Tag: Biodiversity

UN ‘biodiversity’ summit advances global control over land, money, & resources

Private property rights, free markets, access to resources, and national sovereignty suffered another series of blows at the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity’s 17th Conference of the Parties (COP17).

The Yerevan Pathway retains the push to eliminate, phase out, or reform incentives deemed “harmful to biodiversity,” despite opposition that softened some language. Under the broader UN framework, governments are supposed to reduce such incentives by at least $500 billion annually by 2030.

Satirical cartoon of a UN biodiversity summit promoting global control of land, resources, and funding, with officials surrounded by maps, money, and paperwork.
AI generated by Meta

From CFACT

By Alex Newman

Panel discussion at the UN Biodiversity Conference COP17 in Yerevan, Armenia, with five speakers seated on stage.

YEREVAN, ARMENIA — Private property rights, free markets, access to resources, and national sovereignty suffered another series of blows at the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity’s 17th Conference of the Parties (COP17). In Armenia’s capital, bureaucrats and tax-funded activists advanced an agenda extending far beyond protecting endangered species: expanding international influence over land, financial resources, and economic activity.

The headline outcome was the so-called “Yerevan Pathway,” a response to the first Global Review of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Expressing “deep concern” that the UN’s 2030 targets are at risk, the agreement calls for accelerating implementation, reforming subsidies deemed harmful to nature, mobilizing additional funding, and aligning national economic decisions with biodiversity objectives.

In practice, the measures represent another step toward subordinating private property, free markets, and national sovereignty to UN-approved priorities.

Americans Join UN Push—Without US Ratification

COP17 President Hambardzum Matevosyan, Armenia’s environment minister, acknowledged the agenda’s sweeping implications. “Our work here in Yerevan can influence how natural resources are used, how goods are produced and consumed, and where public and private financial resources are directed,” he said. Biodiversity policy, he added, “should extend beyond the purview of environment ministries” into finance, agriculture, and economic development.

In an interview with CFACT, Matevosyan celebrated the participation of American officials, NGOs, and financial institutions, despite the United States never ratifying the underlying treaty. “We are pleased to see so many delegates from the United States,” he said.

Indeed, the UN’s controversial “30 by 30” agenda has already made significant inroads in America. In 2021, then-President Joe Biden signed Executive Order 14008, directing federal agencies to develop a strategy to conserve 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030. California adopted the same target under Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom, later enshrining it in state law.

While UN biodiversity agreements do not bind America, their objectives can be advanced through domestic legislation, executive actions, and land-use restrictions. President Donald Trump revoked Biden’s order in 2025, but California’s program and other schemes across America continue to advance.

CBD Executive Secretary Astrid Schomaker told CFACT that a small federal delegation attended alongside roughly 70 participants from California. Expressing hope that Washington would eventually join the treaty, she said the UN was engaging with Americans “as much as we can.”

Money, Subsidies, and Central Planning

The Yerevan Pathway retains the push to eliminate, phase out, or reform incentives deemed “harmful to biodiversity,” despite opposition that softened some language. Under the broader UN framework, governments are supposed to reduce such incentives by at least $500 billion annually by 2030.

Critics warn that the definitions could encompass subsidies or incentives affecting conventional agriculture, fertilizer, fossil fuels, and other productive activities. The result would be greater government influence over where capital flows and which industries prosper.

Nearly $2 billion in funding pledges were announced at COP17, largely from governments and publicly funded institutions. But that represents only a fraction of the hundreds of billions the UN says will be required.

Another mechanism is the Cali Fund for Digital Sequence Information, established at COP16. The arrangement seeks financial contributions from companies commercially benefiting from genetic information derived from plants, animals, and other organisms, including applications involving synthetic biology. Those funds would then be distributed through a global slush fund.

Despite the marketing slogans, these arrangements represent an expanding system of global economic planning, with international bureaucracies exercising growing influence over private enterprise, capital allocation, and national budgets.

Indigenous Groups Gain Influence

The summit also advanced the formal role of indigenous organizations within the UN biodiversity apparatus. Under the Sevan Guidelines, a permanent committee will provide indigenous representatives an ongoing role in the process, including a co-chair nominated through an indigenous selection mechanism rather than by a national government.

The UN is also promoting greater reliance on “traditional knowledge”—much of it overtly pagan in nature—in conservation and management of genetic resources.

Religious elements were prominent at the summit. Prayers invoking river deities and forest gods could be heard, while one indigenous participant interviewed by CFACT described his tradition teaching that people originated from the sea.

The institutional implications extend beyond religious practices. Nongovernmental organizations representing indigenous interests are acquiring a more formal role in shaping international biodiversity policy, raising questions about representation, accountability, and national sovereignty.

Expanding Global Oversight

COP17 also strengthened mechanisms for monitoring governments’ progress toward UN biodiversity targets. A new expert group was established to support reporting and review, with the Global Environment Facility asked to finance related work.

The decisions further encourage governments to integrate biodiversity objectives into economic planning at every level, including state, provincial, municipal, and private-sector activities.

Negotiators also advanced work involving synthetic biology, invasive species, wildlife management, and the integration of biodiversity with climate policy through so-called “nature-based solutions.”

Together, these measures expand the international framework for influencing decisions traditionally made by national governments, local communities, and private property owners.

The Bigger Picture

The agenda has been advancing for decades. The UN’s 1976 Vancouver Declaration criticized private landownership as a contributor to wealth concentration and called for stronger public control over land use. Today’s biodiversity initiatives continue raising fundamental questions about who should control land and natural resources.

