Life is Essential to the Climate. Why protecting owls and woodpeckers is Job One in addressing climate change
Hart Hagan
Dear Friends, Colleagues and Students:
Below you will see a reprint of my latest article on substack. The subject matter is near to my heart and soul, because it is a way to affirm life on earth while calling upon our living systems to solve our most pressing problems, related to climate change.
But also, I cordially extend an invitation to tomorrow’s webinar, which is largely the subject of the article below: Forests are Not Just Carbon. Tuesday, November 4 at 7:00 PM (Eastern Time)
Link to the article on Substack:
Why protecting owls and woodpeckers is Job One in addressing climate change. And if we don’t do that, nothing else matters
Issues addressed herein:
Why is protecting wildlife good for the climate?
Why is climate change overreported as a cause of wildlife decline? Is climate change the principal driver of biodiversity loss?
Is wildlife decline underreported? Are wildlife populations hurtling toward zero? If so, how does that change our thinking?
Who owns and manages the land that we pretend to care about, and how do they vote?
How have environmentalists changed since the 1970s?
Why do some of us feel the need to include biology in our climate strategies?
How does a forest regulate the climate, even as it provides habitat for owls and woodpeckers?
Why is concentrated wealth and power not interested in ecosystem restoration?
Thursday, October 30 was the final day of the Wildlife & Climate course.
The course was rooted in a worthy idea that has been hard to explain: That if we protect wildlife, we will be doing a good turn for the climate, and that the need to save wildlife is underreported vis-a-vis climate change, which is the “environmental cause du jour” according to this article, discussed below.
To me, this is--unironically--the most important idea in world history, because, if followed to its natural conclusion, it would solve all of our environmental problems, and would also solve the social problems that make humans wage war on their own habitat.
And then there’s that blank stare, when you know that your cherished idea is not landing with your listener. ;-)
Here we go, one more time …
The Big Idea
Here goes one more attempt to communicate this pair of related ideas: 1) that saving wildlife would be great for our climate and 2) that wildlife decline is underreported.
Climate change is not the principal driver of biodiversity loss
As for wildlife decline being underreported, I refer you to this short, powerful study: An inconvenient misconception: Climate change is not the principal driver of biodiversity loss.
Written by conservation biologists, criticizing their own profession, the main point of the study is that, for the time being, climate change is not the main driver of biodiversity loss, e.g., the documented decline in vertebrate populations.
Key quote:
“Our analyses demonstrate that climate change is not the dominant factor responsible for declining vertebrate populations; instead, loss of biodiversity is driven by a combination of several important actions, dominated by land-use change and over-exploitation.”
Habitat loss versus climate change
The authors found that for amphibians, habitat loss was listed as a cause of extinction over three times as often as climate change.
“We found that for the ‘extinct in the wild’ category of amphibian species there were 12 extinctions listing 27 causes but only 11% of these reported climate change, whereas 37% listed habitat loss.”
What would “most people” say is the leading cause of extinction?
Most people, I assert, would list climate change as the leading cause of biodiversity loss. I can only speculate as to why. And the authors of the study admit that they have no empirical data.
But having reported on climate change since 2018, my sense is that powerful interests who stand to profit from pretending to solve the problem have flooded the media with their narrative and have generated concern and anxiety out of proportion to its actual gravity.
I know. This is sacrilege. And some will be upset. But hear me out.
Is wildlife hurtling toward zero?
Assuming, as reported by the World Wildlife Fund, that we have lost roughly ¾ of vertebrates, and assuming that we have lost ¾ of insects in the last 50 years--this is my rough but conservative estimate based on numerous reports, such as these referenced in Wikipedia--and assuming these trends show no signs of slowing, let alone reversing, then in what universe are these wildlife declines less important than climate change?
Wildlife populations are falling toward zero in the geological blink of an eye.
I’m not saying climate change is unimportant. I’m asking: who decided it is more important than the precipitous decline of insects and vertebrates?
Who made that decision?
