Climate change and loss of biodiversity are often treated separately – in science, policy, and even risk management. But as the scientists and policymakers began sharing thoughts on these global crises, “we saw we have a bunch of things in common, such as response options and interventions,” said Professor Pete Smith,  Professor of Soils and Global Change, University of Aberdeen. “We need to consider climate change and biodiversity from the very outset of planning solutions.”

On November 7, 2024, he was interviewed by Jo Paisley, President, GARP Risk Institute.The Global Association of Risk Professionals (GARP) provides a series of podcasts featuring specialists discussing their area of risk.

Smith is Science Director of the Scottish Climate Change Centre of Expertise (ClimateXChange). Since 1996, he has worked with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. He has also contributed to reports from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

PeteSmith_Aberdeen

He said that soon a “nexus” report will come out, a joint IPCC and IPBES report that “breaks down the silos.” The last such joint report, in 2021, was “pivotal.” They found that remedies proposed for climate change mitigation were very similar to remedies for loss of biodiversity.

“Most things that are good for nature are good for climate and vice versa,” he said. The issue is how you implement them. For example, growing trees is generally a good response to mitigate climate change. However, planting monocultures of non-native trees is not a good remedy.

Also, if the scale is too large, such as land usage for solar farms occupying far too much space, that is not good.

The models for IPCC are mostly atmospheric physics. They are models of weather and have a poor representation of Earth physics and a poor representation of plants. For example, he said they only have “trees” and “not-trees.”

atmospheric physics_ECMWF

Models for biodiversity risk require a different approach. The models can only select what’s offered and optimize. They cannot invent something that’s not there, he noted.

Also, the world is changing. Land that acts as a carbon sink is much weaker than in previous years due to land fires and burned-out areas that can’t easily regenerate. Their function of keeping climate change in check is weakened.

“As a soil scientist, I see there are political issues to solve,” Smith said. “We require sustainable intensification. The Green Revolution was significant, but we needed to do more. One third of food is lost due to waste, loss in the field, and loss in storage.”

“Dietary change will be extremely difficult,” he said. “We are producing food that is not healthy. There’s an overconsumption of meat. Livestock has 10 times more impact than a plant-based diet.”

The solutions to biodiversity loss and climate change are both nature-based. “The solutions must be implemented in a way that consults the local community,” Smith said. “If you involve the local community, you will get buy-in.”

biodiversity

When Paisley asked for his advice to risk professionals, Smith said, “Climate change has one metric: The carbon dioxide equivalences. But biodiversity does not yet have a single metric.”

“It is too complex. Do you measure biodiversity just by counting species? Or by the numbers in the species. We need to get agreement on the best metric for biodiversity.” Smith said, “If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.” ♠️

 

The figure for atmospheric physics is from European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF).

The visual for biodiversity used in the thumbnail for this posting is from Freepik.

For more information on climate risk, visit GARP’s Global Sustainability and Climate Risk Resource Center: https://www.garp.org/sustainability-climate