The decision by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to allow Drax Plc’s planning application for the UK’s largest ever gas-fired power capacity will lock the UK into dirty energy production for at least another two decades, climate campaigners have said.

Drax Power Station is already the world’s biggest biomass plant, burning over 7 million tonnes of imported wood pellets, many of them sourced from the clearcutting of forests that lie at the heart of a global biodiversity hotspot in the southern USA. 

Read: ‘You burn our trees to power your homes’

Drax now wants to replace its remaining two coal-fired units with far larger gas units. This will be the UK’s largest gas power capacity to date. For this project, Drax is asking for substantial new subsidies in addition to the £2.16 million a day it already receives for burning wood.

Public money

In April this year campaigners handed in a petition of over 96,000 signatures and an open letter signed by 92 organisations internationally to the then Secretary of State for BEIS, Greg Clark, asking him to reject Drax’s proposal. Drax was also targeted by protesters in July this year. 

Frances Howe from Biofuelwatch said: “We are disappointed by the Secretary of State’s decision. Drax already burns more wood than any other power station in the world, and now it will return to its former position as the UK’s largest fossil fuel burner, too.

“The public money Drax will require for this project needs to be spent on renewable power from wind, waves or sun.”

Ash Hewitson from Reclaim the Power said: “The Government has shown that it listens more to dirty polluting energy companies than the communities it claims to represent.

“Thousands of people have said that they do not want new gas infrastructure, including by taking to the streets and taking direct action at power stations. Today’s decision has no social license.”

Environmental injustice

Drax Power Station calls itself the ‘world’s largest decarbonisation project’; but in reality it is fuelling environmental injustice, accelerating the climate crisis, and driving forest destruction.

Last year, Drax burned over 14 million tonnes of wood from biodiverse forests in the Southern US and the Baltic States. Drax also burned 2 million tonnes of coal, and is expanding into another dirty energy source – gas.

But Drax isn’t just a disaster for the climate. Communities have suffered deeply from Drax’s burning, from the siting of wood pellet mills in US towns already at the sharp end of environmental injustice, to the entire villages destroyed and poisoned from coal mining in Russia.

Drax is representative of a centralised energy model and a wider extractivist system that pushes up energy bills for the poorest, rips control from communities, and values forest destruction over forest protection.

Drax’s plans for large-scale Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) continue a corporate, colonial mindset of people and rights as expendable in the pursuit of endless profit and growth.

Get involved

Mark Knowles from a regional Green Party branch – who initiated the petition against the project – added: “This is a step in the wrong direction on climate change.

If the government was serious about meeting its commitments under the Paris Climate Agreement and staying within 1.5 degrees of global warming, it would have rejected Drax’s application.”

Activists will hold a demonstration outside the Department for BEIS on 9 October at 12.30 to highlight Drax’s contributions to environmental injustice through biomass, coal and gas. Demonstrators will hear from those who have suffered from Drax and call out its crimes with chants, signs and singing. 

This Author 

Marianne Brooker is The Ecologist’s content editor. This article is based on press releases from Biofuel Watch. 

Actress Juliet Stevenson is among the celebrities taking part in the Extinction Rebellion protests currently taking place at Trafalgar Square as part of the “international rebellion”, along with actress Ruby Wax and models Daisy Lowe and Arizona Muse.

The Metropolitan Police said that as of 12.30pm today, they had made 135 arrests as thousands of activists poured onto the streets of London, shutting down government buildings and nearby roads.

Ms Stevenson, the Truly Madly Deeply star, said: “It’s a very wonderful action today. We can’t any longer allow governments to do this so we have to make it clear that there is no more time.

Nuisance

“There’s a long tradition in this country of people saying governments are not acting, we have to make them realise how urgent this is. I’m optimistic about the energy there is amongst people to act but I’m not hugely optimistic about government stepping up to the plate.

“They’re [the government] talking about 2050 and scientists have said we have 12 years before we’re in a place where the climate is irreversibly damaging our planet and we won’t be able to repair or fix it. We need to make them realise that time is not on our side at the moment.”