The immediate target remains conserving 30 percent of the planet’s land and waters by 2030. But the broader ambitions extend into agriculture, industry, finance, and virtually every sector of economic activity.

Not everything went according to plan in Yerevan. Negotiators softened some proposals, while the Cali Fund remains far short of its financial ambitions. Nevertheless, COP17 advanced additional mechanisms for international oversight, financial mobilization, and influence over domestic economic policy.

For Americans, the stakes are especially high. The United States never ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity, yet policies promoted under its auspices continue finding their way into American government programs.

Whether decisions about land, resources, and economic activity remain with free people, property owners, and their elected representatives—or increasingly fall under the influence of unelected international bureaucracies—is a question that cannot be ignored. Defending self-government begins with understanding the threat.

Featured image UN publicity photo

Major Blind Spots Persist in Climate Impact Evidence for Mediterranean Plant Communities

A systematic review by researchers from the University of Cape Town and the South African Environmental Observation Network finds major gaps and geographic biases in observational evidence of how plant communities in Mediterranean- type ecosystems (MTEs) are responding to climate change.

The Mediterranean Basin is by far the best- studied of the five Mediterranean- type ecosystems (MTEs) in the review, accounting for the large majority of the 128 observational studies (approximately 88).

A scenic landscape featuring a dry, cracked earth path leading into a mountainous area, with an olive tree on the left side, and a colorful sunrise or sunset in the background. The image contains the title text: 'Major Blind Spots Persist in Climate Impact Evidence for Mediterranean Plant Communities.'
AI generated by Grok

A systematic review by researchers from the University of Cape Town and the South African Environmental Observation Network finds major gaps and geographic biases in observational evidence of how plant communities in Mediterranean- type ecosystems (MTEs) are responding to climate change.

MTEs occur in five regions: the Mediterranean Basin, California, central Chile, southwestern Australia, and South Africa’s Cape (including the Cape Floristic Region).

These areas share a climate of hot, dry summers and cooler, wetter winters and are global biodiversity hotspots with high endemism. They face strong climate pressures, including extreme droughts reported by the IPCC across all five regions (notably severe in South Africa and California).

Much existing knowledge relies on models and experiments rather than direct field observations of natural plant communities.

Main findings

  • Researchers screened databases and identified only 128 qualifying observational studies. Just 9% were from the Global South, and southern-hemisphere studies overall made up only about 17%.
  • Geographic bias is pronounced: Mediterranean Basin (88 studies), California (18), southwestern Australia (10), central Chile (8), and South Africa’s Cape (only 4).
  • Only 11 of the 128 studies appeared in IPCC assessment reports; in the latest IPCC land-ecosystems chapter, less than 3% of cited literature concerned these regions.
  • Most frequently reported disturbances: climate variability, drought (dominant everywhere, 67-100% of reports by region), wildfire, frost, and pathogens/insect infestations. Wildfire was noted in most regions except Chile (despite frequent fires there); pathogen and insect studies were limited to the Northern Hemisphere; frost mainly in southwestern Australia.
  • Studies mostly focused on vegetation condition and growth; far fewer examined plant diversity, phenology, or physiology. Trees and shrubs were overrepresented relative to grasses and wildflowers (which contribute heavily to diversity and can influence fire). Some response types were missing entirely in particular regions.
  • Confidence was relatively high for links between climate- related disturbances and vegetation responses, but lower for attributing observed biological changes specifically to climate change (versus other drivers such as fire, land use, herbivory, invasive species, or natural variability). Few studies used modern causal-inference methods; only four included causal diagrams, and none scored highly on this.

Implications and recommendations

The geographic and topical imbalances make it hard to distinguish real ecological differences between regions from artifacts of research effort. Findings from well- studied areas (e.g., California or the Mediterranean Basin) may not apply to understudied ones like the Cape Floristic Region.

The authors call for coordinated research across all five MTEs that combines long- term monitoring, reanalysis of existing and historical datasets, remote sensing, experiments, and stronger causal- inference approaches. This would improve understanding of resilience mechanisms and better support conservation and adaptation in these biodiversity hotspots.

In short, while models and experiments provide projections, direct observational evidence of climate- driven changes in MTE plant communities remains sparse, unevenly distributed, and often insufficient to firmly attribute causes, creating significant blind spots for science and management.

World map highlighting regions affected by climate variability, drought, wildfire, frost, and pathogens/insects, with detailed observations and publications counts for California, Central Chile, Cape Floristic Region, Mediterranean Basin, and SW Australia.
Global occurrence of Mediterranean-type ecosystems, showing frequencies of reported disturbances (no. observations = 154) and the total number of publications per region included in the review (no. publications = 128). Credit: Ecological Solutions and Evidence (2026). DOI: 10.1002/2688-8319.70304

The Mediterranean Basin is by far the best- studied of the five Mediterranean- type ecosystems (MTEs) in the review, accounting for the large majority of the 128 observational studies (approximately 88).

This gives it a relatively stronger evidence base than the other regions (especially the Global South ones), but the paper still identifies important implications, limitations, and opportunities specific to it.

