Human-Animal Studies Corner
|
|
The Climate Emergency and Biodiversity Loss– Meaningful Actions in the Face of Ecological Despair
|
The statistics are sobering and the associations, undeniable. The interconnections between various aspects of the environmental destruction we are witnessing—and living—are complex, intensifying, and undeniably anthropogenic.
The climate crisis has fueled record-breaking average high temperatures worldwide, with the fallout of drought, major fires, increased tropical storm activity, sea level rise, and flooding—all coming more frequently and intensely than previously seen. In addition to and linked with these climate emergency-caused outcomes, we and other animals face the impacts of the loss of biological diversity, a Sixth Extinction which is undoubtably the result of human actions, including climate change. Coupled with a deepening global pandemic both caused and affected by the climate crisis and biodiversity loss, that’s a lot to deal with on a daily basis.
Like the frog in boiling water, many have become desensitized, inured to this new “normal” that is upon us as a means of coping with the stress it provokes. Environmental and animal advocates are doing their best to remind us that none of this is at all normal, and something needs to be done.
Here, I take biodiversity loss as a starting point and hub for these interconnected issues. Biodiversity loss refers to a decrease in biological diversity within a species, an ecosystem, a given geographic area, or the Earth as a whole. This loss in the variety of life can lead to a breakdown in the functioning of the ecosystem where decline has occurred. A 2018 report published in PNAS assessing the biomass distribution on Earth concluded that wild animal populations declined by 58 percent between 1970 and 2012, and losses were expected to reach 67 percent by 2020.
Biodiversity loss is driven, among other anthropogenic factors, by habitat loss and climate change. Furthermore, habitat and biodiversity loss contribute to zoonotic disease spilling over to humans, according to a 2021 study published in PNAS, because the animals likely to be zoonotic hosts often proliferate in human-dominated landscapes, increasing the likelihood of spillover. Biodiversity, then, benefits humans because “In less-disturbed areas, however, these zoonotic reservoir hosts are less abundant and nonreservoirs predominate.”
Biodiversity loss feeds back into the climate crisis because the forests, wetlands, grasslands and other ecosystems destroyed to create space for industrialized animal agriculture regulate greenhouse gasses by providing carbon storage and protect coastlines from storm surges and erosion. Among other effects, this undermines nature’s ability to protect against extreme weather impacts—accelerating climate change and increasing vulnerability to it. For these reasons, in June 2021 the United Nations released a report produced by both its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) arguing that biodiversity and the climate crisis should be tackled together.
Industrialized animal food production is implicated in climate change, habitat loss and zoonotic pandemics. In a recent interview, biologist and author Jonathan Balcombe pointed out that “Anyone who thinks our meat habit isn’t a major if not the leading cause of the climate emergency, and current and future pandemics, is kidding themselves.” A report by proveg international notes three mutually reinforcing factors contributed to the type of zoonotic spillover that caused the COVID-19 pandemic and create a recipe for future zoonotic pandemics: the destruction of ecosystems and the loss of biodiversity, the use of wild animals for food, and intensified animal agriculture.
According to data compiled by Britannica, half of the world’s natural ecosystems have been converted to agriculture, and some 77 percent of agricultural land is used for grazing by livestock. Proving out the 2018 study noted above, this massive conversion of wild ecosystems for animal agriculture has produced a 60 percent decline in the number of vertebrates worldwide since 1970. As the infographic produced by OurWorldinData.org shows, the biomass of humans and their livestock greatly outweigh the biomass of wild mammals and wild birds.
Lest I be charged at this point with pandering to—or even promoting—collective misery, I should mention there is a method to my particular madness. A recent research summary by Ana Alvarelhão of Faunalytics of the article, Optimistic vs. pessimistic endings in climate change appeals, points out that “For animal advocates, this study affirms the role of negative affect as a tool for heightening perception of climate change risk…. [A]dvocates should use this information to tailor their messaging about climate change to be the most effective at increasing people’s risk perception, and the belief that their own behavior matters to trigger the changes needed. While climate change is a different issue than factory farming per se, there is a great deal of overlap. Climate change advocacy has an effect on the lives of animals, and this study may offer ideas for how we can study animal advocacy messaging as well.” With this in mind, I will echo cognitive ethologist Marc Bekoff’s take on the ecocide we are seeing and its connection to the COVID-19 pandemic: “Things are very bad and likely to get worse before they get better.”
