected officials or individuals, always seem to put an end to any progress we make and the progress we want to continue.
On that cheery note, I thought I’d share a few articles on the climate crisis and why it’s so important to understand both its history and current impacts, because only then can we take the right action to reverse it.
I know that many people, at least in the United States and other developed countries, either don’t have time or don’t want to have the time to learn about these issues—”It’s a downer”, “It’s too late to do anything, “I have happier things to think about”, or the most pathetic phrase of the last few years: “I don’t want to feel uncomfortable”.
I understand. No one wants to purposely make themselves feel bad, or be slapped in the face with the fact that their actions are part of the larger problem. That’s why I’m curating this information for you, so you can quietly read and think and then maybe do. What I’d really like is to start a robust discussion in the comment section, so I can get a better handle on your opinions and what facts you use to back them up!
— Here’s an article from Smithsonian Magazine from just this month that discusses the incredible value of old growth forests, particularly to mitigate climate change, and why we must preserve all that remain.
“Indeed, according to a 2017 study, if we simply left the world’s existing forests alone, by 2100 they’d have captured enough carbon to offset years’ worth of global fossil-fuel emissions—up to 120 billion metric tons.”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-old-man-and-the-tree-180979242/
— This article from The Guardian, also from just this month, discusses what we must do to halt biodiversity loss, but it warns that expanding already protected areas is a good start, but not close to enough.
“[What also must be accomplished] is “A “massive” reduction in harmful agricultural and fishing subsidies, holding global heating to 1.5C and tackling human overconsumption, including of meat, is necessary, the scientists said, as part of coordinated action across a diverse, interconnected set of “transformative” changes.”
And finally for this evening, yet another article from January published in Anthropocene Magazine, advocates for the use of “circular waste management” as an overlooked way to reduce our green house gas emissions. It focuses on not creating the waste in the first place by consuming less, re-using or repurposing items rather than throwing them out, and then recycling, with tossing out trash to go to a landfill as a last resort.
“The researchers assumed that circular waste management scenarios would achieve pickup of all the world’s trash by 2050, recycle 90% of paper and textile waste and 80% of plastic and wood, and send 100% of food waste to anaerobic digesters that produce biogas for energy.”
Speaking of waste, I took a photo of the packaging from the Olay eye cream I had shipped to me, along with a few other items from Target. Olay is owned by the behemoth company, Proctor and Gamble. One would think that with their R&D budget, or at least some common sense, they would use much less packaging for a simple, 0.5 oz. jar of eye cream, but here is what that tiny little jar at the bottom of the photo arrived in:
Admittedly, it’s a bonus that one small jar addresses that trio of plagues: “dark circles, wrinkles and puffiness’, but it certainly doesn’t justify three distinct packaging materials in addition to the sealed jar. I sent the photo to their customer service department along with a comment about the excess packaging, and I won’t buy it again. It’s the least I can do.
Let me know what you think about our need to preserve our planet’s biodiversity. Do you notice excess product packaging? Do you recycle? Please comment below!
If you like this post, please share it with others.
And as always, if you are not already a free or paid subscriber, why not take the minute or two right now to support Crime and Punishment.