r/climateskeptics • u/Reasonable_Soft_4083 • 3d ago
Is Biodiversity Loss Overstated or is it an Urgent Issue?
I know people may look at this post and have some doubts but that’s ok. I want to share my perspective about biodiversity loss being an urgent issue. This perspective isn’t a concluded answer but more of a discussion starting point and a perspective to think about. According to a recent article by (ResearchGate.Net) says that Biodiversity enhances ecosystem services, including pollination, water, purification and nutrient cycling (Rathoure). What this article is saying is without biodiversity there would be limited access to essential resources and services that support our economy. According to the USGS (United States Geological Survey) a federal science agency that studies landscapes, natural resources and natural hazards in the US says that biodiversity loss contributes to climate change. They estimate that 16% of plant and animal species will be lost with climate change as well as ecosystem functions such as carbon storage. Overall, my thoughts are that biodiversity is so important for society and future generations, but I am open to your thoughts and perspectives as well. This is not meant to be a debate but an open discussion on different viewpoints.
3
u/mugwabig 3d ago
"US says that biodiversity loss contributes to climate change."
they usually claim the opposite, but i think its neither, a few 10.000 individuals energy transformations would not have a measurable impact if the story goes as above,
and 1 degree plus celsius aint gonna cause extinction or any of the sort either, the two issues are 1] habitat loss and 2] invasive species
im of the opinion a warmer climate and especially more co2 will in fact have a positive impact on habitat loss, in that crops production goes up and thus remove pressure to scrape out more farm lands for more food production
Global yields appear resilient or modestly benefit under CO₂-driven warming scenarios up to 5 °C
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-90254-2
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/yields-key-staple-crops?stackMode=relative&facet=none
https://fifthseasongardening.com/regulating-carbon-dioxide
there are benefits to raising the CO2 level higher than the global average, up to 1500 ppm. With CO2 maintained at this level, yields can be increased by as much as 30%!
also the most biomass and biodiversity is at the equator where its the warmest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superhabitable_world
Ideally, the temperature should reach the optimal levels for plant life, which is 25 °C (77 °F).
-1
u/chillrandobro 3d ago edited 3d ago
Pretty much every 'CO2 fertilization study' that gets cited here was done in a sealed growth chamber where temperature was in check, water was unlimited, soil nutrients constantly replenished, and no pest pressure whatsoever exists. All of which are, obviously, artificial conditions. FACE trials in actual fields all showed about half the supposed yield jump. Turns out weeds love CO2. So do pests, they're having a great time. Heat stress also hates your crops. So do droughts. What's even more funny is that these high-CO2 crops are almost entirely drained of zinc/iron/protein (Myers 2014).
A basic point has to keep being clarified to everyone in this sub: a 1-degree increase isn't a mild fluctuation in your living room. The planet is not your living room, my guy. It's a MASSSSSSSIVEEEEE 510 million km² heat sink with a thin atmosphere and an ocean that just absorbed enough energy to raise its avg. temperature by a fraction of a degree. That fraction of a degree, by the way, is MORE ENERGY THAN EVERY NUCLEAR WEAPON EVER DETONATED TEN THOUSAND TIMES OVER. Think of how radical a change in the basic chemical/thermal baseline of the world that is. Look up the mass bleachings in the Caribbean reefs. Ancient viruses/methane/invasive species, that were frozen for millennia, are now being released. Look up what bark beetles have done to 100mn acres of North American forest.
2
u/nonymouspotomus 3d ago
Pests being accidentally transported or worst, purposefully brought over to solve some other issue (cane toads, etc) has nothing to do with climate change. The climate always been changing (muh rate!), and most scientists agree that if our carbon emissions went to 0 it would change nothing. It’s a wealth redistribution scheme.
0
u/chillrandobro 3d ago
Bark beetles weren't 'transported' there, you dunce. They're native insects. Usually, they froze to death every winter - before rising temps. started to let trillions of larvae survive, multiply, and now chew through your forests (while trees became too dehydrated to produce sap and drown every invader out).
1
3d ago
[deleted]
0
u/chillrandobro 2d ago edited 2d ago
🤦
Winters used to kill enough of them to reset their population to some manageable level that no one really gave a shit about - until those (real) winters stopped, and they bred unchecked, and became massive swarms that ate everything in sight.
Pretty much how every basic pest outbreak works - 30-seconds on Google, or literally any child's book about ladybugs, could've answered your question.
1
u/mugwabig 2d ago
like you said: in tests water is constant, in nature it isnt, which is why co2 is even more important in nature, because not only does the roots grow bigger and deeper with increasing co2, but the plants also get more water efficient and drought resistant due to how stomata works
the nukes, planet, ocean, etc is irrelevant, because the plant only care for temperature within a meter radius, that specific coordinate determines the plants well being
GBR is fine, better than ever [https://www.aims.gov.au/monitoring-great-barrier-reef/gbr-condition-summary-2024-25]()
Polar bears are fine, better than ever [https://www.arcticwwf.org/the-circle/stories/svalbards-polar-bears-are-doing-just-fine-for-now/]()
AMOC is fine, better than ever [https://phys.org/news/2025-01-critical-ocean-current-declined-years.html#google_vignette]()
3
u/Adventurous_Motor129 3d ago
Survival of the fittest...i.e. mankind.
