More species extinction means more global warming

A week or two ago, I wrote about how if environmental damage is hurting other species, it's hurting us. I wrote about how the massive number of extinctions that are occurring--some 20 to 50% of our species are expected to be gone within 100 years--cannot occur without fundamentally weakening the planetary systems we depend upon for our health, happiness and security.

Other bloggers left some excellent comments behind, explaining why human well-being is dependent on the well-being of other species.

Sharon Astyk wrote:

"Most species enable or carry over 100 other species - that is, there are at least 100 other species on which the survival of one depends. But we've never considered which species we truly depend on. Is it honey bees? Frogs? Bacteria? Are we killing them? We simply don't know our world well enough to know what we're costing ourselves."

Greenpa wrote:

"Each critter in the web is connected to others.  They eat each other, basically, or change the environment for each other. Reality is a lot more than the 4 connections that are usual in a spider web; but the concept still works, and it's a lot easier to visualize the spider web than the reality of critical ties to 40 other organisms...

So, get out your scissors, and snip out- not a connection, but a node. You now have 4 loose threads. (or 40, in the real world) The web is not greatly disturbed. Yet. Keep snipping.  The web gets weaker, and weaker, and eventually, just a slight breeze may rip the whole thing down."

But also, Jeremy Hance emailed me his  Mongabay story about a new study out of Brown University that showed a direct link between increasing extinctions and global warming. The study shows that protecting biodiversity in our eco-systems may prove to be another key in fighting climate change.

As Jeremy writes:

"The Brown scientists conducted their study for six years in Patagonia. They divided an area into ninety plots then began to systematically remove native species from each plot and chart the changes in the plot's productivity. Productivity dropped as species were removed."

"Productivity," as the researchers call it, refers to the amount of biomass growing in the plot. So fewer species means less biomass which means less carbon dioxide sequestered in the plant matter and soil and therefore more global warming.

"It's a double whammy," explained Osvaldo Sala who led the study. "We not only are disturbing our planet by putting more carbon into the atmosphere, but we're reducing the ability of ecosystems to capture and store it."

Photo of the Patgonian steppe, courtesy of Osvaldo Sala, Brown University.

Comments

[Susan Och]

That's a different perspective on "pulling weeds."

[Greenpa]

Hey, more cosmic synchronicity! My blog post today is on an overlapping topic. my water is back

It's true that simple ecosystems are less productive than complex ones; every time anyone has measured it. Agriculture, I fear, is really the worst offender here, and we tend to overlook it. That lovely productive corn field- is actually producing on a fraction of the biomass that the prairie or forest it replaced used to. THAT is a big factor in global warming, also; and rarely calculated. All the most productive land has been converted to agriculture. We tend to believe, without measuring, that we've "improved" the productivity of the land this way- and it's utterly not true.

[kentuckyann]

Oh man, so true.
We have been on the road for 10 months documenting what Americans are doing to be more sustainable but what we keep running into is development that is utterly destroying ecosystems with seemingly NO THOUGHT - highways being built right through migratory paths of mammals when a little extra effort could build them above or tunnel them below so that the creatures have a chance...Forests and fields being leveled and burned for new suburbs, shopping malls and parking lots... Mountaintop removal for coal forever destroying huge beautiful ecosystems and carbon sinks as well as permanently poisoning water supplies for ALL OF US...and then there are the shopping districts and suburbs, which are so heartbreaking that I don't even know how to look at them anymore without feeling sick.

Our 1st baby is due on the 4th of July and I really want to be able to give her some hope but right now I feel mostly...worried. It is so true, what you keep saying about politicians and legislators needing to start making s**t happen but also true that we need to meet them from the roots up.

How do we protect biodiversity from our big city apartments? (Aside from donating $$ i mean.)

julie

[Rebecca]

One huge example is the Polar Bear and the black or brown bear of North America is greatly in danger of extinction. The wolves of Yellowstone are also threatened. No one seems to get that even the "predators" in the web of life play an important role in the ecosystem and the web of life. No matter who is at the top of the food chain which I guess in this case is man we all return to the food chain in one form or another. We as humans need to find a way to respect it and cherish it as well.