Ms Stevenson said she was delighted to see so much engagement from young people and that her own son was at the protests and working for Extinction Rebellion.

The Metropolitan Police said that by 8am on Monday there had been 21 arrests in connection with the Extinction Rebellion protests.

The arrests are in addition to those over the weekend, with eight people arrested on Saturday – seven on suspicion of conspiracy to cause public nuisance, and the eighth on suspicion of obstructing police. All those arrested on Saturday have been released under investigation. 

Paint

On Sunday one woman and two men were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to cause public nuisance. The woman has been released under investigation, the men remain in custody, the police said.

Extinction Rebellion protesters playing steel drums marched from Parliament Square to Trafalgar Square where they plan to kick off two weeks of disruption in the city.

A 25-year-old teacher from London who took the week off to join the protests said: “The plan is to shut down the whole of London. The issue of climate change is an issue for everyone, and it’s clear we can’t leave it to the politicians.

“I booked the week off work for this. The school kids are out protesting too. Everyone is.”

Police are searching anyone suspected of carrying paint.

Love

Extinction Rebellion said protesters from the XR Peace group arrested as they blocked Victoria Embankment outside the Ministry of Defence included 81-year-old Sarah Lasenby, a Quaker and retired social worker from Oxford.

She said: “For 21 years my main concern has been to help get rid of UK nuclear weapons. I am still keen to do this but once I came across XR I was so relieved to have something I could do about the ghastly state we have got our planet in.”

And she said: “The whole thing is so urgent that it is imperative the Government should take serious actions and put pressure on other states and Global Powers to radically reduce the use of fossil fuels even if this means we need to reduce our comfort at home and so much flying.”

Protesters have been carried away by police officers on Horse Guards Road. An onlooker said he saw at least five people arrested after they refused to let a van through the road.

Video of the moment shows people being carried off to chants of “we love you” from other protesters. Protesters have blocked Victoria Street and are now lying under a van while surrounded by police.

Passionately

An onlooker said: “Looks like lots of mini protests rather than a centralised area, huge range of people – if anything mainly middle-aged people.”

Extinction Rebellion protester Caroline Hartnell, 69, from London, said she will be attending the protests every day.

She said: “This is the start of two weeks of action. We are going to be surrounding all the Government ministries.

“We are going to be putting pressure on them what they are going to do mend the climate emergency, because we are running out of time.

“I have seven grandchildren and the youngest is three. I feel passionately for them (and worry) there is not going to be a world for them to live in.”

Oxford University student Fergus Green from St Albans was also amid the growing crowd of drummers, stewards and flag-waving protesters planning to “shut down Westminster”.

Yoga

He said: “People are coming from all over the country. I’m here to force the Government to take action on climate change. I’m a student, I should be at uni – my term has started. But I’m here to take action. People are missing work and school to be here.”

Police have managed to break into an Extinction Rebellion van on Westminster Bridge and have arrested the driver, an onlooker said.

James Bickerton told the PA news agency: “Protesters blocked Westminster Bridge with two vans and started building a stage. Police have broken into one van and surrounded the other (at least two arrests) but still a lot of protesters blocking the bridge.”

Two groups of protesters have blocked Westminster Bridge. One man climbed onto a van parked in the middle of the bridge, surrounded by police officers, and lay down on the roof, while other protesters did a yoga class in the rain.

Victoria Embankment remained closed outside the Ministry of Defence.

Arrests

And Victoria Street close to Westminster Abbey, and side roads by Methodist Central Hall, are being held by another group of protesters with banners that read “tell the truth” and “no coal mines, no fracking”.

On the first day of the two-week international protest, Extinction Rebellion protesters have made their way to Whitehall waving “XR” logo flags and marched with a steel drum band.

Protesters have said they plan to “shut down the whole of Westminster” and surround the ministries.

Hundreds have already filled Trafalgar Square and plan to shut down roads around Parliament Square and Whitehall.

Police are stationed outside the Houses of Parliament and have already made 21 arrests.

Camp

Two protesters have mounted a Land Rover and trailer at Trafalgar Square roundabout, one wearing a gas mask and trench coat and the other with an XR flag and a sign reading “stop ecoside”.