My sense is that most reading this are quite aware of the risks and potential outcomes of climate change and biodiversity loss, and are already attempting to cope with no little grief over it all. It is overwhelming and terrifying. Indeed, my Google search this morning for “climate change angst” yielded over 9.4 million results. There are, however, actions we—both the collectively and individually—can take that are both personally empowering and do make a difference.
First, non-anthropocentric approaches are needed. Moving from the collective to the individual, this can be approached both by a shift to economic systems focused on sustainability rather than obsessed with growth, and by taking serious aim at global animal food production models that contribute to the climate crisis and biodiversity loss.
An article out this month in the journal BioScience by Vucetich et al., A Minimally Nonanthropocentric Economics: What Is It, Is It Necessary, and Can It Avert the Biodiversity Crisis?, suggests that traditional economics are anthropocentric, and provides an economic avenue to view the intrinsic value in “natural capital.” “Stemming the biodiversity crisis” according to the authors, “requires widespread nonanthropocentric modes of action and decision-making.” To do this, requires “better understand how economic decision-making should account for interspecies distributive justice and human well-being.”
Economics also play into global food production. Industrialized animal farming drives the suffering of farmed animals and has significant land, water, and ecological footprints that contribute to climate disruption. Eating more plants and less meat would take pressure off land needed to feed a growing world, according to a recent United Nations report. The growth in plant-based proteins I reported in an earlier piece in this series shows the economic viability of such change.
In addition to the larger-mammal biodiversity loss we are witnessing is an equally troubling decreasing abundance and indeed collapse in those crucial fauna at the bottom of ecological food chains: the insects we rely on for pollination, and birds and small mammals depend on for food. This “insect apocalypse” keys to agricultural intensification (including pesticide use), climate change, and habitat destruction, the latter impacted by the vast acreage of monoculture grass lawns (that for the most part serve no purpose and support no life) favored by those in the global north. Turf lawns reduce natural habitat, and their ongoing maintenance utilizes treatments that kill the native insects and/or the plants they need to live. The goal of weed-free and bug-free lawns is antithetical to biologically diverse and whole ecosystems.
My final suggestion deals not with global economics, but rather with individual action that I note from experience also serves as a rewarding means of staving off stress and grief in this time of global environmental threat. Stop being manipulated by the lawn care industry and forget the perfect lawn. Leave your leaves, where many insects overwinter as larvae. Create your own sanctuary, no matter how small. Even a balcony can be an ecological haven for insects, especially when it holds the native plants upon whom those insects rely. The United Kingdom’s Royal Horticultural Society recently recognized the importance of biodiversity in awarding a gold metal to a garden full native plants, considered “weeds,” that are essential for wildlife. And according to entomologist Douglas Tallamy, “If American homeowners converted half of their lawn to productive native plant communities, he says, they would create a 'Homegrown National Park'” larger than the territory held in most US national parks combined. Tallamy’s book, noted below, provides specific suggestions you can incorporate into your own outdoor conservation space. This feasible change can come—literally—from the ground up.
Certainly, we all long for a world where the richness of species with whom we share space was not on the decline. Ultimately, the real remedy for biodiversity loss—and the climate emergency, and future zoonotic pandemics—is mending our ruptured relationship with the natural world. If the negative affect I may have created here fosters change at any level, it has served its purpose. As a climate crisis refugee with the wherewithal to have left my beloved home in what has become the worsening inferno that is California, let me in closing add this: The risk is real. It’s hot out there, and it’s only going to get hotter.
