archived (Wayback Machine):

• Mongabay article
• study from Japan (PDF)

What will the world look like in 2075 when temperatures could be 3-5° Celsius (4.5 to 9° Fahrenheit) higher than the pre-industrial average? And what should conservationists be doing now to better prepare nature for the changes to come? Mongabay interviewed eight conservationists to better understand how we can aid the natural world to build greater climate resilience.

Whitworth further describes conservation today as a three-legged stool. One leg is protected areas like national parks, the second is species-focused programs, but the third — and the least focused-on — is building climate resilience.

So, how do we do it? How do we build climate resilience into natural systems that are already under attack by deforestation, habitat destruction, over-exploitation and invasive species among other impacts?

Jean Labuschagne, director of conservation development at the NGO African Parks, spells it out with three components: “Large, connected, well-managed ecological systems.”

“Large intact ecosystems are naturally more resilient,” agrees James Deutsch, CEO of Rainforest Trust. “I think focusing on the most intact remaining large ecosystems, and especially large tropical forests, becomes really important … the very size provides adaptive ability.”

“Large intact ecosystems are naturally more resilient,” agrees James Deutsch, CEO of Rainforest Trust. “I think focusing on the most intact remaining large ecosystems, and especially large tropical forests, becomes really important … the very size provides adaptive ability.”

As an example of an optimal protected area for a hotter world, Andrew Whitworth points to Manu National Park in the Peruvian Amazon. Manu covers a vast area of 17,162 square kilometers (6,626 square miles), an area larger than the U.S. state of Connecticut. But just as important to Whitworth: Manu has an advantage many parks lack — it has both highlands and lowlands. Manu protects land all the way from just 150 meters (492 feet) above sea level to 4,200 m (13,779 ft.).

“It’s these elevational changes where you get this incredible biodiversity,” says Whitworth, who discovered a frog species new to science in Manu’s foothills.

A park with this much altitudinal difference will allow species to migrate upslope as Amazonian lowlands heat up and dry out, Whitworth explains. As climate change pummels our planet, species in temperate areas will move poleward — that is, northward in the northern hemisphere and southward in the southern. But in the tropics, they will move upslope — as far as possible.

While protecting lands that allow for temperate species to move will be vital, Whitworth says the most “bang for your buck” will be in preserving “tropical elevation gradients.” In lay terms, Whitworth is saying we need to connect lowland rainforests to highland rainforests and cloud forests, as high as possible, to provide refuges for tropical species to escape to, just like Manu does.

Currently, most corridors are built with specific species in mind — usually, large mammals, particularly predators. But Deutsch wonders whether it might be better to focus on building corridors for plants. Meanwhile, Christopher Jordan, Latin America director at Re:wild, says he’d like to see more corridors designed for seed-dispersers, such as herbivores or birds.

“Nature is the best technology we have. It’s running for millions of years,” says Schepers, adding that “restoring nature at scale … will also help us to mitigate a lot of the [climate] impacts.”

archived (Wayback Machine)

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/4579237

In an emergency directive issued late last week, U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced her department’s plan to expand logging and timber production by 25 percent and, in the process, dismantle the half-century-old environmental review system that has blocked the federal government from finalizing major decisions concerning national forest lands without public insight.

Under Rollins’ direction and following an earlier executive order signed by President Donald Trump, the U.S. Forest Service would carry out the plan that designates 67 million acres of national forest lands as high or very high wildfire risk, classifies another 79 million acres as being in a state of declining forest health, and labels 34 million acres as at risk of wildfire, insects, and disease. All told, the declaration encompasses some 59 percent of Forest Service lands.

“Healthy forests require work, and right now we’re facing a national forest emergency. We have an abundance of timber at high risk of wildfires in our national forests,” said Rollins in a press release. “I am proud to follow the bold leadership of President Trump by empowering forest managers to reduce constraints and minimize the risks of fire, insects, and disease so that we can strengthen the American timber industry and further enrich our forests with the resources they need to thrive.”

While it may seem intuitive that cutting down high-risk trees will lead to less organic material that could incinerate, environmentalists say the administration’s plans to increase timber outputs, simplify permitting, and do away with certain environmental review processes are likely to only escalate wildfire risk and contribute more to climate change.

Full Article

archived (Wayback Machine)

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/15364086

As I write this, I’m getting ready to leave for my seventh season of tree planting. I’ve had an eye on the weather all winter, watching as the snowpack levels in British Columbia reach lows not recorded since at least 1970, watching as rivers — like the confluence of the Nechako and Fraser rivers in Prince George — run dry.

According to data from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s National Agroclimate Information Service, by the end of March this year 85 per cent of B.C. was considered abnormally dry or in moderate to exceptional drought. The region that I’ll be planting in, near Burns Lake, is one of the driest in the province.