Police have surrounded the vehicle but have not moved the protesters.

Extinction Rebellion protesters are now performing yoga on Westminster bridge. James Bickerton said: “Protesters on Westminster Bridge have lit an incense candle and got mats out for yoga. It’s all gone very rainbow rhythms.”

Protesters are lying under a trailer parked in the middle of the road at Trafalgar Square. Others stacked a pile of items including a kitchen sink, pans, and camp chairs beside them on the pavement.

This Article

This article is based on copy provided by PA.

Dialectic is a process of discovery and pedagogy that takes place between two individuals using logical argument, according to Aristotle. To an extent, this is the same as the familiar “thesis, antithesis, synthesis” to which Aristotle’s dialectic is often reduced, but that formulation actually originated with Johann Fichte (1762 – 1814). 

Dialectic is the same as rhetoric in that it is an intellectual activity aimed at changing minds, and is the same as logic in that it relies on reasoning to validate (or invalidate) arguments. It differs from rhetoric in that only logic should be deployed to persuade, and that it is aimed at a particular individual rather than a group, or a crowd. It differs from logic in that it is not concerned with the pursuit of absolute truth, or first principles, but in convincing a person of an argument. 

Read ‘The nature of Aristotle’s dialectic’ here. 

Dr Evans explains that while dialectic is concerned with the individual and her perspective, logic is not: “Pure logic is not concerned with the vagaries of the individual’s reaction, and indeed in its search for objectivity it is positively prohibited from considering the individual as such.” (75) He adds later: “Aristotle is aware that the conditions of the exercise of dialectical skill are such that, although the dialectician is indeed required to argue his case purely by logical means, he must at the same time not ignore the various ways in which circumstances which are external to his argument can affect its character.” (92) 

Method

So what is the method of dialectic? Dialectic involves a dialogue between two people. These individuals do need an understanding of the logical method of reasoning – set out more fully here – and need to be seriously and genuinely engaged in the process. The concern is validating arguments on both sides. Dialectic is not a method for bad actors or the resolution of primarily emotional disputes. 

Aristotle asserts that dialectic does use logic to advance knowledge through the validation of arguments and through deductive reasoning through inference. “[W]e need to distinguish how many kinds of dialectical argument there are,” he writes in Topics. “One kind is induction, another is deduction. Here we discuss deduction, which is the essence of logic. 

The aim of both logic and dialectic is to validate the definition of things (indeed, everything from abstract concepts to physical objects). Logic seeks a true, absolute definition. Dialectic aims to validate or invalidate definitions presented in argument.

The beginning of any process of definition (of demonstration, and of argument) is actually very simple: we start with “this is the same is that,” and “this is different to that”: the human is the same as the bonobo in this way; the human is different to the bonono in this way. Dr Evans states: [T]here are certain things – same, other etc. – with which the dialectician is characteristically concerned…” (38). This is because ‘same’ and ‘different’ are the foundations of definition (of cognition and categorisation), which is how we come to recognise and define the things around us.

In both dialectic and logic, any one thing can only be defined by its relation to other things. The basic structure of a proposition includes a subject (the thing being defined) and an object (the thing it is defined in relation to) is. A proposition can be used as a premise in an argument, and through argument we can infer a new proposition, which is the conclusion. 

Definition 

Dialectic and logic both arrive at definitions by identifying the unique properties that belong to the subject – the properties that really make it what it is as opposed to superfluous detail, which Aristotle calls the accidents.

For example, in a definition humans we would want to include language, but not necessarily fingernails. It is the use of language that differentiates humans from other apes. Both humans and apes have fingernails. Language is a unique property in this instance, fingernails are accidents. 

Dialectic, like logic, is concerned with propositions that include a subject and a predicate, and the relationship between the two. The subject is the thing that is defined in any proposition. The predicate is the object and the relation to that object that defines the subject. An example of such a statement is, “all humans are animals”.

