biodiversity may well qualify as a more important planetary boundary even than climate change itself.
They [scientists] propose that humans must keep the planet in what they call a "safe operating space," inside of which we can thrive. If we push past the boundaries of that space "” by wiping out biodiversity, for example, or diverting too much of the world's freshwater "” we risk catastrophe.
It's a controversial concept, but also little discussed, because global warming hogs all the headlines. Jon Foley lamented this one-track mindset here:
In the rush to portray the perils of climate change, many other serious issues have been largely ignored. Climate change has become the poster child of environmental crises, complete with its own celebrities and campaigners. But is it so serious that we can afford to overlook the rise of infectious disease, the collapse of fisheries, the ongoing loss of forests and biodiversity, and the depletion of global water supplies?
I've also echoed this complaint:
The biggest problem I have with the debate over climate change science, politics, and policy is that it's elbowed all other environmental issues off the public stage.
But as I've discovered, people get crotchety when you suggest that other environmental concerns be allowed to share center stage with climate change. A reader at Lynas' blog, evidently annoyed with the post talking up biodiversity, illustrates that attitude:
Please write an entry" My Priorities,' in which you layout, in order, just what it is you care about most. Maybe then we can start having an intelligent discussion.
Hmm, I get the opposite impression from a comment like that, and it leads me to think that some people really don't want to have an "intelligent discussion" unless climate change is at the top of the priority list.