During the last week alone, the Taipei Times reported on dead fish in the Tamsui River (淡水河), overfishing by Taiwanese-owned fishing fleets and disappearing coral reefs and expanding jellyfish numbers because of storm damage, global warming, ocean acidification, overfishing and pollution, which deprive fishermen of their livelihoods.
These are cumulative warning signs that we are in the midst of a biodiversity crisis that may be even worse than the climate crisis. And this crisis is worst in lakes, rivers and oceans; maybe because humans don’t live there, even fewer people care about their well-being.
The Guardian newspaper recently carried an article in which one of the greatest living biologists, Harvard University professor Edward Wilson, described biodiversity loss as the Earth’s “immense and hidden” tragedy. With the climate crisis center stage next month in Copenhagen, public attention has been almost completely diverted from the problem of the biodiversity crisis causing even worse damage.
Unlike global warming, extinction of species is irreversible, while the collapse of ecosystems is very difficult to repair. People may be able to cope with higher temperatures, but they cannot do without essential ecosystem services such as food, fibers, medicines, clean water and other essentials for well-being. While there is a technological fix for the climate crisis called renewable energy, there is no such straightforward and simple solution for the biodiversity crisis.
As 2010 is the International Year of Biodiversity, it is time we recognize the urgency of the biodiversity crisis. Useful information is on the Web sites of BirdLife International, the IUCN, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the Global Biodiversity Outlook of the Convention on Biodiversity and the WWF’s Ecological Footprint and Living Planet reports. The latter reports a 30 percent loss of biodiversity within 30 years, demonstrating the unbelievable pace of biodiversity loss, almost all because of unsustainable human activities.
Taiwanese scientists, government officials and NGOs should support ongoing biodiversity initiatives such as the Biodiversity Observation Network (www.earthobservations.org/geobon.shtml), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (www.teebweb.org), which calculates the economic cost of biodiversity loss, and the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (ipbes.net/en/index.asp), which intends to bring biodiversity scientists and governments together in the manner of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
All this points to one conclusion: The short-term exploitation of ecosystems will come back to haunt us with a vengeance. Any other conclusion is based on wishful thinking, not science. We can ignore the facts and carry on, business as usual, ending up with an environment much less able to provide us with a pleasant life, or we can collectively decide to do something about it for the betterment of all humanity — but mostly for the poor of the planet, who are much more reliant on biodiversity and ecosystems and much less able to compensate for their loss by buying products from somewhere else. Protecting biodiversity is not about ideology, but about a very practical question of survival and quality of life.
Because the climate, pollution, water, energy and biodiversity crises reinforce each other, they cannot be solved separately. Renowned science commentator Jared Diamond said there is no single most important environmental crisis, and that we need to deal with all these problems at the same time because any one of them could do us in.
Even so, we should pay more attention to the biodiversity crisis — a crisis of life itself.
Bruno Walther is a visiting assistant professor of environmental science at the College of Public Health and Nutrition, Taipei Medical University.
During the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum’s third leadership summit on Aug. 31, US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun said that the US wants to partner with the other members of the Quadrilaterial Security Dialogue — Australia, India and Japan — to establish an organization similar to NATO, to “respond to ... any potential challenge from China.” He said that the US’ purpose is to work with these nations and other countries in the Indo-Pacific region to “create a critical mass around the shared values and interest of those parties,” and possibly attract more countries to establish an alliance comparable to
On August 24, 2020, the US Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, made an important statement: “The Pentagon is Prepared for China.” Going forward, how might the Department of Defense team up with Taiwan to make itself even more prepared? No American wants to deter the next war by a paper-thin margin, and no one appreciates the value of strategic overmatch more than the war planners at the Pentagon. When the stakes are this high, you can bet they want to be super ready. In recent months, we have witnessed a veritable flood of high-level statements from US government leaders on
China has long sought shortcuts to developing semiconductor technologies and local supply chains by poaching engineers and experts from Taiwan and other nations. It is also suspected of stealing trade secrets from Taiwanese and US firms to fulfill its ambition of becoming a major player in the global semiconductor industry in the next decade. However, it takes more than just money and talent to build a semiconductor supply chain like the one which Taiwan and the US started to cultivate more than 30 years ago. Amid rising trade and technology tensions between the world’s two biggest economies, Beijing has become
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new