The Direction of Adaptation: Is E.O. Wilson Wrong?
09/08/08 15:31
E. O. Wilson is arguably the most famous living ecologist and conservation biologist of our time. He’s notable for many reasons, but here I am concerned about his recent move into discussing the approach we should take for climate adaptation work. I fear Wilson has just done a lot of damage to conservation policy.
Wilson had visited the New York Times offices and apparently spoke on a wide range of topics with some of the staff. Andrew Revkin, a well respected environmental reporter with the Times, had a good chat with Wilson on the philosophy behind conservation we should be using now, reported on Revkin’s blog, which is definitely worth reading on a regular basis. Revkin is articulate and thoughtful, and I suspect he is also quite passionate.
Wilson’s critique is based on the idea that we are focused primarily on the non-living parts of the world when we design conservation — water quality, air quality, clean soil, and so on. He argues that we need to focus on the living parts, the animals and plants and other kingdoms of life, and that the abiotic (nonliving) parts will take care of themselves. He is particularly critical of climate mitigation approaches, which aim to reduce the emissons and concentration of greenhouse gases that lead to climate change.
I fear that Wilson is largely unaware of the work that is now going on worldwide focused on climate adaptation (the “get ready for big climate impacts soon!” approach to conservation and economic development), which is my work. Or if he is aware of this work, then he is thinking largely of the kind of high-level discussions that surround the CoP meetings, which remain very vague and uncertain and make climate adaptation sound like some kind of theoretical or distant activity. Either way, I am saddened a bit by Wilson’s view, for several reasons:
First, people and many traditional ways of making a living (“livelihoods,” in NGO jargon) as well as species are being deeply impacted by climate change. Fishers on the Ganges and farmers in the Sahel may not know anything about climate change, but they know something is different and it’s bad. So we clearly have to think hard about people, not just species. If we forget the people in most parts of the world, we’ve completely lost the ecosystems and species they depend on. Most biologists don’t like to think about people. That’s stupid, misguided, and simply bad management. Myopic doesn’t even begin to encompass how bad ignoring people is.
Second, most conservation in western countries and many non-western countries is already focused on particular species. In the U.S., we talk about endangered and threatened species or species of special concern, particularly with regard to the Nixon era Endangered Species Act. However, this approach doesn’t even try to look around corners, in terms of trends. Internationally, we are more likely to focus on IUCN red-list species. A species can only get on this list if they have already undergone some serious decline, often with no relation to climate change or other emerging threats. By the time a species has gotten on this list, the odds of them getting off are small. Moreover, the focus on a particular species often results in us “farming” that species so minutely that we lose focus on the habit or ecosystem threats that led to the wider problem in the first place. Since most of the endangered and threatened species worldwide are big, visible vertebrates, we’re missing all of the inverts that are less fuzzy, interesting, or understood. We’re trying to save the fruit on an apple tree, rather than the trunk and roots. Much less the symbiotic bacteria in its root nodules.
Third, the species we really have a chance to save are not ones that are known to be threatened now but the ones that are going to be in trouble in 10 or (more likely) 25 years. We have to look around corners and spend our limited money wisely, not throw money at polar bears that are already toast but make good cover copy in the newspapers. We know the latter is bad science and worse policy.
Lastly, Wilson’s big point is that we have to focus on the species (however we arrive at the list of species) over looking at environmental quality. The fundamental flaw here is that we actually know what species need and how they will respond to climate change and other emerging threats. The truth is that — other than domesticated species, pest species, some birds and butterflies, and a few fish — we know very little about most animals and plants. We must be humble about our state of knowledge. Our actual body of useful information for managing species and ecosystems is terribly limited. At best, we can only explain the observed responses to climate change in a few tens of percentage of species. Worse, if we wait for more and better science, we are likely to end up with even fewer species and not much more useful data.
In most cases, the only thing we can honestly and accurately state is that we need to help species have as few human-applied pressures on them as possible, which means focusing on a clean and highly connected environment. This will allow species to do what they have done during past periods of climate change: respond creatively and effectively. Which is the focus that Wilson is precisely criticizing.
There are more specific kinds of climate adaptation intervention can be brought to bear in some cases, but for the most part the overwhelming and distressing truth is that most species are largely on their own. We can help clear the obstacles in front of them, but other types of intervention may well be too much.
I am sorry to be on the opposite of side of such an important issue from Wilson. And I am not arguing that we do nothing for climate change. On the contrary, my daily work is focused on the long list of the things we need to do and the kinds of places where we need to work. I am a climate adaptation specialist, whatever that means. But Wilson’s recommendations on the ground assume a lot more knowledge than we really have.
I wish I could talk with him. I understand his pain. I feel it as well.
blog comments powered by Disqus
