Can we afford to save the planet?

Tonight, I spoke in a debate in the House of Commons convened by the Christians in Parliament group. The title of the debate was "Can we afford to save the planet?"

It was a fascinating evening, expertly chaired by former Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman MP, accompanied unexpectedly by the Military wives choir who were performing in Portcullis House at the same time (and rather well I thought).

As predicted Lord Lawson and Professor Michael Jacobs offered very different views over our need to take the necessary action to tackle climate change.  While there were few fireworks there was little common ground.  I thought Michael calmly and clearly presented the case for climate action and it was refreshing to here his optimism about a global deal in Paris next year.  

I may say more on this once I have had a chance to digest what was said - and there was a lot of words spoken tonight!

While I, obviously, supported the case for climate action, I unapologetically broadened the debate to make the case for nature. 

This is the long-hand version of what I said...

Homo sapiens is an extraordinary species.  In the short time I have been on this planet, global GDP has soared and we are living in an age of unprecedented economic prosperity.  Yes, we still face major economic problems (eg high debt, unemployment, high rates of inequality) but the fact remains that we have made real progress in pulling people out of poverty and improving heath, education and global living standards.  Through technological advances we have increased productivity of our crops, found new ways to communicate and to move around.  Yet, it is clear that this growth has come at a cost.

Energy consumption has doubled since 1970 leading to greater concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which in turn risks catastrophic climate change.  

And the millions of other species on which we share this planet has suffered.  

Every month, new metrics emerge illustrating the scale of the carnage.  Last month WWF  reported that wildlife populations have halved in my lifetime and this week, we published research with the University of Exeter and the Pan-European Monitoring Scheme that showed that there are 421 million fewer individual birds today than there were thirty years ago.  Closer to home,  the groundbreaking State of Nature report of 2013 showed that in the UK 60% of species which we can measure have declined and one in ten species are now at risk of extinction.

We know why these declines are taking place and we call them the four horsemen of the ecological apocalypse: habitat destruction, invasive non-native species, pollution and over-exploitation.  These threats arise from a growing population, consuming more and failing to capture the true environmental value of nature in decision-making.

So our extraordinary species has its work cut out if we are to avoid passing on the natural world in a massively depleted state to our children.

The good news is that the global conservation community has agreed a plan to tackle the loss in wildlife (the Aichi targets agreed at the CBD COP in Nagoya, Japan, 2010 - see here).  And we also know (see here) how much it would cost to prevent extinctions (US $4 billion) and save our finest wildlife sites globally (US $76 billion).  This may sound a lot but is, in reality, a tiny percentage of the global economy (US $70 trillion).  It needs political will to make it happen and inevitably it comes down to a question of priorities.

So, is nature worth saving?  

There has been a growing body of evidence that has assessed the value of nature to humans concluding that it could be worth between US $22 trillion and US $74 trillion annually.  These are big numbers, but they feel about right.  As Environment Secretary, Elizabeth Truss said in her speech yesterday, the value of pollinators in the UK alone is thought to be worth £440 million annually.  Now we could substitute some of these services by ourselves but in many cases this is neither realistic nor economically attractive: for example, manual pollination of crops is possible but labour costs have been estimated at £1500 million a year.

A good day at Ynys Hir nature reserve by Eleanor Bentall (rspb-images.com) 

But, even if you are not convinced by these economic arguments, I would argue that nature matters in other ways.  Why is it that despite the seemingly inexorable growth in prosperity, a number of studies have show that we are grumpier than we were forty years ago?

We all know how nature enriches our own lives and I sad that children today have a home range 90% smaller than when I was growing up and feel angry by the thought that my children may grow up not being able to enjoy the diversity of sights, sounds and smells that the natural world offers.  It's not an exaggeration to say that, without greater investment in nature conservation, my children will not, when they reach my age, be able to enjoy the return of migrating swifts, turtle doves, cuckoos and nightingales.

To me, that matters.

Yet, because we are such an extraordinary species, we have many of the solutions to the problems facing nature.  We know how to grow food whilst recovering farmland bird populations, we know how to generate renewable energy without polluting the atmosphere and without harming wildlife and we know how to build new infrastructure (such as houses and railways) without damaging our most important sites for wildlife. 

And further good news is that action to protect or restore natural habitats can help us deal with the climate crisis.  Internationally, we can do more to save tropical rainforests which are not only home to c75% of the world's threatened bird species, but their continued destruction (about 13 million hectares a year) accounts for up to 20% of total greenhouse gas emissions.  Even here in the England, restoring our peat bogs (only 4% of which are in good condition) could help sequester up to 400,000 tonnes of CO2 and deliver great benefits for upland wildlife and water supplies.  And as this year's floods in the Somerset Levels so clearly demonstrated, if we are to have the predicted wetter, milder winters then functioning natural floodplains will be essential help prevent future flooding of homes and livelihoods. 

It makes political and economic sense to act now.  And it makes sense for our children's future.

But, my last point is that for all of this to happen, of course, we may have to overcome our human flaws of carelessness, indifference and greed.  And in many ways, this will be the greatest challenge our species will face over the next 25 years.

I end with a verse sent to me by my Mum before this evening's event.  Given the nature of the event, it felt apt to quote.  It is from a hymn called Beauty for Brokenness by Graham Kendrick...

Rest for the ravaged earth

Oceans and streams

Plundered and poisoned

Our future, our dreams

Lord, end our madness

Carelessness and greed

Make us content with

The things that we need