MORE INFORMATION
The Ark (Acts of Restorative Kindness for the earth)
|
|
ASI Board Members to Co-teach BARK Animal Abuse Intervention Course
Human-Animal social work and mental health professionals,
join ASI Board Members Dr. Kenneth Shapiro and Dr. Kimberly Spanjol at their upcoming live virtual course Wednesday, October 13, and Thursday, October 21,2021 6:00–7:30pm ET. The course is presented through the NYU Silver School of Social Work. The course will use the ASI course, BARK (Behavioral Accountability, Responsibility and Knowledge) a diversion program based on The Identification, Assessment, and Treatment of Adults Who Abuse Animals: The AniCare Approach (Shapiro & Henderson, Springer, 2016). The course is NYSED and ASWB/ACE approved for 4 Continuing Education Contact Hours.
Full course and registration details here.
|
|
Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science
ASI is pleased to announce that its managed publication, the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, exceeded last year’s full-text downloads of articles, with 26,694 articles downloaded from the Taylor & Francis website last quarter. To learn more about the journal, follow this link to the Taylor & Francis website. You may also search abstracts and full articles, through ASI’s searchable Digital Archive.
|
|
THE POLICY CORNER
Author: LeAnn Snow, Policy Volunteer
|
|
In last month’s article, we explored animal protection policy at an international level by providing a brief comparative analysis of performance according to the World Animal Protection’s index. The index ranked 50 countries by using a familiar A-E scoring system. Notably, no country was awarded an A for overall animal protection and only six countries were awarded a B grade. Every country has significant work to do to achieve basic animal protections across species and contexts. Here, we focus on the United States’ D score. In and of itself, this score can be understood as the average score across the 50 countries. The US was among 15 other countries to be awarded a D. However, the API reports an alarming statistic that the US rankings haven’t improved from a D grade since 2014. This is despite legislative advancements at both the state and federal levels.
According to the API report that provides an in depth analysis of the D score awarded the U.S. originally in 2014 and again in 2020, U.S. laws are “inconsistent, inadequate, and at times, contradictory at the state level.” Federal legislation is not only limited by count (e.g. as of 2014, only three significant welfare laws existed at the federal level and in the years since only one additional law has been enacted, see page 4 of report), but federal legislation also limits protections to a certain few animal species and contexts. Put another way, the API finds that most animals implicated in practices that affect welfare are excluded from basic protections. In another key metric, although welfare laws do exist, enforcement and accountability are significantly lacking.
Ironically, in 2008 the USDA provided non-published support for the United Declaration of Animal Welfare (UDAW), in principle, which theoretically indicates governmental support for improved animal welfare and commitment to working with the international community to advance welfare protections. As indicated by the U.S. scores in both 2014 and 2020, however, along with the fact that their support has not been publicized, this supposed UDAW support can only be interpreted as null. The American Veterinary Medical Association also expressed support for the UDAW, but it is the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB) who has had made policy-level decisions just this month by advocating for humane training practices that promote welfare for companion animals.
It seems like common practice in the U.S. that meaningful animal protection policy comes from privatized bodies. In the context of farmed animals, the failure to protect these animals in even the most minimal ways through federal legislation is evident by the rise in corporate policies. Corporations like McDonalds have responded to consumer demand for better welfare standards and more humane practices for the animals behind their products (see page 14 of report). Non-government quality assurance initiatives have also arisen due to consumer demand, incentivizing businesses to buy-in for basic welfare protections.
If the U.S. hopes to improve from a D score, federal policy must piggyback on non-governmental policy advancements to protect more species in wider contexts. The World Animal Protection also urges formal acknowledgment of animal sentience as a crucial step towards measurably improved animal protection. Next month we will follow-up from the May Policy Corner article and provide updates on the current federal and state legislative bills that have been introduced this year.
|
|
Call for ASI Board Members
Do you want to help create a more compassionate world?
Would you like to see evidence-based research used to strengthen human-animal relationships? If you do, you may be a match for ASI’s open board member positions. Whether you have experience working with a hands-on board or are thinking about joining a board for the first time, this may be the right opportunity for you. Read more about what the position entails and how to apply here.
|
|
Your support of ASI programs helps to build safer and more compassionate communities. Donate Today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|