Somewhere along the way, that decision was made. Hence the wagging finger when anyone suggests that climate change is not THE environmental issue of our time.
How did climate change become THE environmental issue of our time?
Look at it this way. Is not the decline of vertebrates and insects the decline of life itself? And how is climate change more important than the decline of life itself?
Wildlife is less political than climate change
A little sideroad here. Climate change is controversial, partly because it is debatable. It is debatable because it is based on facts and figures that are not simple or clear, hence the pressure to “trust the experts.” Dissenters are thought to be bad actors and “denialism” is a sin. In other words, shut up and don’t ask questions.
Concern for wildlife is less politically divisive than climate change, because the subjects are more sympathetic and the data is more clear.
That’s actually not good news for political parties that thrive on vilification of opponents.
With news like this (the precipitous decline of vertebrates and insects), we might reach across party lines and get the support of an actual majority of Americans. Actual majorities are easier to get when you can draw from both parties, plus independents. Actual majorities are impossible to get when you are limited to the 30% of eligible voters who voted for Kamala Harris. That 30% is an actual figure from the most recent presidential election. 32% voted red. 38% did not vote. What is our message for the 70% (70=32+38)
Who manages the land that we pretend to care about?
Any serious effort to form a majority is going to reach out to Republicans and independents. Note well that our heroes include people like Will Harris, Joel Salatin and Gabe Brown who--based on what I have heard them say about politics--did not rush to the polls to vote for Kamala Harris. All due respect.
Look at a map of how people voted county by county in 2024.
The people who own and manage the land that we pretend to care about are overwhelmingly red. Most of us have no idea how to reach out to them or what to say, based on what I read and hear from climate activists, including those who prioritize ecosystem restoration and regenerative farming.
End of rant.
Back to climate change, especially the carbon-focused version.
Eff the forest! Build solar!
Environmentalists of the 1970s were saying, “Save the Forest!” Environmentalists today are like, “Eff the Forest! Build solar!” See this story by author Judith D. Schwartz: Cutting forests for solar energy 'misses the plot' on climate action (commentary)
Somewhere along the way, we lost our way. We forgot that our main job is to protect nature, not just monitor global average temperatures and pretend that CO2 is the thermostat.
Bright Green Lies
In their book, Bright Green Lies, How the Environmental Movement Lost Its Way and What We Can Do About It, authors Derrick Jensen, Lierre Keith and Max Wilbert urge us to return to our roots as environmentalists.
“We’re going to suggest what is for this culture a radical redefinition of what it means for an action to be ‘green’ or ‘environmental,’ which is that the action must tangibly benefit the natural world on the natural world’s own terms. Not that the action helps fuel the industrial economy. Not that the action makes your life easier. Not that the action seems like a success, such that it helps you not feel despair. The action must tangibly help tigers, or hammerhead sharks, or Coho salmon, or Pacific lampreys, or sea stars, or the oceans, or the Colorado River, or the Great Plains. Environmentalism for the real world: what a concept.”
Author Derrick Jensen asked climate protestors what they were demanding. They responded, subsidies for solar and wind. He observed that they had been co-opted to become lobbyists for industry.
Climate change, without regard to life
The standard analysis of climate change omits biology entirely. The loss of biology is not part of the problem and the restoration of biology is not part of the solution, in the mainstream view.
The standard analysis is all about the physics of greenhouse gases, and says nothing about the influence on climate of ecosystems or water cycles.
We are told that CO2 causes global warming and that the solution to global warming is to reduce CO2 emissions. The rest is details.
As an example of this type of thinking, the other day, I posted this on my Water & Climate Facebook Group:
One commenter responded:
The comment is reprinted here, for your convenience:
“While there is merit to your proposal at the local level, the vast majority of scientific evidence supports that anthropogenic climate change, primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels, is the most significant driver of increasing extreme weather events worldwide. To deny that humans increasing atmospheric concentrations of C02 by over 50% in the last two centuries is the most important driver of extreme weather events, and to focus instead only on the local impacts of land use changes is to give a free pass to the fossil fuel industry to continue polluting our atmosphere. Is that really what you believe we should do?”
The comment is a good summary of the mainstream point of view.
Unfortunately, I am not on board with the mainstream point of view and it is hard to explain why.
Black and white thinking
Those of us who promote biological solutions to climate change are not the ones guilty of black and white thinking.
If you want to draw down carbon, we’ve got your solution to drawing down carbon. We are not saying water cycles and ecosystems are all that matters. But the carbon-focused point of view says that carbon dioxide is all that matters.
Who consumes fossil fuels?
Proponents of the mainstream point of view want to blame the fossil fuel companies that PRODUCE fossil fuels, without addressing the human endeavors that CONSUME fossil fuels, including agriculture, construction, real estate development, endless wars of aggression, road-building and “forestry,” i.e., logging.
We are treated to a fantasy that says we are going to change things without changing things. I’m waiting to see that solar powered fighter jet, the solar powered container ship, as well as solar-powered nitrogen fertilizers, insecticides and McDonald’s drive thru.
Just add solar. Dust off hands. Easy.
It’s a fantasy. But for now, it’s a profitable fantasy.
Back to climate change.
Some of us think that the living world has such a dramatic effect on climate and weather that we cannot imagine solving the climate crisis without nurturing the natural world back to health. You can’t seriously address flooding or drought without reference to healthy soil and healthy plant communities, for example.
How does a forest impact the climate?
Think of a forest. A forest provides climate regulation, locally, regionally and--some would argue--globally.
If we protect woodpeckers and owls from logging interests, that’s protecting wildlife. That’s protecting the forest.
Also, protecting the forest cools the climate, and not just by absorbing and storing carbon. Protecting the forest cools and regulates the climate by protecting the physical structures (the plants) that make water cycles possible.
Water cycles cool and regulate temperatures. Ecosystems provide the physical conduits through which water flows.
Protecting wildlife means protecting its habitat
A forest is habitat for myriad living things, including owls and woodpeckers. To protect owls and woodpeckers, you must protect the places where they nest and forage for food, i.e., their habitat. That means protecting trees, both living and dead trees, because owls and woodpeckers depend on both living and dead trees. If you protect living and dead trees, you will go far to protect the climate-regulating properties of forests.
Forests are conduits for water
Forests absorb rainfall. And then they cause that rainfall to evaporate. As tree leaves emit water vapor, they also emit the bacteria and organic molecules (volatile organic compounds) that facilitate condensation. These are called condensation nuclei, and they make condensation possible. Then condensation makes clouds possible. Clouds make rain possible.
To be sure, rain can occur without these biologically produced (biogenic) condensation nuclei, because salt and ice crystals can also produce condensation nuclei. But that’s where downpours come from. That’s when it rains buckets. It’s the biogenic condensation nuclei that we want, because that’s when rain occurs more gently and more consistently, to better nurture crops and ecosystems.
So a forest drives every stage of the rain cycle, from evaporation, to condensation, to cloud formation and precipitation.
Forests prevent extreme temperatures
A forest is about half water, assuming that trees and plants are about half water, on average. Since the forest is a big bank of water, it is slow to warm up and slow to cool down, thus avoiding extremes of hot and cold.
That’s where climate regulation comes from. It comes from water coursing through ecosystems, including forests, savannas, grasslands and wetlands.
When we remove ecosystems, we remove these great climate regulators.
This fact is of no interest to concentrated wealth, because they cannot make money on it. They cannot make money preserving ecosystems. They make money destroying ecosystems. Concentrated wealth comes from nature, labor, the public domain and the public purse. It comes from extraction, not preservation or restoration.
That’s why “they” have pushed CO2 as the sole topic of conversation. Because “they” can make money pretending to lower CO2, while diverting our attention from real solutions.
To register for my upcoming webinar, please see here:
Forests are Not Just Carbon. Tuesday, November 4 at 7:00 PM (Eastern Time)