Stronger observational evidence base, but incomplete

  • Drought, climate variability, wildfire, and (to a lesser extent) pathogens and insect infestations are well- documented disturbances affecting plant communities.
  • Most studies focus on vegetation condition and growth. Responses related to diversity, phenology, and physiology are less comprehensively covered than condition and growth (though better represented here than in some other MTEs, where certain categories are entirely absent).
  • Confidence scores for studies from the Mediterranean Basin (and California) span a wide range but often include high values for clear prior expectations and hypotheses, data quality, and statistical analyses. Scores tend to be higher for understanding relationships between disturbances and responses than for rigorously detecting climate -change-driven biological change itself.

Key limitations and risks of over- generalisation

Even with the largest number of studies, the evidence is not comprehensive enough for full causal attribution in many cases. Few studies overall (and none achieving the top causal- inference score in the review’s modified confidence index) used formal causal diagrams (e.g., directed acyclic graphs) or modern causal- inference methods to isolate climate change from confounders such as land use, fire management, invasive species, herbivory, or natural variability.

This means that while many observed changes coincide with climate trends, stronger proof that climate change is the primary driver is often lacking. Findings from the Mediterranean Basin cannot automatically be assumed to apply to the other four MTEs (or even uniformly across the Basin itself), because ecological differences, fire regimes, species pools, and research priorities vary.

Implications for science, management, and policy in the Mediterranean Basin

  • Scientific: The relatively rich observational record makes the Basin an important reference region. There is a clear opportunity to re- analyse existing long- term datasets with stronger causal methods, integrate them more systematically with remote sensing, experiments, and models, and expand underrepresented topics (especially diversity, phenology, physiology, and non- woody growth forms such as graminoids and forbs, which contribute heavily to diversity and can influence fire behaviour).
  • Cross- regional learning: Because the Basin dominates the literature, its findings currently shape much of the global narrative on MTE climate impacts. A collaborative programme across all five MTEs (emphasising shared resilience mechanisms) would help test which responses are truly general versus region- specific and improve transferability of insights.
  • Management and adaptation: Better causal understanding would support more targeted interventions for conservation, fire management, and climate adaptation in this biodiversity hotspot. The review stresses that identifying shared drivers of resilience and vulnerability across MTEs can strengthen management interventions, climate adaptation/mitigation efforts, and conservation action.
  • IPCC and global assessments: Only a small fraction of the observational studies (11 of 128 overall) fed into IPCC reports. Strengthening the observational evidence base and causal attribution from the Mediterranean Basin (and ensuring it is better represented) would improve the robustness of future assessments for this region and for MTEs more broadly.

In short, the Mediterranean Basin benefits from the densest observational evidence among MTEs, providing a solid foundation for understanding drought, variability, and fire impacts on vegetation condition and growth.

However, gaps in causal attribution, certain response types, and cross- regional comparability remain.

Addressing these through improved methods, long- term monitoring coordination, and collaborative research would enhance both local management and the ability to generalise (or appropriately differentiate) findings to the other MTEs.

Bar chart displaying the frequency of disturbance types (Drought, Fire, Frost, Pathogen/Insect, Climate variability) in various regions (California, Cape Floristic Region, Central Chile, Mediterranean Basin, SW Australia) across different categories (Condition, Growth, Physiology, Diversity, Phenology) with trends indicated as decreasing, non-linear, and increasing.
Trends in biological responses of plant communities in MTEs to climate change-related disturbances. Frequencies of decreasing, non-linear and increasing trends are plotted in stacked bar plots as proportions per disturbance.
A systematic review of observational studies reporting climate change impacts on plant communities in Mediterranean‐type ecosystems – Petersen – 2026 – Ecological Solutions and Evidence – Wiley Online Library

A systematic review of observational studies reporting climate change impacts on plant communities in Mediterranean-type ecosystems

Abstract summary

Mediterranean- type ecosystems (MTEs) are projected to be among the most vulnerable terrestrial ecosystems to climate change. While plant community responses have been extensively studied via experiments and models, observational studies remain relatively scarce.

This systematic review synthesises observed climate-change impacts on plant communities across the five global MTEs (Mediterranean Basin, California, central Chile, southwestern Australia, and the Cape Floristic Region of South Africa). It covers key disturbances and drivers of vegetation change, biological responses, geographic patterns, and confidence in the evidence.

Key findings:

  • Only 128 publications met the strict inclusion criteria (observational studies of climate- related disturbances affecting plant communities; experiments, pure modelling and projections, paleo-studies, agricultural systems, etc., were excluded).
  • Just 11 of these appeared in IPCC assessment reports.
  • Strong geographic bias: only 9% from the Global South. Disturbances and response types were unevenly reported across regions.
  • Most common disturbances: climate variability, drought, wildfire, frost, and pathogens and insect infestations, studied mainly in relation to vegetation condition and growth. Diversity, phenology, and physiology were less frequently examined (and sometimes absent in particular regions).
  • A confidence index (adapted from O’Connor et al. 2015, with additions for reporting quality and causal inference) showed relatively high scores for understanding links between disturbances and observed responses, but lower scores for confidently detecting climate- change- induced biological changes.
  • Few studies applied modern causal- inference methods. Differences among regions may partly reflect research effort and capacity rather than genuine ecological differences, limiting transferability of knowledge.
  • Opportunity exists to re-analyse existing long- term datasets with stronger causal approaches.

Policy implications: A collaborative, integrative research programme focused on shared resilience mechanisms across MTEs would improve understanding of causal relationships, support better- targeted management, climate adaptation and mitigation, and conservation in these biodiversity hotspots.

