如何保护物种并立即保存行星

温馨提示:全文约4753字,阅读全文大约需要6分钟

人类正在努力遏制两种复合危机:暴涨全球气温和暴跌的生物多样性。但是,人们倾向于自己解决每个问题,例如部署绿色能量和碳化机器,同时沿着生态系统沿着生态系统进行保护以保护它们。但在一份新的报告中,来自世界各地的50名科学家认为,在孤立中对待每种危机意味着在两次解决这两种解决方案中都错过了。鉴于巴黎协议,它意味着提供有关如何应对气候变化的竞选方式的竞选指导,反之亦然。

人类正在努力遏制两种复合危机:暴涨全球气温和暴跌的生物多样性。但是,人们倾向于自己解决每个问题,例如部署绿色能量和碳化机器,同时沿着生态系统沿着生态系统进行保护以保护它们。但在一份新的报告中,来自世界各地的50名科学家认为,在孤立中对待每种危机意味着在两次解决这两种解决方案中都错过了。人类无法解决一个而没有解决另一个。

该报告是各条纹研究人员参加的为期为期四天的虚拟研讨会的产品,是联合国政府间科学政策平台与生物多样性和生态系统服务的合作,以及政府间气候变化小组。鉴于巴黎协议,它意味着提供有关如何应对气候变化的竞选方式的竞选指导,反之亦然。

肯塔基州大学的可持续发展科学家Betsy Beymer-farris表示,肯塔基大学的可持续发展科学家(Betsy Beymer-Farris),肯塔基大学的可持续发展科学家,肯塔基州的可持续发展科学家,肯塔基州的普遍存在科学家审查它。 “公司甚至是国家甚至是真正蒸馏的学术文学,”的公司很难说,“Beymer-Farris说。该报告既凭借实际依靠农业和放牧的人民的帮助制定气候和生物多样性科学以及如何影响如何改变的社会科学。 “当我审查报告时,我肯定会兴奋,”Beymer-Farris补充道。 “我想:好的,这绝对不同于我以前见过的东西,因为它是一种有意识的和严肃的参与,与更公平,刚刚前进。”

那么这些运动可能看起来像什么?例如,你将一个重新登录的森林转变为国家公园。由于树木恢复了,它们会在组织中螯合碳,并为动物的返回提供栖息地。让森林自然回来,而不是种植单一的树来抵消一些公司的碳排放,使其更具弹性。这被称为基于自然的解决方案,这是综合叠加的竞选活动,并提供额外的生态或经济效益。

“你正在帮助生物多样性,你可能真的为人们努力为可持续发展的系统产生机会,”德国阿尔弗雷德韦格纳研究所的气候学家Hans-OttoPörtner说。 Pörtner共同主持了该报告的研讨会的科学指导委员会。但是,如果你创造单一种植体,他继续,“只有一次使用。然后如果你正在使用的那种庄稼受到一些灾难,那么你完全失去了这个目的。“

单一型材对野火的单一灾难或较慢,气候变化较慢的较慢的毁灭性较小。 “当树木被压力和弱势种植时,他们往往很容易受到群体,让我们说,来自昆虫和其他疾病的攻击,”德国卡尔斯鲁赫理工学院的建模专家举报共同作者Almuth Arneth表示。如果这个物种几乎是自身的,那么它会受到压力并消失,现在整个新的森林都消失了。

生物多样性是对此的一种保险政策。一个天然生长的森林包括各种各样的物种,其中一些人更好的是,其中一些人将乘坐一次性灾难,或忍受持续的压力,如更高的温度和更强烈的干旱。恢复力建立在生态系统中,因为它已经运作了数千千年甚至数百万的时间。其生存的几率越大也意味着它有更好的机会抓住所有螯合碳,使其远离大气层并防止进一步的全球变暖。

研究的作者写道,停止人类对生态系统的攻击也可以帮助抗击气候变化。农业湿地的排水杀死物种,扰乱了汇流碳的重要过程。热带地区的斜线和烧伤农业点燃浓缩的地下碳,称为泥炭,这释放了令人惊讶的温室气体。 (是的,泥炭不仅仅是一个北极的事情。)保护沿海红树林附带特别长的共同利益列表,报告指出:它们隔离四次每面积为雨林的碳金额,他们是家各种各样的物种,它们作为吸收风暴浪涌能量的障碍。