Here, the human is the subject and animal the predicate. We know that those properties that are universal to animals (for example, the property of needing to eat to survive) will also be true for us humans. The object of the sentence – the animal – is used to describe the subject – the human. Both unique properties and accidents are predicates, but only the former is useful in establishing a higher level definition. 

To define something skillfully, we need to understand the wider class of things to which our subject belongs. This, in Aristotle’s terminology, is its genus. A genus is a class or category of things that share the same property. The genus ‘vehicle’ will include modes of transport including busses, cars and bicycles.

We then need to establish what properties distinguish it from the other things in its genus. These properties Aristotle calls differentia. The subject that is differentiated within a genus is the species (from specific). The bus is a public mode of transport used by many, the car a private use of transport used by a few.

The mode of ownership and use differentiates the specific car, and specific bus, which are both in the genus, or category, vehicle. Dr Evans states: “Aristotle argues that only if the definition contains the genus and the differentia, can it indicate the essence of the subject” (114). We define our subject by placing it into the correct place in a wider system of categories. 

Essence

A true definition of any subject states its essence: the essence is those properties that allow us to categorise it in its genus, and then differentiate it from other members of that genus. We arrive at the essence of any thing through this double-sided process of classification. This is why for Aristotle the pursuit of the essence of things is primary and paramount. As Dr Evans writes: “[T]he requirement that the definition indicate the essence is an unargued premiss to the discussion in Topics…elsewhere in Aristotle’s work the axiomatic character of this requirement can be seen.” (107). 

We can see here the influence of Aristotle’s interest in biology, and the natural world provides a useful range of things that can give us concrete examples of what we mean. Let’s begin with what is most familiar: ourselves.

Humans are a species. The species human belongs to the genus of ape. One of the many differences between humans and other animals is that we have a complex language. Therefore, through this double process of establishing our genus (the general group that we belong to) and our differentia (that which is specific to our species) we are able to develop a definition of human: an ape with language. This definition describes the essence of what it means to be human. 

The process of defining a thing through its genus and species is derived from, but not limited to, the practice of biology. We can use the same process to define concepts, such as “true” and “false”. These terms appear to be entirely the opposite of each other. However, both are concerned with the validity of whatever they happen to describe.

They belong to the genus of statements about validity. Yet the differentia is one is positive and one is negative. The definition of “true” is therefore “a positive statement about validity”. This provides us with the essence of what we mean by true. 

Syllogism

In dialectics, and in logic, when we define any object we are not required to fix the genus and the species. The choice we make depends on what exactly we are trying to define and – in dialectic – for whom.

For example, we can also say that all humans are systems. Here, we may be concerned about universal claims about all systems. These claims would logically be true of humans. The terms we chose in our propositions depend very much on what we are hoping to establish. With dialectics (but not logic) it also depends on the premises that we can agree with our interlocutor.

This process of establishing definitions and validating arguments is enhanced through the use of the syllogism. (A longer definition of syllogism is provided in this Endoxa article). In short, a syllogism is a method of arriving at (or inferring) a valid conclusion from two valid premises.

There is – Aristotle establishes – a particularly useful from of syllogism where the first premise states the general (or universal); the second states the specific (the individual) and the third the relationship between the two (the particular). The classic syllogism would look like this:

1. All humans are animals

2. Eve is a human

3. Eve is an animal

If we agree that the premise that “all humans are animals” and also that “Eve is a human” then we can infer that the statement “Eve is an animal” is valid. This is the basis of formal logic. Dialectic uses the syllogism because it is compelling: it is highly likely to convince the person you are in conversation with, whereas logic utilises the same technique for slightly different purposes – the pursuit of absolute truth.

A sortie – a long chain of syllogisms – is the aim of rational thought. Aristotle argues in Topics: “[F]or it is impossible to demonstrate something if one does not start from the special foundations and link one’s reasoning in a chain until one reaches what is at the end” (34/35).

Premise

This begs the question. What are these “special foundations”. For the syllogism, we need premises. Dialectic begins with “the securing of premises”. As we can see above, valid premises should provide us with valid conclusions, an invalid premise can conversely result in an invalid conclusion.