Additional context from the paper and related coverage

The authors searched Web of Science and Scopus (up to September 2024), supplemented by literature cited in recent IPCC WGII reports, and applied rigorous PECO- based eligibility criteria and multi- stage screening. They extracted detailed data on study design, systems, disturbances, and responses, and scored confidence on multiple axes (expectations and alternative causes, data quality, statistics, reporting, and causal inference).

Press summaries of the work (University of Cape Town and SAEON) provide the regional breakdown of the 128 studies:

Mediterranean Basin ≈ 88, California ≈ 18, southwestern Australia ≈ 10, central Chile ≈ 8, Cape Floristic Region ≈ 4. Drought and climate variability dominated reports in every region.

The full paper is available at the DOI link above (open access). Supporting information, data, and code are typically deposited with the journal or associated repositories (e.g., OSF registration of the review protocol exists from earlier stages of the project).

Published: Ecological Solutions and Evidence – Wiley Online, (2026), first published 4 August 2026

DOI: 10.1002/2688-8319.70304

Provided: University of Cape Town

Authors: Hana Petersen, Ryan Blanchard, Jasper Slingsby

Abstract

  1. Context. Mediterranean-type ecosystems (MTEs) are projected to be among the most vulnerable terrestrial ecosystems to global climate change. Plant community responses in MTEs to climate change have been well researched using experimental and modelling approaches, yet observational studies are less common.
  2. Approach. We present a systematic review of observed climate change impacts on plant communities across the five global MTEs, highlighting key disturbances and drivers of vegetation change, biological responses to these disturbances, and prevailing geographic trends.
  3. Literature trends. A relatively small number of publications met our criteria (Npub = 128), of which only 11 were reported in assessment reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The publications exhibited a large geographic bias, with only 9% from the Global South. Reported disturbances and responses were unevenly represented across MTEs.
  4. Drivers and responses. Climate variability, drought, wildfire, frost, and pathogens/insect infestations were the most reported disturbances, largely studied in relation to vegetation condition and growth. Studies on diversity, phenology and physiology were less common, and absent in some MTEs.
  5. Confidence assessment. An index assessing confidence in studies’ methods and findings revealed high scores for understanding relationships between climate change impacts and observed responses, and lower scores for detection of climate change-induced biological responses. The extent to which reported differences among regions reflect different effects of climate change and biological responses versus research focus and capacity remains unclear. While the included literature has improved our understanding of observed climate change impacts on plant communities in each MTE, the transferability of this knowledge across regions is limited by unequal reporting between regions. Since few studies applied causal inference methods for observational data, there is an opportunity to reanalyse existing datasets to improve our understanding of causal relationships.
  6. Policy implications. Developing a collaborative, integrative research programme that considers common resilience mechanisms among MTEs will aid our understanding of causal relationships among climate change-induced disturbances and vegetation responses. By identifying shared drivers of resilience and vulnerability across MTEs, such research can support more targeted and effective management interventions, strengthen climate adaptation and mitigation efforts, and inform conservation action in these global biodiversity hotspots.

Wind Ecology Pushback (biodiversity loss joins the list)

“A growing body of research illustrates that the effects of utility-scale wind energy production can be far reaching and some times have large and unexpected consequences for biodiversity. Furthermore, achieving renewable energy targets will require converting large areas of land to support wind power . . . often located in remote and high-biodiversity areas.”

From The Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“A growing body of research illustrates that the effects of utility-scale wind energy production can be far reaching and some times have large and unexpected consequences for biodiversity. Furthermore, achieving renewable energy targets will require converting large areas of land to support wind power . . . often located in remote and high-biodiversity areas.” (- Nature Reviews Biodiversity, below)

MasterResource has long given voice to the ecological problems of industrial wind power, onshore and offshore, including:

Wind vs. Ecology in Australia (Nick Cater reports) (October 18, 2024)

Industrial Wind vs. Deep Ecology: Surface Impacts (January 16, 2024)

Industrial Wind Plants: Bad Economics, Bad Ecology (Jon Boone: October 24, 2009)

Vineyard Wind: Catastrophic Failure (‘sharp fiberglass shards’ close Nantucket beaches) (July 18, 2024)

Offshore Wind: Ecologists Tip-Toe into the Negatives (August 23, 2022)

Wind Turbines and Birds: Latest from the American Bird Conservancy (June 14, 2021)

Add to the literature an article recently published in Nature Reviews Biodiversity, “Impacts of Onshore Wind Energy Production on Biodiversity” (September 8, 2025). Todd E. Katzner et al. wrote:

ABSTRACT

Wind is increasingly used as a renewable source of energy worldwide. However, harvesting wind energy can have negative consequences for biodiversity. In this Review, we summarize the growth of onshore wind power, its impacts on species and ecosystems, and how those impacts are assessed and mitigated.

Across the construction, operation and decommissioning stages, wind facilities are associated with wildlife fatality and behavioural change as well as alteration, loss and fragmentation of terrestrial and aerial habitat. These negative consequences can be mitigated by avoiding construction of wind turbines at sensitive sites, detecting and deterring wildlife, curtailing turbines to reduce fatalities, and replacing lost habitats.

Uncertainty about wildlife populations and their demographic parameters, the rate and extent of build-out of onshore wind energy, and best practices for mitigation, as well as variability in regulatory requirements by country or region, all contribute to the difficulty of predicting the consequences of this technology for biodiversity. Scenario-based modelling that incorporates population- and community-level consequences to biodiversity from varying degrees of wind energy development — including the cumulative effects of multiple facilities — is key to addressing this uncertainty.

