Biodiversity

Murder is a sin

Wildlife populations are plummeting, reports the bbc:
Between a quarter and a third of the world's wildlife has been lost since 1970, according to data compiled by the Zoological Society of London.

Populations of land-based species fell by 25%, marine by 28% and freshwater by 29%, it says. Humans are wiping out about 1% of all other species every year, and one of the "great extinction episodes" in the Earth's history is under way, it says. (I assume they are talking about individual organisms, not entire species).

Pollution, farming, urban expansion, over-fishing, and hunting are blamed.

The findings were released ahead of a meeting of the Convention on Biodiversity in the German city of Bonn. The convention was signed in 1992 with the aim of stabilising the loss of species. In 2002, member states pledged to achieve a "significant reduction" in the current rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. But the Zoological Society said governments had since failed to put in place policies necessary to achieve that goal. It said that while species' decline does appear to have flattened off in recent years, it is "very unlikely" that the 2010 target will be reached.

Why is biodiversity important? (to us, of course; besides the intrinsic value of life)

"Reduced biodiversity means millions of people face a future where food supplies are more vulnerable to pests and disease and where water is in irregular or short supply. No-one can escape the impact of biodiversity loss because reduced global diversity translates quite clearly into fewer new medicines, greater vulnerability to natural disasters and greater effects from global warming."

Hmm. I actually don't see the water supply link, or vulnerability to natural disasters, or the effects from global warming. I see how the loss of natural enemies to our crop's pests is bad, and how medicines are of course good, but I don't see the others. Oh. I just thought of the Everglades and how we need swamps or whatever to absorb the blows of hurricanes like Katrina.

But aren't aquifers independent of life above them? Or, wouldn't plants soak up water we could otherwise use? If we had plants (of whatever kind) to replace those cut down, and therefore not sequestering carbon, wouldn't that moot the "biodiversity loss" effect of ol' GW?

Another problem I have is are they talking about losses of entire species, or losses of individuals within current species. I wish they would clarify what they're talking about, and give some good numbers/estimates of both. Also, are they talking about just animals, or plants also?

You would think the bbc would give a clearer report.