报告说明,即使是城市也可以进入行动。城市地区变成了“热岛”,因为他们在白天吸收了太阳的能量,并在晚上慢慢释放它。因此,它们比周围的农村地区更热。种植更多的树木冷却城市,为人类的鸟类和阴影提供栖息地,这将在全球气温上升时更为批判。作为一个额外的奖金,绿地对于人们的心理健康很棒。

这一切都说:人们应该恢复大而小的栖息地。 “当我们谈论生物多样性保护时,我们并不一定意味着我们必须留出30%到50%的原始地区并将人们留出,”Pörtner说。 “但是,应该有一个应该是真正的自然保护区的地点,以及我们混合使用的地方,以及生物多样性和人类用途之间的区域。这些可持续用途可能实际上代表可持续生计的机会。“

考虑农牧,农民在森林里种植作物而不是清算它。例如,在巴西,一些农民正在从饲养牛切换,这需要森林的抹毁,以生长的恶羊羔,这在树木阴影中确实很好。研究人员表明,这提高了雨林的生物多样性。这是一个三重胜利:农民赚到生计,森林持有碳,一系列物种能够茁壮成长。报告说明,随着全球粮食系统的净温室气体排放量的21%至37%,有很多措施。

俄亥俄州州立大学的环境经济学家Daniela Miteva表示,保护主义者不仅进入一个地区并告诉居民,他们不参与报告的环境经济学家Daniela Miteva表示,他们将如何保存他们的土地。当地人知道该地区的植物群和动物区系比任何人都要更好 - 而且他们有很多方法可以在不损害造影的情况下谋生。

“基于我的经历,不应低估工作土地,”Miteva说。 “当地社区非常熟悉这些土地。至少在我看来,去的方式是实际与他们合作,以确保他们有激励保护森林。“例如,有些方法可以在可持续地记录森林,称为减少影响日志记录。 Loggers将仔细削减单个树木来避免围绕植被造成植被。

这意味着解决方案并不像说:让人们离开陆地,让大自然走向课程。这不是报告所争论的。作者的结论是人们的福祉与保护他们依赖的土地之间存在平衡。 “在一天结束时,这些是当地决定,”生物常牙富康星表示,在科罗拉多州立大学研究基于自然的解决方案,但没有参与报告。 “随着优先事项改变,它将继续非常具有挑战性地重新评估这种平衡。”

作者压力的大警告是单独的自然的解决方案不能阻止气候变化。生态系统只有如此的弹性:随着温度攀升和干旱更加严重,森林,湿地和红树林更难,即使是我们的帮助。首先,人类必须大大减少其温室气体排放。 “自然不会拯救我们,”arneth说。 “我认为这在该报告中会很清楚。我们只能使用自然来支持努力。“


英文译文:

Humanity is struggling to contain two compounding crises: skyrocketing global temperatures and plummeting biodiversity. But people tend to tackle each problem on its own, for instance deploying green energies and carbon-eating machines, while roping off ecosystems to preserve them. But in a new report, 50 scientists from around the world argue that treating each crisis in isolation means missing out on two-fer solutions that resolve both. Humanity can't solve one without also solving the other.

The report is the product of a four-day virtual workshop attended by researchers of all stripes, and is a collaboration between the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In light of the Paris Agreement, it’s meant to provide guidance on how campaigns that address biodiversity might also address climate change, and vice versa.

The plain-language report should prove to be hugely influential not only among governmental policymakers and conservation groups, but also corporations, says Betsy Beymer-Farris, a sustainability scientist at the University of Kentucky, who wasn’t involved in the report but did peer review it. “It's hard for companies or even nation states to really distill academic literature,” Beymer-Farris says. The report both lays out the climate and biodiversity science and the social science of how to effect change with the help of the people who actually rely on the land for farming and grazing. “I definitely got excited when I reviewed the report,” Beymer-Farris adds. “I thought: Okay, this is definitely different from what I've seen before, because it's a conscious and serious engagement with a more equitable and just way forward.”

So what might these campaigns look like? Say, for instance, you turn a heavily logged forest into a national park. As the trees grow back, they would sequester carbon in their tissues and provide habitat for the return of animals. Letting a forest come back naturally, rather than planting a single species of tree to offset some corporation’s carbon emissions, makes it more resilient. This is known as a nature-based solution, a campaign that both sequesters carbon and provides an extra ecological or economic benefit.

“You're helping biodiversity, and you may actually generate opportunities for people to use that system sustainably,” says climatologist Hans-Otto Pörtner of the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany. Pörtner co-chaired the scientific steering committee for the workshop that produced the report. But, he continues, if you create a monoculture, “there's only one use. And then if that crop that you're using there is hit by some catastrophe, you're losing that purpose altogether.”

