When it comes to negotiating global agreements to protect the planet, the mood in society is always at the negotiating table: the greater the pressure on politicians not to come home empty-handed, the better. The failure of the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in 2009, while the new attempt in Paris in 2015 led to success, is not only due to this phenomenon, but may also have something to do with it.
Unfortunately, this is precisely why we have to be very pessimistic about the next conference, which is about the future of mankind: public pressure is in the microbar range. And here, for once, we don’t mean the climate conference in Sharm el-Sheikh – which is also important, no question about it. But the global biodiversity conference, the coming up in Montreal in December.
The great hope is that an almost binding global agreement to save nature will be passed there, analogous to the Paris climate agreement of 2015. But the negotiations are tough, and another Copenhagen moment is not out of the question.
The decline in bird populations is not only sad, but also very worrying
But the magnitude of this crisis still does not seem to have entered the collective consciousness. There is really no lack of alarming findings. Just a few days ago, a four-yearly report on the state of the bird world was published. Almost half of all bird species are experiencing severe losses, and only six percent are seeing an increase in population. One in eight species is now more or less acutely threatened with extinction. The report cites the expansion and intensification of agriculture, deforestation and climate change as the main reasons.
This is not only incredibly sad when you consider the beauty and diversity that is lost. But also very worrying. Birds are considered a good indicator of the state of biodiversity as a whole; if they are doing badly, nature as a whole has a problem. There are strong indications that the sixth mass extinction event in the planet’s history is in full swing, the first time triggered not by natural phenomena but by humans. The last five didn’t end well for the majority of those involved.
There is still time to turn back; A different way of dealing with the natural foundations of life is possible, and a strong global agreement would help here. But for that to happen, more people would have to be interested in this second existential threat alongside climate change. And time is of the essence: if you put off nature conservation for a long time, at some point there will be nothing left to protect.