Key Points

  • Wind energy is a growing source of electrical power, but it can have negative effects on biodiversity.
  • Asia has the most wind energy, followed by Europe and then the USA; the rest of the world supports <10% of installed capacity of wind energy.
  • Biodiversity impacts from wind energy can occur at all stages of a wind facility’s life cycle — including planning, construction, operation and decommissioning.
  • Although fatalities are perhaps the best-known impact from wind turbines, turbines can also alter the behaviour of wildlife and cause loss, alteration and fragmentation of habitat.
  • Mitigation of these impacts can include strategically placing turbines to avoid negative interactions (avoidance), encouraging wildlife to steer clear of turbines (deterrence) and replacing animals or habitats lost to turbines (compensation).
  • Despite many uncertainties regarding wind energy’s impacts, the available evidence can inform scenario-based modelling to assess both the consequences of this energy source for biodiversity and how its implementation compares to potential impacts from climate change.

Introduction Excerpts

Given the risks to wildlife and that the regulatory implications of wildlife fatalities can impede or restrict efforts to construct and operate wind power facilities, attention has turned to identifying ways to mitigate harmful effects.

Actions such as informed macro- and micro-scale siting of wind power facilities, curtailment (suspending turbine operations when activity is highest for vulnerable species), detection and deterrence of volant (flying) wildlife, and compensatory mitigation measures (offsetting negative effects via restoration or protection in other areas) aim to reconcile biodiversity conservation and energy production. However, these tools have been applied inconsistently.

A growing body of research illustrates that the effects of utility-scale wind energy production can be far reaching and some times have large and unexpected consequences for biodiversity. Furthermore, achieving renewable energy targets will require converting large areas of land to support wind power facilities, and new wind facilities are often located in remote and high-biodiversity areas.

In the face of an ongoing biodiversity crisis, understanding the impacts across the extensive land areas required for wind turbines demands a nuanced consideration of multiple factors that extend beyond ecology and draw from diverse fields, including economics, climate science and sociology.

For example, bat fatalities at wind turbines are rarely put into the context of economic losses caused by losing important ecosystem service providers. Impacts of wind energy on biodiversity are also rarely assessed in the context of net outcomes or scenario-based comparisons. Likewise, regulatory and political considerations often determine impacts of renewables on biodiversity, and a host of factors, including transboundary considerations, climate change denial, changing perceptions of the value of biodiversity and its protection, and economic considerations (that vary in developed and developing countries), all can influence perceptions of how wind turbines affect biodiversity.

Summary Excerpts
… Proponents of wind power often state that wind energy’s impacts on biodiversity will be less than the impacts of climate change. Although plausible, this assumption is untested.

One way to evaluate this assumption is through scenario-based modelling. Specifically, present conditions can be compared with counterfactuals (conditions different to those presently occurring) describing a range of levels of build-out resulting in different reductions of climate change and different consequences to biodiversity.

There are substantial uncertainties in such modelling and questions about its feasibility at the scale of individual wind facilities. However, highly informative efforts with similar levels of uncertainty have been implemented in the fields of climate change attribution, energy system modelling, cost–benefit analyses of different energy types, cost effectiveness for mitigation of avian fatalities, emergency conservation decisions, and even assessments of impacts to wildlife from renewable energy and from climate change. Such net impact assessments can be used to target mitigation efforts — whether at the species or ecosystem level — and to the necessary degree, thereby enhancing biodiversity conservation.

Taking this approach would allow continued growth of wind energy but also provide an additional context for protecting vulnerable ecosystems and species.

Postscript: Exchange with Eleanor Whittle

I had a Nature-Climate debate last week with Eleanor Whittle, a self-described advisor “on climate and nature-related risk, strategy, and decisions.” Her business byline is: “Nature is the blind spot in your climate strategy.” Fair enough. But when did not mention industrial wind and solar in a post, I commented: “Then don’t invest in industrial wind and solar, right?”

She asked: “… curious to understand how you drew that conclusion from what we said?” I responded with more detail:

The landscape/living space is violated much more with wind and solar (and biomass) than from the stock energies.

“The greenest fuels are the ones that contain the most energy per pound of material than must be mined, trucked, pumped, piped, and burnt. [In contrast], extracting comparable amounts of energy from the surface would entail truly monstrous environmental disruption…. The greenest possible strategy is to mine and to bury, to fly and to tunnel, to search high and low, where the life mostly isn’t, and so to leave the edge, the space in the middle, living and green.”

– Peter Huber, Hard Green: Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists (New York: Basic Books, 1999), pp. 105, 108.

She responded:

That quote is from 1999 and the reality and technology has changed drastically since then. Energy density has improved massively for renewables and e.g. wind is among the cheapest sources of energy there is. That quote is also scientifically inaccurate because those activities it mentions don’t only happen where “life mostly isn’t” – for example oil and gas extraction heavily target areas such as the Gulf of Mexico and the Niger Delta which are both extremely important regions for biodiversity. The quote also completely ignores the climate cost of those activities, which in turn exacerbates the degradation of nature and landscapes.

So no, we are absolutely not saying you shouldn’t invest in wind and solar. But of course investments need to be looked at through both a climate and nature lens to avoid unintended damage to natural habitats.

