My opinion is based on the understanding that the press are reporting a summary of IPCC reports. When in doubt I read IPCC reports.
That's why we have difficulties understanding each other. IPCC is about climate, IPBES is about biodiversity and ecosystem services. This thread is about the latter but you're basing your knowledge mostly on the science made for the former.
The most adverse impact of climate change is total ecosystem collapse, meaning most things in the ecosystem become extinct.
This shows you're doing things backwards.
We can save the climate (say, within +1.5°C) and still have a biodiversity collapse. I'm well aware of the urgency of saving the climate (see Tesla's mission) and I believe there's a consensus on this (among scientists but also politicians, the mainstream media and the public opinion). I know we're still no acting on this realization but things are moving forward.
What I'm talking about is the massive neglect of the IPBES findings (see
https://ipbes.net/sites/default/fil...ssment_report_summary_for_policymakers_en.pdf) but I explain as follows
- We, as society, are slowly digesting the IPCC reports. It's difficult to talke multiple things at once, especially if the first thing in mind requires our full attention and to comit all resources at hand (work, money, politics...).
- We're not even sure we can handle the climate catastrophe so most people simply discard the biodiversity problem, even though it may be a bigger threat than climate change
- Those we accept to consider the biodiversity issue usually plan to address it once the climate problem is solved... even though 1) we don't have enough time to do things in series, 2) fixing climate change will do little to prevent the biodiversity collapse, 3) if we don't fully take into account biodiverstiy when solving climate change, we may worsen the second in exchange for a easy-quick-fix
- Many businesses were built to solve the climate change problem, including Tesla (what a coincidence!), nuclear, solar/wind industry, mining, hydrogen, etc. Very few companies expect to profit from the transition required to solve the biodiversity collapse (we're don't even know what this transition will look like, because the IPBES is still in its infancy like the IPCC in the 80's). There are a few options (e.g alternative meat) but in aggregate, the foreseeable loss in business vastly exceeds the economic contraction that is required to save the ecosystems that are going extinct. This happens at a much faster speed than we could be saving them, even taking the best IPCC scenarii
- Many feel that solving climate change is about sacrifices: a way of live, small but important guilty pleasures, the right to YOLO without caring for the environments, etc. Many being to accept these sacrifice on the condition that the transition will give new rights to enjoy nature: if I buy an autonomous EV, let me drive further into wildlands (see what TMC dreams about the Cybertruck), if I invest in a house with solar, let me enlarge my swimming pool and articial garden, if my airplane switch to biofuels, let me travel more frequently, if I my Tesla drive itself, let's buy a remote house and play all these great games during commute, etc. What happens post lockdowns is a great example of this mindset: people had the opportunity to reconnect with life and yearn for nature so they plan to enjoy nature more... which ends up with nature being overwhelmed more than being protected (loving is about desiring and caring, but for now it's mostly about desiring and caring about our own needs for nature not the nature's needs).
- Businesses knows this so they feature everything that with nature as being the way forward, as if people should go back into nature (let's reconnect!). People now wants to leave the cold, dirty, artificial cities and meet nature again, as if living in cities where a bad thing for the environment (so many environmentalists believe that it's best for our environment to live in a small house near a forst and in an appartment in the city... they have no idea about the differences in energy needs and nature footprint between the two). It's no coincidence that Elon promotes Starlink as helping remote communities, but 90% of the conversation is about urban people planning to buy a remote house or a camper to enjoy the wilderness again). With the energy transition (designed to fix the climate problem), we're adjusting our desires to stop emitting CO2 in exchange for more time in nature, without knowing yet how we're hurting ecosystems)
The only way to understand the two issues really is to consider them as unique. Of course, they have many relations (see co
workshop btw IPCC and IPBES). We **could** fix both at once, or at least ensure that fixing one does not worsen the other, but for now, I observe that the more we work on the first, the more we start to close our eyes on the second.
People will not consume resources beyond their natural need, the fastest path to improvement is satisfying natural need in a fully sustainable way.
Do you assume that natural needs are fixed? Explain why, then, people's needs for transportation exploded over the last two centuries. Also their need for meat. For housing. For things. For everything.
People will consume as much resources as they possibily can, if so they desire. Fortunately, like people's needs, their desires can change. But for now, the speed of change regarding sustainability does not follow the speed of biodiversity collapse. We spend so much time on climate (mostly CO2) that we seem to forget that climate change is not the only (if not even the main) threat to sustainability. Once must read the IPBES reports to realize that though.
IMO it is easier to change how we satisfy human needs than it is to get people to change their needs and desires. The battle for effective action on climate change shows this.
This only works if you assume that people are perfectly rational in the way they evaluate their needs. I doubt it. A good % of consumption is about desires and not about needs, IMO. At least the part that is ruining our planet and biodiversity.
Let's me (35 y-o) and my father (65). We have the exact same "needs" today but very different desires. He needs to travel the world as much as possible (i.e long distance flights). I don't. He needs a big SUV. I bike. He needs exotic fruits daily. I eat local.
If by mean you mean the basic stuff needed to survive, they we've know who to satisfy that centuries ago. And this has nothing to do with all the problem we're discussing: most of the CO2 is emitted to produce things that satisfies the desires of a small subset of the world's population. And if the carbon footpring of the rest of the population increases, it's because we must expect the poor to desire to live like the rich (is more car per capita a need or a desire? why would the need for aviation increase? meat? etc).
The battle for effective action on climate change shows this.
I'm sure it will show at some point, but for now,
Jevons paradox - Wikipedia is alive and well.
I agree that action on climate change requires a practical solution such as desirable EVs. But I can't think of a single thing that people strongly desire (or need) that would help fight the biodiversity collapse.
Personally, I desire beans (as a meat replacement) but only because I care about the environment. I desire my bike more than a Tesla for the same reason. I desire my flat versus a nice charming house. A few days in the countryside versus a vacation in Hawai, etc.
If you have an alternative solution, please state it.
Ah, you want me to solve the biodiversity crisis in one go! I'm not there yet or I would have find the next TSLA already, or a Nobel Prize, or something.
Also, should we not discuss a problem until it is solved? At this point, I'm only trying to state the problem honestly by acknowledging that solving the climate != preventing biodiversity collapse, by obserbing that many pro-Tesla don't really care about biodiveristy (whatever the reasons), by pointing out that desires are much bigger drivers than actual needs, etc. This biodiversity thing is so big and growing so fast we can't afford to tell ourselves nice stories.
But I promise to let you know when I have find the solution
PS: I do have solutions that fit all people needs but go against they desire. We can discuss this but you keep saying this would not work so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