Over the years I’ve had many doubts about the ecological benefits of the province’s reforestation practices.

But last season marked the first time I started to wonder if tree planting might someday become ecologically unviable in some regions of the province.

The lack of precipitation coupled with unseasonably high temperatures made the soil on some blocks so dry and compacted it was like planting into a sheet of rock. I was often struck with the sense that the earth was actively rejecting the trees I was planting. I imagined the trees I’d planted withering and dying, eventually becoming fuel for the wildfires that were then burning all around us.

Was it possible that these intensifying climatic events could render some ecosystems unable to support the growth of new trees? Was I on the frontlines of witnessing the beginning of the end of reforestation as we’ve known it for the last 50 years?

I decided to ask around. I spoke to Sally Enns, who works as a forestry manager contracted by the Cheslatta Carrier Nation and is an incoming supervisor at the reforestation company I work for; we were based out of the same bush camp for part of last season. Reflecting on the drought conditions, she articulated many of the same concerns that I’d had.

archived (Wayback Machine)

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/20737356

A team of international researchers published a new U.N. report Wednesday that adds to the rising scientific call for transformative societal and economic changes to staunch critical environmental threats like global warming, plastic pollution and biodiversity loss.

“The science is clear on what needs to change,” said lead author Caitlyn Eberle. “Stop using fossil fuels, respect and protect nature, use resources sustainably. So if we know what we need to do to change things, why aren’t we doing it?”

The research in the report shows that many of today’s sustainability projects are superficial because they focus on small changes within the system without changing the system itself, she said. A good example is recycling, which is valuable, but doesn’t get to the core issue of why so much waste is produced in the first place, she added. “We cannot expect real change unless we examine the reasons behind our actions and question why we’re doing what we’re doing.”

The process may lead to some “uncomfortable” territory, said UNU-EHS deputy director Zita Sebesvari, another lead author of the report. Crises in Earth’s ecosystems, including the climate and human systems, require rethinking many basic assumptions and values, for example about consumption and waste. “If we bring this to our own life,” she said, “the question is, why do we think that convenience is more important than other values like nature and a pollution-free environment?”

https://archive.ph/QmXcB

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/20681926

Thousands of young people from across the Midwest are expected to converge on Chicago's Loop Friday afternoon for the Global Climate Strike, which is being led by Fridays for Future Chicago.

The march starts at 4pm at Daley Plaza.

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/20675754

archived (Wayback Machine)

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/20675754

archived (Wayback Machine)

Our desire to preserve is strongly linked to a narrative of loss, both for biodiversity writ large and for rare heirloom seeds. But we recognize the need for biodiversity and destroy it in the same breath. What if we protected the Amazon instead of just the genetics within it? What if we supported small-scale diversified agriculture instead of industrialized monoculture?

Seed preservation has a place, but it’s not the thing that will save us. Heirloom seed keepers attempt to preserve the past, while plant breeders control genetic resources to commodify the seed. Neither camp is particularly focused on how to expand biodiversity into the future, as if biodiversity and seed varieties are fixed and finite things.

Compounding this problem is the climate crisis, which is dramatically affecting our ability to grow food. Diversity is a core component of resilience, so we need rapid, ongoing and diverse adaptation of our regional food systems – everywhere, all the time. If we’ve been preserving all these seeds for some imagined future need, then the need is now. Arguably, it’s already too late.

archived (Wayback Machine)

Our desire to preserve is strongly linked to a narrative of loss, both for biodiversity writ large and for rare heirloom seeds. But we recognize the need for biodiversity and destroy it in the same breath. What if we protected the Amazon instead of just the genetics within it? What if we supported small-scale diversified agriculture instead of industrialized monoculture?

Seed preservation has a place, but it’s not the thing that will save us. Heirloom seed keepers attempt to preserve the past, while plant breeders control genetic resources to commodify the seed. Neither camp is particularly focused on how to expand biodiversity into the future, as if biodiversity and seed varieties are fixed and finite things.

Compounding this problem is the climate crisis, which is dramatically affecting our ability to grow food. Diversity is a core component of resilience, so we need rapid, ongoing and diverse adaptation of our regional food systems – everywhere, all the time. If we’ve been preserving all these seeds for some imagined future need, then the need is now. Arguably, it’s already too late.

archived (Wayback Machine)

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/41960022

Plectranthus barbatus grows to its full height in 1-2 months from a cutting and the cutting itself costs around 50 Kenyan shillings ($0.37).

"The leaves are similar in size to an industrial toilet paper square, making them suitable for use in modern flush toilets or for composting in latrines," says Odhiambo.

They emit a minty, lemony fragrance. Covered in tiny hairs, the leaves have a soft texture.