[molly]

Why mankind thinks they can disconnect from any living system and not have detrimental effects like ripples on a pond is beyond belief.

As a species have we learned anything over the millenia?

We can send man to the moon yet consistently underestimate how inextricably linked every living thing is on our planet.

*sigh*

[Leslie]

Development is this country's biggest industry. Here's another example:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120978963966164927.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Another 700,000 acres, poof!

Maybe developers should be required to pay an offset for biodiversity loss! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. In my dreams.

Maybe they should be required to maintain a portion of the land in its natural state. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha....

They don't even pay for the roads, school, water and other infrastructure.

Maybe homeownership isn't the American dream. It's the Earth's nightmare.

[Sara]

Colin,

In this week's Ask The Conservationist feature, TNC scientist Michael Jennings invokes the "rivets on an airplane wing" analogy:

"...imagine that species are like the rivets that hold a wing onto an airplane. To be sure the wing stays on the airplane, lots and lots of rivets are used. But suppose some of the rivets pop off the wing. Because there are lots of redundant rivets, we might not notice anything at first and we might not be so concerned. But how many rivets would you be willing to lose before declaring an emergency?"

[ALL_IMPACT_ALL_THE_TIME]

Leslie. Try and take a deep breath and relax. You said the following regarding developers:

They don't even pay for the roads, school, water and other infrastructure.

Maybe homeownership isn't the American dream. It's the Earth's nightmare.

The majority of new development or "tract homes" require enormous financial outlays by the developers. They need to lay the sewer, water and storm drainage systems.

The roads into, thru and out of the development are built and paid for by the developer.

As for schools, doesn't the property tax paid for on that land and structure go into the municipal budget which pays for education. How about police, fire, etc? Property taxes pay for that.

As for the homeownership/American dream thing, that is one's personal opinion.

Everyone needs someplace to live...

Relax more than 90% of the land in the USA is undeveloped.

AIATT

[Leslie]

AIATT

Awww, did I hit a nerve?

"The roads into, thru and out of the development are built and paid for by the developer."

That leaves all the commuter roads needed to alleviate the sprawl-induced congestion to be paid for by the taxpayers. This is an unending, expensive legacy.

"As for schools, doesn't the property tax paid for on that land and structure go into the municipal budget which pays for education."

Having grown up in Florida, I spent most of my school days in crowded portables. It has only been recently that the state requires funding for new schools to be concomitant with new development. This, along with a classroom size limit amendment, were vigorously opposed by Gov. Jeb Bush and developers across the state.

"How about police, fire, etc? Property taxes pay for that."

Additional police, fire, etc. capital costs should be paid for in the price of the home. Taxes are for recurring yearly expenses to run these operations.

"Relax more than 90% of the land in the USA is undeveloped."

The richly diverse, unique subtropical habitats of south Florida have been 99% destroyed. They can never be replaced. It only took 50 or so years.

I'll relax if you open your eyes and start being a little more honest!

[Electronic Goose]

Thank you for succinctly summing up a point I've made over the years. I'm a new reader and enjoying your blog.

[Joe's Crab House]

Leslie,

So when you bought your house in Florida it was OK to buy and now it isn't? Kind of like Al Bore telling us to take the bus while he flies around in a Gulfstream.

Here is what I propose: You donate your house to charity and live in a cardboard box the rest of your life. Sell your car and walk everywhere. Grow your own foodstuffs. Unplug your PC because that is wasting energy. Take a crap in a dirt hole. Walk around naked (probably disgusting everyone who sees you).

Live the Green Life!

[Leslie]

Dear Joe's,

I don't own a house. Or should I say, I'm not stuck with an overpriced behemoth. My tribute to Florida developers...

Here's what I propose: That you don't put this on me. That developers own up to the lousy job they do and start doing it right.