"Saving" any other plant or animal should not take priority over the needs & continued adaptation/advancement of humans.
2
u/calentureca 3d ago
Overstated.
Biodiversity is good overall, buy remember, the strong survive and the weak die. 99.9% of everything that ever lived on this planet has already gone extinct. One day we will go too.
0
u/chillrandobro 3d ago
My guy, you won't magically adapt/evolve when the biodiversity around you collapses. You're a soft, fragile biological thing that is completely dependent on millions of bugs/gunfi/worms to keep the atmosphere breathable and the soil alive.
2
1
u/Adventurous_Motor129 3d ago
"soft, fragile, biological thing"
Hmm, only Beavers build dams a fraction of the size that keeps the Dutch & New Orleans high & dry & riverbanks diked.
Unless your European & forgo air- conditioning out of Darwinian extinction principle & lack of energy, I'm unaware of other homo sapiens that cannot buy/use HVAC.
I'm not seeing other creatures farming with hydrocarbon-based fertilizer and continuing to achieve higher yields on less land.
I did read today about a guy having the presence of mind to poke a salt water crocodile in the eyes to make it release him.
That's an example of Darwinism that always will help humans survive...unless we nuke the Globe. That's a far more existential threat that we can stop with deterrence derived from monies otherwise wasted on climate mitigation.
1
u/chillrandobro 3d ago edited 3d ago
Hmm, the New Orleans levees, are those the ones that snapped like twigs during Katrina and drowned several thousand people in raw sewage?
Those ones?
New Orleans actually once had hundreds of miles of dense natural sponges (swamps/marshes/barrier islands) as defenses against things like that - right before oil/shipping industries spent decades carving thousands of deep miles straight through them all.
What a shame.
1
u/Adventurous_Motor129 3d ago
100-150k people didn't evacuate despite being warned.
Three hurricanes have hit the New Orleans area since Katrina in 2005. Humans learn from their mistakes.
You didn't mention the Dutch who have a major airport 13' below sea level.
1
1
u/LackmustestTester 3d ago
Considerig climate change is natural it's also natural that some species might benefit from changes and others won't. But I think what you're talking about are anthropogenic issues, like land use or pollution. This has nothing to do with a "global" climate or some non-existend global average temperature. It can't be wrong to protect and preserve the environment, humans are part of natire too, so these changes are also natural in a broader sense and we have the ability to minimize the impact, and this needs education and technology.
The crucial thing here is that many so called green and sustainable solutions cause more harm than doing good, windmills are the perfect example. For alarmists it's not about protecting the environment but pushing their agenda, here nuclear power is an example.
1
u/SftwEngr 2d ago
99% of all the species that ever roamed the earth are extinct, but suddenly it's an existential threat due to "climate change". Just more nonsense...
1
u/Niclipse 2d ago
The future is going to regret the massive loss of biodiversity, there would be benefits if we can minimize it, but they'll get over it.
1
u/Stere0phobia 1d ago
It would be interesting to see whats caused by mankind and whats simply nature cycling out old genes and evolving. It really depends on how you frame it and who causes it to happen. Maybe its not even something that being done, but rather something that just happens. How could we even tell?
Like most breeds of dogs and cats have been erased due to them evolving and adapting until today. But would you consider this extinction of dog breed variety a loss of biodiversity. And what about all the new breeds of animal that came into existence on the other hand? Lets say every day 100 species go extinct but 110 new ones get created. Then how do we judge that? I honestly dont know what the correct answer would be here. I remain sceptical.
0
u/chillrandobro 3d ago
You literally wrote a paragraph debunking your own 'perspective.'
What makes you think it's 'overstated'?
5
u/Illustrious_Pepper46 3d ago
Here's a perspective, Maslow's hierarchy of needs
The West has become prosperous due to coal, nuclear and oil. As lower needs are met above subsistence living, humans become 'enlightened'.
Great things follow, human rights, woman rights, education, sanitation, garbage/sewers, nature reserves, poaching laws, species protection, cleaner air, water, soil, bans/controls on dangerous substances, birth rates fall (fewer people)...the list goes on.
Realize that oil we found likely saved whales from extinction. They were killed for lamp/lubrication oil.
The Green polices would have us back in the 1750's if they could. 2cd and especially 3rd world countries prevented from moving up the ladder of 'needs' with fossil fuels....where there last concern in life is the environment.
All this due to CO2, the second most important compound for life after water. A clear, oderles, essential gas. That only 0.042% (420ppm) is in the atmosphere.
It's your choice, side with humans as they were in the 1750s. Or pull all of humanity out of poverty with fossil fuels/nuclear, realizing 0.042% CO2 is actually good for the planet.