Some want mitigation measures to do more than cut global carbon emissions, such as 350.org, which proposes that we aim to roll back the clock, by taking some already burned-off carbon back. Others argue that this is impractical or even impossible, and that life will go on in a warming world albeit with consequences. Largely because I’m cynical about the chances of forming a political coalition capable of addressing climate change in any meaningful way, I am content with a conservationist strategy that seeks to limit the extent and impacts of climate change. This way even when hardships associated with a changing world come, we will have done what was reasonably achievable to safeguard as many species and their habitats as possible.
So I applaud the stance that BirdLife International and its partners are taking as an advocacy group going into COP15. What do you think?
- Cut global emissions by the amount needed to limit global average temperature rises to less than 2°C above pre-industrial levels.
- Recognise the vital importance of safeguarding biodiversity, ecosystems and the essential services they provide in climate change mitigation, in particular, reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD).
- Recognise the vital importance of safeguarding biodiversity, ecosystems and the essential services they provide in climate change adaptation.
- Provide funding for developing countries to reduce emissions from deforestation, enable adaptation to climate change, and support low-carbon development.
- Ensure that when developed countries account for their land-use sectors they account fully for carbon emissions to, and removals from, the atmosphere.