The house we build is only as sound as the foundations on which it sits. The securing of premises – according to Aristotle – includes 1. The detection of ambiguity; 2. The discovery of differences, and 3. The consideration of similarities. This follows tidily from our exploration of definition, above.

In this article I have attempted to give a brief definition and overview of Aristotle’s dialectic, setting out its aims, scope and method. Now that we have a working understanding of dialectic I want to follow Dr Evans in developing a dialectical definition of dialectic itself. This involves establishing the genus, or category, to which it belongs and setting out what properties define all the members of this category. Then I want to discuss how it is different to the other members of the category – it’s differentia. This will focus on the difference between dialectic and logic. 

The difference between dialectic and logic can be briefly and broadly explained by the fact logic (such as pure logic, formal logic) seeks absolute truth developed from true premises and sound argument, where dialectic seeks to persuade and calibrate arguments from the foundation of common sense.

Dialectic is therefore concerned with what people already understand, what is absolutely understandable, and how a person can guide her interlocutor from the first to the second position.

In the next article I will establish the essence of Aristotle’s dialectic.

This Author 

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist. This article is part of the Endoxa.review project. 

Extinction Rebellion activists have held an “opening ceremony” ahead of two weeks of planned protests across London.

The environmental group plans to shut down key sites, including Westminster and Lambeth bridges, in addition to protests outside key Government departments.

More than a thousand people attended an “opening ceremony” at Marble Arch on Sunday evening, featuring meditation and dancing as “inspiration” prior to the protests.

Willing

Groups of artists held a procession around Marble Arch as the protesters were told to “surround” the upcoming demonstrations with love.

Extinction Rebellion spokesperson Zoe Jones, 24, said Marble Arch will be used throughout the two-week protests as other sites are moved between.

She said: “We’re here to pressure the Government into action because we can’t wait any longer.

“The next two weeks will involve marches and family friendly events, there’ll be some spicier actions as well and some will be arrestable.

“We’ve had 4,000 rebels sign up and say they are willing to be arrested – which is a huge increase on the number arrested in April of 1,000.

Now

“The public perception of XR is that we’re disrupting ordinary people’s lives by blocking roads and that’s why this time we’re taking our protests to the seat of power and taking it to Westminster.

“We are on the public’s side and we are ordinary people who are extremely concerned.”

Grace Maddrell, 14, told PA : “I’m here today because I am angry that no one is doing anything to save my future.

“I’m scared for that future and I’m here out of love for life and the animals that have gone extinct and everyone’s voice that has been silenced because they were not heard in time.”

“People are rebelling in these numbers because they realise the time to address this is right now, not in the year 2050, or even 2025. Scientists are despairing because we are almost out of time. They are telling us to panic.

Shameful

“The weather won’t wait for politics, and so we will gather in Westminster and stay until the Government tells the truth that families across this country need to know.

“This includes the terrifying likelihood that our supermarkets will fail us because the food system is too fragile to continually withstand the shocks of extreme weather happening in other parts of the world.”

Many protesters attended Sunday’s opening with tents and supplies in preparation for the upcoming fortnight.

The group is expecting several thousand people to target different government departments, Downing Street and the Houses of Parliament over the next two weeks, according to a Extinction Rebellion spokesman.

Chay, a 23-year-old student from Bristol, said: “We’re here to hold our government to account for the shameful disregard for the climate crisis and wider environmental issues we’re facing at the current time.

Policed

“We have many, many actions going on over the next two weeks, I won’t give too much away as I want to leave something to the imagination.

“But we are going to be focusing heavily on Westminster because we feel that our elected officials have let us down time and time again and we think it’s time they learned that we are here for the long run.”

On Saturday the group criticised the Metropolitan Police for alleged pre-emptive arrests and the confiscation of equipment including gazebos and beanbags.

Sunday’s protest was policed by two vans of officers who were stationed by Marble Arch, a small distance from the main protesters.

Fair

Ms Jones added: “There is a misconception with Extinction Rebellion that to be involved you have to be arrested but that is not the case.”

She continued: “At the moment we know we have 11 years to sort out our greenhouse emissions and that means in the next 18 months we have to have radical political change and the one way we have seen in history to get radical political change is to do non-violent political action.”