Bradley: “You misread the quotation. Much oil and gas infrastructure is below ground–wind and solar are above ground. And the average capacity factors of wind and solar are around 20 percent to 40 percent. Same with its transmission (adding to sprawl and blight). There are reasons why more than 1,100 wind, solar, and battery projects have been delayed or abandoned in the US alone. The quotation stands.

Whittle: “I didn’t misread the quote. It is more than 25 years old and is scientifically inaccurate and a misrepresentation of the reality. You argue that nothing happens on the surface – what about mining? And you mention transmission – how do you think oil and gas gets moved from A to B?” Going ad hominem, she continues:

I think it’s important to note that your organisation (Institute of Energy Research) gets funding from fossil fuel companies like Exxon, which is presumably a reason you don’t support renewables. The reason that renewables projects in the US have been delayed is because of divisive politics not because they are inherently unsustainable.”

Bradley: “Underground drilling and pipelines protect the surface area. Directional drilling can go for miles and capture multiple formations from one location. Same for offshore. Mining operations can be remediated. Industrial wind and solar are stuck on the surface for their entirety. This was true in the 1990s and is true today. The 1999 observation stands today.

The grassroots ‘divisive politics’ is because of the blight and sprawl of industrial wind and solar. ‘A machine in every pristine’ is the opposite of environmentalism, after all.

Wrong on the ‘guilt from association’. IER is a principled classical liberal organization that is fuel-and-technology neutral. Consumers decide with government neutral. We are pro consumer, taxpayer, freedom. And pro-environment vs. government-enabled wind and solar.”

Whittle: “The environmental and economic impact of energy systems isn’t determined by whether infrastructure is “above” or “below” ground. Oil and gas systems rely on extensive surface infrastructure — pipelines, roads, processing facilities — and carry well-documented environmental and climate risks. And many mining operations cannot be adequately remediated.

Reducing this to a visibility argument is a drastic oversimplification and ignores the full system impacts.

And if your organisation is funded by fossil fuel companies, it’s difficult to credibly claim to be “fuel and technology neutral” while consistently arguing against wind and solar, using outdated, qualitative information.”

Bradley: “Above ground is worse than below ground. Pipelines are below ground. This is a black mark against wind and solar, resources that are also very fragile to the elements.

This is an important variable. No, IER has thousands of donors that do not favor fossil-fuel subsidies any more than other explicit energy subsidies. IER is a principled, classical liberal organization. And no, the case against wind and solar is sound on economic and ecological grounds. The grassroot opposition to industrial wind and solar speaks for itself.

Ms. Whittle then stated rather lamely: “Let’s leave it there. If you want to spread misinformation on behalf of fossil fuel interests then you need more compelling arguments than ‘above ground is worse than below ground’.”.

Bradley: “First, I am not neither spreading misinformation nor arguing “on behalf of fossil fuel interests”. I am a classical liberal if you will understand what that is. And I take economics and ecology seriously.

Second, above ground vs, below ground is a very important distinction for your post on Nature and biodiversity. It is not the only point (I never said that–that is your escape argument to not defend wind and solar in this regard).

There is an extensive peer-reviewed literature on the ecological problems of industrial wind and solar. Are you familiar with it??

Final Comment

I am amazed that the “green” intelligentsia and lobby do not stop to consider what coating the living space with highly inefficient energy machines are doing to the environment. But the guilty are blinded by “climate change” and are too emotionally and professionally involved to break away. Can that change in the years ahead?

New Study: Species Extinction Rates Declining Since 1980 – ‘Climate Change Is Not an Important Threat’

According to many recent studies intended to alarm the public about the consequences of tenths-of-a-degree warmer surface air temperatures, “20-30% of all plant and animal species may be lost to climate change in future decades” (Saban and Wiens, 2025).

A vibrant and detailed collage depicting a human face composed of diverse wildlife, including pandas, tigers, bears, and various birds, surrounded by lush greenery and industrial smokestacks in the background, representing the contrast between nature and human impact.

From No Trick Zone

By Kenneth Richard

A surreal landscape contrasting nature and industry, featuring lush greenery with animals like elephants and bears on one side, and smoke-emitting factories and a polluted sky on the other. Two figures in suits sit on the grass, reflecting on the divide between the natural world and industrial development.

“Remarkably, we found here that species-level extinctions related to climate change have not significantly increased over the last approximately 200 years.”  – Saban and Wiens, 2025

According to many recent studies intended to alarm the public about the consequences of tenths-of-a-degree warmer surface air temperatures, “20-30% of all plant and animal species may be lost to climate change in future decades” (Saban and Wiens, 2025).

A landmark 2004 study published in Nature (which has now been cited over 10,000 times) predicted one million species will be driven to extinction by 2050 due to climate change.

But now a 2025 study published in The Royal Society finds (a) “climate change is not an important threat to biodiversity,” (b) species-level extinction rates “peaked many decades ago,” and (c) there has been no significant increase in climate-related extinctions in the last 200 years.

Ongoing habitat loss and the introduction of invasive species (primarily in the 18th and 19th centuries) on islands remain the two most predominant extinction threats in recent centuries. The authors express surprise that the threat from climate change (surface air temperature warming) has remained insignificant throughout the modern era.

“Extinctions from invasive species and (surprisingly) climate change did not change significantly over time.”

“[P]ast extinctions strongly suggest that climate change is not an important threat to biodiversity.”

“[T]hese past extinctions do not show biodiversity loss as rapidly accelerating, but instead show extinction rates that generally peaked many decades ago, and that declined in some important groups (arthropods, plants).”

“Most groups showed declining extinction rates after peaking in the 1980s.”

Scientific article on extinction crisis rates and causes in plants and animals, featuring graphs and data from the Royal Society.
Image Source: Saban and Wiens, 2025

Professor David King: We Must Consider Extreme Climate Solutions

“… Ideas such as thickening sea ice to prevent collapse … may once have seemed extreme. …”

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

“… Ideas such as thickening sea ice to prevent collapse … may once have seemed extreme. …”

We passed the 1.5C climate threshold. We must now explore extreme options

David King
Mon 7 Apr 2025 19.00 AEST

We do not have the luxury of rejecting solutions before we have thoroughly investigated their risks, trade-offs and feasibility

As a lifelong scientist, I have always believed that if something is possible, we can find a way to achieve it. And yet, one of the starkest realities we now face is that the world is failing to meet its climate goals. Last year marked a historic and deeply troubling threshold: for the first time, global temperatures exceeded 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. Without drastic and immediate climate action, this breach will not be temporary. The consequences – rising sea levels, extreme weatherand devastating loss of biodiversity – are no longer projections for the distant future. They are happening now, affecting millions of lives, and likely to cause trillions in damages in decades to come.

But we must think beyond our immediate horizons. When I read The Iliad, I am reminded that it was written 2,800 years ago. I often wonder: in another 2,800 years, what will people – if humanity as we know it still exists – read about our time? Will they see us as the generation that failed to act or one that made the choices necessary to safeguard the planet for the future?

…

One of the greatest challenges of climate science today is that many of the necessary levers to regain control are uncomfortable, even controversial. Ideas such as thickening sea ice to prevent collapse or brightening marine clouds to reflect sunlight may once have seemed extreme. Yet, as we contend with an escalating crisis, we must at least explore these possibilities. We do not have the luxury of rejecting solutions outright before we have thoroughly investigated their risks, trade-offs and feasibility.

…Read more: 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/07/climate-solutions-extreme-options

We hit 1.5C by some measures, but there are no climate disasters, except in the imagination of scientists like Professor David King. Nor will there be any climate disasters, even if temperatures climb higher.

Face it Professor King, you and your friends are wrong – a warmer world is a more benign world for humans.

The proof is that our monkey ancestors thrived in a much hotter world. The Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, 5-8C hotter than today, was the age of monkeys. Our monkey ancestors thrived on the abundance of the hothouse PETM, and colonised much of the world, as far as Greenland and Siberia, only retreating when the cold returned.

The only thing I fear is our benign warm climate might soon come to an end – not in my lifetime, but way too soon for a human race which is only beginning to embrace its full potential.

Geologically the Earth is still locked in the Late Cenzoic Ice Age, which began 34 million years ago and still holds our planet in its frozen grip.

The last ice age was so cold it may have almost been an extinction event.

As we approach the end of the Holocene Interglacial, global cooling is a far greater long-term threat than global warming. Winter is coming, and we don’t have enough coal to drive back the ice.

Farms that Create Habitat Key to Food Security and Biodiversity

It seems intuitive that forests would provide better habitat for forest-dwelling wildlife than farms. Yet, in one of the longest-running studies of tropical wildlife populations in the world, Stanford researchers found that over 18 years, smaller farms with varying crop types – interspersed with patches or ribbons of forest – sustain many forest-dependent bird populations in Costa Rica, even as populations decline in forests.

From Watts Up With That?

Peer-Reviewed Publication

STANFORD UNIVERSITY

It seems intuitive that forests would provide better habitat for forest-dwelling wildlife than farms. Yet, in one of the longest-running studies of tropical wildlife populations in the world, Stanford researchers found that over 18 years, smaller farms with varying crop types – interspersed with patches or ribbons of forest – sustain many forest-dependent bird populations in Costa Rica, even as populations decline in forests.

In a paper published Sept. 4 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Nicholas Hendershot and colleagues compared trends in specific bird populations across three landscape types in Costa Rica: forests, diversified farms, and intensive agriculture. The steepest declines were found in forests, then in intensive agriculture (and the species succeeding in intensive agriculture were often invasive). But on diversified farms, a significant subset of bird species typically found in forests, including some of conservation concern, actually increased over time.

“Birds are kind of a proxy we use to track the health of ecosystems. And the birds we’re seeing today aren’t the same as we saw 18 to 20 years ago. This paper really documents this pattern,” said Hendershot, a postdoctoral fellow at the time of this research in Stanford’s Department of Biology in the School of Humanities and Sciences (H&S), the Stanford Center for Conservation Biology (CCB), and the Stanford-based Natural Capital Project (NatCap).

Food security at stake

While this research implies that diversified farming could be key for biodiversity, the relationship goes both ways: biodiversity is key for food security. In this case, that means having a variety of types of birds feeding on insects and helping to pollinate crops.

“Identity does seem to matter a lot for pest control and other ecosystem services birds provide. These species are not interchangeable,” said Hendershot.

“We need a constant stream of pollinators servicing farms. About three-quarters of the world’s crops require pollinators to some extent, and that 75% is our most nutritious food – think of all the vitamins and minerals packed into fruits, nuts, and veggies,” explained Gretchen Daily, faculty director of NatCap and CCB, Bing Professor of Environmental Science in H&S, and a senior author on the paper. “We need a constant stream of birds, bats, and other wildlife to help control pests: they suppress the vast majority naturally. And we need to start building flood protection, water purification, carbon storage, and many other vital benefits back into agricultural landscapes, way beyond what can be achieved in protected areas alone.”