A monoculture is less resistant to the ravages of a single disaster—like a wildfire—or the slower, constant stress of climate change. “When trees are stressed and sort of weak, they tend to be quite vulnerable to, let's say, attacks from insects and other sorts of diseases,” says report co-author Almuth Arneth, a modeling expert at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in Germany. And if that species is pretty much on its own, and it gets stressed and dies off, now the entire new forest is gone.

Biodiversity is a sort of insurance policy against this. A naturally-growing forest includes a greater variety of species, and the odds are better that some of them will ride out a one-time catastrophe, or endure ongoing stressors like higher temperatures and more intense droughts. Resilience is built into the ecosystem, because it’s been functioning for thousands or even millions of years. Its greater odds of survival also mean that it’s got a better chance of holding onto all of its sequestered carbon, keeping it out of the atmosphere and preventing further global warming.

Halting humanity’s attacks on ecosystems can also help fight climate change, the study’s authors write. The draining of wetlands for agriculture kills off species and disrupts an important process for sequestering carbon. Slash-and-burn agriculture in the tropics ignites concentrated underground carbon known as peat, which releases astonishing amounts of greenhouse gases. (Yes, peat’s not just an Arctic thing.) Protecting coastal mangrove forests comes with a particularly long list of co-benefits, the report points out: They sequester four times the amount of carbon per area as a rainforest, they’re home to a wide range of species, and they act as a barrier that absorbs the energy of storm surges.

Even cities can get in on the action, the report notes. Urban areas turn into “heat islands” because they absorb the sun’s energy during the day and slowly release it at night. They are therefore much hotter than surrounding rural areas. Planting more trees cools cities, and provides habitats for birds and shade for humans, which will be ever more critical as global temperatures rise. As an added bonus, green spaces are great for people’s mental health.

Which is all to say: People should be restoring habitats large and small. “When we talk about biodiversity conservation, we don't necessarily mean that we have to set aside 30 to 50 percent of pristine areas and keep people out,” says Pörtner. “But there will be a transition between places that should be real nature reserves, and places where we have mixed uses, and the areas being shared between biodiversity and human uses. These sustainable uses may actually represent opportunities for sustainable livelihoods.”

Consider agroforestry, in which farmers grow crops within a forest instead of clearcutting it. In Brazil, for example, some farmers are switching from raising cattle, which requires the obliteration of a forest, to growing cacao, which does just fine in the shade of trees. Researchers have shown that this boosts the biodiversity of the rainforest. It’s a triple win: Farmers earn a livelihood, the forest holds on to its carbon, and a range of species is able to thrive. There’s a lot of room to improve when it comes to agriculture, the report notes, as the global food system is responsible for between 21 and 37 percent of humanity’s total net greenhouse gas emissions.

It’s critically important that conservationists don’t just steam into an area and tell the residents how they’re going to preserve their lands, says Daniela Miteva, an environmental economist at Ohio State University, who wasn’t involved in the report. Local people know the area’s flora and fauna better than anyone—and there are plenty of ways for them to make a living off the land without damaging it.

“Based on my experiences, working lands should not be underestimated,” says Miteva. “Local communities are very familiar with these lands. At least in my opinion, the way to go is to actually work with them to make sure that they have an incentive to protect the forest.” For example, there are ways to log a forest sustainably, known as reduced impact logging. Instead of clear-cutting, loggers would carefully fell individual trees to avoid crushing surrounding vegetation.

That means the solution won’t be as easy as saying: Get people off the land and let nature take its course. And that’s not what the report is arguing for. The authors conclude there has to be a balance between the well-being of people and protecting the land they rely on. “At the end of the day, these are local decisions,” says biogeochemist Rich Conant, who studies nature-based solutions at Colorado State University but wasn’t involved in the report. “And it's going to continue to be very challenging to reassess this balance all the time as our priorities change.”

The big caveat, the authors stress, is that nature-based solutions alone can’t stop climate change. Ecosystems are only so resilient: As temperatures climb and droughts get more severe, it’ll be harder for forests, wetlands, and mangroves to survive, even with our help. First and foremost, humanity has to dramatically reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. “Nature is not going to save us,” Arneth says. “I think that is something that is going to be very clear in that report. We can only use nature to support efforts.” 


Share this Post:

相关资讯: