Richard Black, a BBC environment correspondent, has stirred up the most remarkable hornet’s nest with a post yesterday predicting that the conservation of biodiversity would become as controversial as climate change — at least to a rabid few — because both require people to change the way they live. He analyses US objections to ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity and points out that the fear that the CBD might cramp unfettered US access to the world’s biodiversity was the underlying reason for many of the politicians who blocked ratification. And here’s how he explains the problem:
Here’s a hypothetical example raised at the InterAcademy panel meeting.
Let’s say you want to protect the Amazon rainforest and the rich biodiversity it contains.
One way you might look to do that is by reducing deforestation; and one of the main causes of Amazonian deforestation is clearance for cattle ranches.
So you might choose to campaign among Western consumers, or to lobby Western governments, to reduce the amount of beef consumed on Western plates; less beef equals more trees.
Does the issue look uncontroversial now?
See! Farming and the supply of food is the enemy of biodiversity conservation. Black doesn’t actually talk about the need to conserve the biodiversity on which our food supply depends — although buried among the outpourings from commenters who agree that biodiversity is useless and has no value are some who point out that it might help to feed us. But hey, who cares about that?
Thanks to catofstripes for the pointer.