Daily also noted that, in terms of food production, diversified farms are not necessarily lower yielding than intensive agriculture. “This is a recent assumption that is being overturned,” she said.

Beyond protected areas

It has become increasingly apparent around the world that while protected areas remain critical, they are too few and far between to provide the ecosystem services people and nature need to thrive. Working landscapes are crucial now for preserving biodiversity and its benefits. “People, including scientists, had the idea that farmland would not support a meaningful amount of biodiversity,” said Daily. In this case, not only are diversified farms themselves providing habitat, they connect otherwise fragmented forested areas.

Over time, Hendershot said, “I have moved away from the ‘fortress conservation’ model, which focused more on creating protected areas separate from human activities, and see more and more how much potential there is outside of forests. The forests are key – we need them, of course. But in addition to that, I’m always surprised by how important how you manage a farm is for biodiversity.”

“We believe the findings of our research are new to science, but in a sense, it merely confirms what Indigenous communities around the world have already known for a long time, which is that humans can and should have reciprocal relationships with the rest of the local ecological community they are part of,” said Tadashi Fukami, a professor of biology in H&S and of Earth system science in the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability and a co-author of the paper.

Incentivizing farmers

In the 1980s and 90s, deforestation was occurring in Costa Rica at the fastest rate ever seen on a country scale. Then, they turned it around – becoming a renowned model of success. By setting up the world’s first countrywide payment for ecosystem services (PES) program, Costa Rica reversed this trend: today, forests cover almost 60% of its land, up from 40% in 1987.

The country currently aims to double the amount of protected forest in just a few years. In its existing PES program, any landowner can receive money for reforesting even small parts of their land. Now, the government is also working toward a new PES program to incentivize farmers to adopt best management practices.

This study will help inform Costa Rican policymakers in understanding the benefits provided over time by different farming practices. Said Daily, “We need to recognize the vital work many farmers are doing that supports biodiversity.”

Nicholas Hendershot was a postdoctoral researcher with the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford and is now a forest ecologist with The Nature Conservancy-California. Gretchen Daily is also a senior fellow in the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. Other co-authors on the paper are Alejandra Echeverri, a senior scientist at the Natural Capital Project, Luke Frishkoff of the University of Texas at Arlington, and prominent Costa Rican ornithologist Jim Zook.

Hendershot’s work was supported by the Gerhard Casper and John P. Morgridge Stanford Graduate Fellowship, the OTS Emerging Challenges in Tropical Science Fellowship, and the Winslow Foundation. Funding for data collection from 1999-2017 was generously provided to Daily by the LuEsther T. Mertz Charitable Trust, the Moore Family Foundation, and the Winslow Foundation.

JOURNAL

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

DOI

10.1073/pnas.2303937120 

ARTICLE TITLE

Diversified farms bolster forest-bird populations despite ongoing declines in tropical forests

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

5-Sep-2023

From EurekAlert!

The New Dark Ages? Draft New Zealand High School Curriculum Drops Mentions of Hard Science

Climate Change, Biodiversity, Infectious Diseases and the Water Food and Energy nexus to be the new focus of New Zealand science education?

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

First published JoNova; Climate Change, Biodiversity, Infectious Diseases and the Water Food and Energy nexus to be the new focus of New Zealand science education?

NZ Teachers Shocked Physics, Chemistry, Biology Missing From New Science Curriculum

By Rebecca Zhu
July 9, 2023 Updated: July 9, 2023

…

Michael Johnston, senior fellow of the think tank New Zealand Initiative, who was leaked a copy of this initial draft science curriculum by a concerned teacher, said the document was a blueprint for “accelerating the decline of science in New Zealand.

”The Epoch Times has not seen the document.Mr. Johnston warned that if this draft went through, high school graduates wanting to pursue studies in physical sciences or engineering would need to be taught from scratch by their university.“

Central concepts in physics are absent. There is no mention of gravity, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, mass or motion.

Chemistry is likewise missing in action. There is nothing about atomic structure, the periodic table of the elements, compounds or molecular bonding,” he saidof the draft.

Rather than physics, chemistry, and biology, the document proposes teaching science through four contexts that appear to draw from fundamental principles of the United Nation’s Agenda 21: climate change, biodiversity, infectious diseases, and the water, food, and energy nexus

.…Read more:

 https://www.theepochtimes.com/nz-teachers-shocked-physics-chemistry-biology-missing-from-new-science-curriculum_5383390.html

The New Zealand Education Department claims these concerns are all a big misunderstanding;

… Cathy Buntting co-wrote the draft curriculum and told Newshub it’s about modernising the curriculum. “

It’s proposing to teach those subjects differently, not operating in the silos that have been traditionally the structure of science education in secondary schools.” 

The Ministry of Education said in a statement any speculation on the curriculum is premature, as this is a very early draft.

A proper draft document will go out for wider feedback in August and will give educators time to have their say and make changes.

   …

Read more: https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/07/senior-research-follow-warns-universities-will-need-to-teach-science-from-scratch-if-new-curriculum-implemented.html

I can’t help thinking subordinating basic science training to UN agenda talking points is not going to help New Zealand students reach their full potential.

When building a new prototype device or software application for a client, fulfilling the client specification requires knowing where the electrons go and what path they take, not how they feel about their journey.