Restoring degraded habitats more biodiverse will make them more resilient to climate change. If you want to talk about conservation or ecology let me know, I’m in the field.
Would you mind chatting over discord or some such? I'm doing some forestry work during a break from college and really want to do something in the field more intellectually stimulating than cut honeysuckle all day. (I'm sort of whimpy and I'm tired of being so warn out haha)
ecology and lib politics are very similar -10 + 0 ≠ 0
chuds want to kill minorities, LGBT, etc. This is -10.
libs purportedly want to create equal opportunity for all. 0
Now if someone was arguing for Black reparations, free transitioning etc, that'd be +10.capitalists take wilderness and turn it into farmland. -10.
environmentalists want to preserve what's already there. 0
but NOBODY is talking about TAKING FARMLAND and TURNING IT BACK INTO WILDERNESS. This would be +10.The mathematical average of destruction and preservation is just...slower destruction. -10 averaged with 0 doesn't give you 0, it gives you -5. This is why "the right always wins"
Farmland cannot be turned back into natural wilderness.
Sure it can't be turned back into the exact same type of wilderness that it used to be. It can still be turned back into some type of wilderness though.
The Chinese are turning literal sand dunes into forested green land, there's no way that farmland is harder to work with.
New (or secondary) woodland can be okay for wildlife, but it’s usually far less biodiverse than primary/ ancient woodland.
Of course, biodiversity that was lost overnight can't be restored overnight. The point is that by restoring farmland into forests, you're creating a setting where biodiversity even has a chance to reach former levels. This is just letting perfect be the enemy of "really fucking good"
I'm also not convinced that biodiversity has any inherent environmental relevance on it's own. It obviously makes for very interesting science and study, and I definitely don't want more species to go extinct, but I think biomass and allocation of biomass is far more important. Otherwise you get weird conclusions like that cutting down part of the Amazon is 3x worse than cutting down the same area in boreal forests.
LOSING biodiversity is obviously bad, because you're losing something that was being done automatically. But there's no reason to try to GAIN biodiversity for its own sake. The goal is restoring the environment, biodiversity just follows naturally.
To turn a brand new woodland into a good habitat would either require very careful and considered management, or you’d have to leave it for another 100 or so years to happen naturally
Yeah, that's my point. Reclaim the farmland, then flood it with a bunch of shit to jumpstart the process, then don't touch. A century later, new wilderness
If extrapolated to its logical conclusion, a single hectare of Amazonian rainforest would be worth more than the entire African Savannah.
I think the proper comparison is Amazon rainforest to boreal rainforests, like in Canada. Rainforest:Savannah isn't really equal because trees act as carbon sinks, and savannahs are just basically steppes filled with bovids.
I think in terms of CO2, you can make a very broad value judgement, that forests > grasslands > deserts. Not only in terms of value to climate, but also in temporal sequence--forests must become grasslands before they become deserts.
The problem is that in terms of human value, grasslands > forests > deserts. Forests become grasslands (through human deforestation) to provide value, and then grasslands become deserts (through lack of careful maintenance).
I agree, biodiversity is an insurance policy. I just think that it's an almost entirely irrelevant thing to focus on, because it's a lagging effect. In the situations where you need a certain role (like a predator) that can be done, like you said with the Great White Shark case, by introducing a predator into the environment. Which is technically adding biodiversity, but without this inane focus on it for its own sake
Also it leads to fun paradoxes like lions are bad. Because if you could cull the entire biomass of lions/leopards/cheetahs, and instead replace them with smaller cats, and then ALSO replace their prey with smaller pygmy elephants and tapirs instead of African elephants and rhinos, then you could triple the biodiversity.
Actually, as I type this comment I'm beginning to realize that the forest > grassland > desert trichotomy probably causes decreased BD. BD is high in forests because largeness is disadvantageous. Grasslands are desirable to humans (but not ONLY to humans, also to lions, elephants) because they are easy to live in and traverse. Exploit them too much and they become deserts.
Elephants and lions are big because they live in privileged easy grassland habitats, kind of like us. The big animals all outcompeted the small animals, decreasing BD. In a forested area BD is inherently guaranteed because it pays to be small, so there can be a greater variety of species. So forests are the best, because not only carbon sinks, but also biodiversity.
This is true. Libs just want to compromise and bring the right as close back to 0 but never actually hit 0, then brag about how civil they are at pushing policy and Yas queening all over Twitter.
Malthusians believe in population control by letting the poors starve, which excludes billionaires, sadly.
Repairing ecosystems captures carbon and can provide food to places with nutrition problems.
He's a lib but "re-wilding" is very important.
A climate solution needs to have a social critic as well as a ecological one. A lot of libs dismiss or ignore the social system at the root of our impending ecological collapse.
