Collapse of biodiversity: is it a question of scale?
According to the spokesperson for Action Écologie, the worrying figures which are supported by NGOs like WWF are “a way to drown the fish”. Example : “The average population size of wild vertebrate animals (globally) has fallen by 73% in just fifty years. »
For him, it would be possible to have another reading of these figures, on a smaller scale. To justify his remarks, he relies on another WWF indicator which indicated, in 2012, a positive evolution of biodiversity of 31% in “rich countries” between 1970 and 2008, while this declined at the same time by 30% globally.
But there is a problem with these figures: they are not comparable and therefore misleading, because they mask mass extinctions that occurred before 1970. Selon Louise O’Connorecologist and conservation biologist at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), “biodiversity in 1970 in Europe was already lower than that of 500 years ago. »
Beyond this battle of numbers, in reality, certain species are declining and others are returning (Iberian lynx, deer, etc.) or have not been threatened (wild boar, deer, etc.) and we can only congratulate yourself!
But when it comes to biodiversity it is important to take a step back, because the interpretation of figures is always delicate and it is easy to take figures out of context.
What do the specialists say? According to IPBES (international group of experts on biodiversity under the aegis of the UN), “The biodiversity of Europe and Central Asia is experiencing a strong and continuing decline. »
For his part, the Natural History Museum recalls on its site “ that a quarter of Europe’s birds have disappeared over the last 30 years and that 80% of winged insects have declined in the space of 40 years in Europe. »
How to expose serious facts without catastrophizing?
Let’s be clear: biodiversity in the world is in decline and Europe is no exception; science is clear on this point.
Following the controversy, the spokesperson for Action Écologie nevertheless nuanced his wordsensuring not to deny the scientific consensus, but adding“that we must not constantly repeat arguments to fuel the fire of catastrophe. »
His point of view is interesting because he implies that talking too much about the problem can make it worse. But just as it is counterproductive to blame the thermometer when you have a fever, it is just as counterproductive to want to minimize the extent of a problem, even if it means making it a taboo.
Unfortunately, we are indeed heading towards a sixth mass extinction. These are strong words, which are frightening, certainly, but which reflect a reality, not an opinion, however anxiety-provoking it may be!
Because proposing “softer” words will not make the situation any less catastrophic. Despite conservation efforts and multiple initiatives to protect ecosystems, many of them are still under threat. Let’s keep hope: they will perhaps be less so in the future, but in the meantime, species continue to disappear en masseincluding in Europe, because of fertilizers, pesticides, urbanization and global warming.
We must not forget that science does not play politics, it simply establishes facts, but their interpretation only concerns us. So we have a choice between listening to science or looking elsewhere.