The protesters ranged in age from small children to the elderly, with many referencing the urgency of climate change for young people.

Grace added: “If you look at the people who are in government most of them are a lot older and they’re not going to be alive when this happens and they should be listening to us because they don’t have to worry about it but I do and it’s not fair.”

This Author

Jess Glass is a reporter with PA.

More than two-fifths of UK species including animals, birds and butterflies have seen significant declines in recent decades, a major study shows.

The State of Nature report, which draws on scientific monitoring since the 1970s, warns there is no let-up in net losses for the UK’s wildlife.

More intensive agriculture is still driving declines in farmland nature, while climate change is also having an increasing effect, with average UK temperatures rising by 1C since the 1980s.

Wryneck

Pollution continues to cause problems for natural areas such as streams, despite legislation to curb harmful pollutants, according to the report, which is a collaboration of more than 70 wildlife organisations with government agencies.

Thousands of acres of habitats are being lost to development – although woodland cover has increased, new wetlands have been created, heath and moors restored, and many farmers are farming in nature-friendly ways.

Data on nearly 700 species of land, freshwater and sea animals, fish, birds, butterflies and moths reveals that 41 percent have seen populations decline since 1970, while 26 percent have increased and 33 percent have seen little change.

Among thousands of species, from mammals to plants, assessed on international criteria, 15 percent are threatened with being lost from Britain, including wildcats and greater mouse-eared bats.

Some 133 species have already vanished from Britain’s shores since 1500, the 2019 State of Nature report says, including birds such as the wryneck and serin, which were lost as breeding birds in the 20th century.

Urgently

The study, which comes after similar analyses in 2013 and 2016, also shows that butterfly and moth numbers have been particularly badly hit.

Butterfly numbers have fallen by 17 percent on average and moths by 25 percent. Populations of some butterflies, such as the high brown fritillary and grayling, which need specialised habitats, are down by more than three-quarters since 1970.

The report also highlights successes such as the return of red kites, bitterns, large blue butterflies and beavers to Britain, and the establishment of lady’s slipper orchids at 11 sites in northern England.

Daniel Hayhow, lead author on the report, said: “We know more about the UK’s wildlife than any other country on the planet, and what it is telling us should make us sit up and listen.

“We need to respond more urgently across the board if we are to put nature back where it belongs.”

Dawn chorus

Conservation experts called for more ambitious action, including a strong new set of environmental laws to reverse declines in nature.

Rosie Hails, from the National Trust – the country’s largest private landowner – said: “We are now at a crossroads when we need to pull together with actions rather than words, to stop and reverse the decline of those species at risk, as well as protecting and creating new habitats in which they can thrive.”

Tony Juniper, chairman of government conservation agency Natural England, said there were some grounds for optimism, as he hailed groups and land managers working to help bring species back from the brink.

But he added: “This report is a wake-up call. More needs to be done to achieve the ambitions of the Government’s 25 Year Environment Plan to reverse nature’s decline so that our children can experience and benefit from a richer natural environment.”

Sophie Pavelle, a young conservationist who helped launch the report, said she had felt the loss of nature more acutely this year than any other, with “a dawn chorus less deafening, hedgerows less frantic, bizarre, worrying weather”.

Ambitious

“People protect what they love, and if we can find quirky, empowering ways to encourage young people to connect with nature emotionally and see it as something they can truly champion, only then can we dig deep to find real hope for a brighter, sustained future for our natural world.”

Environment Secretary Theresa Villiers said: “We value our species and ecosystems in their own right, but they also contribute to our wellbeing and economic prosperity.”

She said the Government’s 25-Year Environment Plan marks a step change in ambition for nature, and a new Environment Bill will contain “ambitious measures to address the biggest environment priorities of our age, including restoring and enhancing nature for generations to come”.

This Author

Emily Beament is the PA environment correspondent.

Guy Singh-Watson, founder of organic veg box company Riverford, was joined by local Extinction Rebellion volunteers to pick thousands of surplus sweetcorn cobs to feed activists in London next week.

Riverford has donated around 5,000 cobs to the climate action group, which is due to stage a two-week direct action and mass protest across London and various other cities to step up pressure on the government.

Singh-Watson said: “I am supporting Extinction Rebellion because I want there to be a future for my children, and the billions of other people on this planet. Right now, I see government failing in its responsibility.

“I think we all have a responsibility to do our best for the planet and for future generations.”

Local volunteers

He was joined in the fields by around 10 volunteers from the Totnes branch of Extinction Rebellion, as well as Riverford co-owners, who were undeterred by the rain to pick throughout the day.

The sweetcorn cobs will be delivered to London by Riverford and used to help feed the thousands of activists expected to attend the protests from next week.

Extinction Rebellion has three core asks: for the government to tell the truth; reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025; and establish a Citizen’s Assembly to oversee climate and ecological justice.

This Article 

This article is based on a press release from Riverford. 

Climate change and pollution continue to rise as threats, with severe weather, changing ecosystems and rising temperatures responsible for 33 animal extinctions, while pollution is responsible for 37 extinctions to date, new data shows. 

Agriculture and aquaculture is the biggest threat to endangered species, including the fishing and harvesting of aquatic resources, the production of food and livestock farming. 

A staggering 7,522 species are currently threatened as a result of agriculture and aquaculture, 2,562 of which are critically endangered. The second biggest threat is biological resource use, which could impact 2,406 critically endangered species. 

Animal extinctions

Animal Endangerment Map collates and analyses official conservation reports to reveal the species that are currently classed as extinct, endangered and vulnerable around the world.

The research also shows how conservation efforts have changed over the past decade, showing which countries have experienced the most animal extinction to date. 

In 2019, more than 28,000 species are threatened with extinction worldwide – representing more than a quarter (27 percent) of all assessed species. The United States has experienced the most animal extinction with 237 species reported to have died out prior to 2018, followed by French Polynesia with 59 extinctions, Mauritius with 44 and Australia with 40. 

Every 22 known species of ape are now endangered, and seven primate species are at a particularly high risk of extinction as a result of deforestation, hunting and agriculture. This includes the Roloway monkeys found in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana who have a remaining population size of just 2,000. 

And it’s not just animal extinctions – the US also claimed the highest number of endangered species in 2018 with 1,046, representing a 9.87 percent increase over the past decade. This figure has since risen to 1,064 in 2019, showing a 1.72 percent increase over the past year alone. 

Predicted decline

69 percent of the 494 critically endangered species in the US are predicted to continue to decline in the future, with 48 species expected to suffer as a result of wastewater, industrial and agricultural effluents, rubbish, pollutants and excess energy pollution. This list consists of one plant and 47 animal species, including eight species of bumblebee. 

Australia also experiences a high level of endangerment, with 932 at-risk species reported in 2018, 52 percent of which are also predicted to decline.

Within this number, the list of endangered animals who are predicted to be affected by climate change includes the hawksbill turtle, which has a current estimated population of between 20,000 and 23,000 nesting females. 

With recent research showing that reptiles are particularly susceptible to the harmful effects of plastic pollution and over one million marine animals reportedly killed each year due to plastic debris in the ocean, it’s no surprise that the hawksbill turtle population is declining. Australia

But the US isn’t the only country to have experienced a significant rise in the number of endangered and extinct species over the past decade. Saint Martin has seen a 1,150 percent rise in endangerment since 2008, growing from 4 at-risk species to 50. 

In fact, just four countries have seen a decline (-3 percent or more) in animal endangerment and extinction over the past decade – Uganda, South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands, the Falkland Islands, and Holy See. 

This Article 

This article is based on a press release from the Animal Endangerment Map project. 

To find out which countries have seen the most significant rise in endangerment over the past ten years and to see some of the most threatened species in each location, visit the Animal Endangerment Map here. 

Image: US Fish and Wildlife Service, Flickr. 

There are two major options for climate policy, one is adaptation, a private good – which could be investment in one’s housing to reduce storm damages – the other is a public good, emission reductions, which is policy to reduce global carbon emissions.

The recent debate in climate policy has shifted towards creating an optimal policy mix between the two.

By contrast, we suggest here that emission reductions must be favoured over adaptation if we are to maximize global well-being.  

Economist’s perspective 

Most major international and national governmental bodies seem to increasingly view adaptation as an important contributor to climate policy, if not one of the main potential ‘solutions’ to our climate change problem.

For example, the European Union has placed adaptation highly on its policy agenda in the 2013 EU Strategy on Adaptation; the United Nations Environmental Program developed the National Adaptation Plan which supports countries in their national adaptations; the  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) specifically endorses adaptation together with emissionreductions as an “effective climate policy aimed at reducing the risks of climate change to natural and human systems”; and the UNFCCC promises to channel 100 billion USD for adaptation measures to developing countries through its Green Climate Fund by 2020.

Clearly, all eyes are set on adaptation.

From an economist’s perspective, several critical arguments can be forwarded against adaptation. Firstly, investments in emission reduction benefit everyone while adaptation only benefits the party that undertakes it. For the world as a whole, it is clear that if everyone invests in emission reduction, then the accumulated returns outweigh those of adaptation.

In other words, compared to the cooperative global optimum which should solely consist of emission reductions, undertaking any kind of adaptation, may it be cooperative or unilateral, induces a significant loss to global well-being. The only reason adaptation may be pursued right now is to reduce those climate impacts that are already occuring. 

The unilateral option of adaptation also reduces the incentives to invest in emission reduction and therefore imposes a negative externality on all other countries, leading to more climate change and consequently a greater need to undertake additional climate policy.

In the worst case, adaptation will simply turn out to be a white elephant. It goes without saying that this feedback cycle can lead to significant increases in global warming, to the extent that adaptation can become very costly or even impossible.

Biophysical constraints

There are also significant biophysical and financial constraints to adaptation that make adaptation a particularly weak policy option.

Biophysical constraints tend to be related to natural thresholds that, if once crossed (e.g. desertification), seriously inhibit both nature’s as well as mankind’s ability to adapt.

Financial constraints arise if, for example, poor agricultural households cannot afford to buy the seeds that new climatic conditions require, or to insure themselves sufficiently against greater climate variability; or those needing to migrate have not sufficient funds to do so.  

Finally, there are also social limits to adaptation. Who wants to live with three meter high flood barriers around the house? Which societies can really easily cope with large-scale climate migrants especially if there are strong cultural differences?   

These arguments tilt the scale away from adaptation and towards emission reductions. Additionally, they imply that accepting adaptation as part of our climate policy mix also entails that we accept climate change and its consequences for our future generations; that we accept our failure to coherently establish international cooperation in order to reduce carbon emissions; and that we accept to `agree’ on a global policy that is far from the optimal one.

Allowing a large role for adaptation simply means we failed in following the simple Kindergarten Rule of Sustainable Development – cleaning up our own mess. 

Last resort

If policy makers manage to introduce a global cap-and-trade program, or converge on the ‘right’ carbon price, or proceed with sufficiently large Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions, then this should take us close enough to the social optimum such that no, or only very marginal, adaptation efforts will be necessary. 

However, if policy makers are unable to agree and to commit to the globally optimal policy, then we have to accept that we as human beings are incapable of achieving the level of coordination that problems like climate change demand from us.

Only then should we allow adaptation to play a part in our climate policy, while we, at the same time, have to always remember that this is neither optimal nor, despite the IPCC’s claim,  effective or desirable. 

Instead – and this is an important change in rhetoric that must be acknowledged – adaptation is a last resort and only a testimony of mankind’s inability to cooperate.

This change in rhetoric would also make room for more stringent views on adaptation, for example that adaptation is only acceptable for countries if this does not negatively impact their emission reduction efforts. 

This Author 

Ingmar Schumacher is Professor of environmental economics at the IPAG Business School in France.

Schumacher’s paper, ‘Climate Policy Must Favor Mitigation Over Adaptation’ is forthcoming in Environmental & Resource Economics. 

Image: Brigitte Leonie, Flickr.