• “Scientists Agree World Faces Mass Extinction” (CNN)
• “Quarter of Mammals ‘Face Extinction’” (BBC)
• “Half of All Species May Be Extinct in Our Lifetime” (U.S. National Academy of Science)
• “Fastest Mass Extinction in Earth’s History” (Worldwatch)
• “Headlong Drive to Mass Extinction” (Toronto Globe and Mail)
• “Wave of Extinctions Sweeping the Planet” (United Nations)
• “One Quarter of Primates Will be Extinct in 20 Years” (London Times, 2005)
• “One Third of Primates Face Extinction” (BBC, 2002)
So it must be true, an unassuming reader might think. No wonder some people don’t want to have children, the planet is soon doomed and it won’t be a good place to live anymore.
Note that some of these headlines are predictive in nature (“…May Be Extinct…”) while others are written as if the extinction is already under way (“Wave of Extinctions Sweeping the Planet”). This is an important distinction, as we will see later when we consider the case of National Geographic magazine.
I began to study the mass extinction phenomenon after my trip to Nairobi in 1982. There I met the Kenyan conservationist Richard Leakey[3] and the British environmentalist Norman Myers.[4] Both had impeccable credentials and both feared we were causing a mass extinction of wild species. Norman Myers had become a kind of prophet of this belief and gave lectures about the coming collapse around the world . I listened carefully to both men when I met with them and over dinners, and I came away determined to get to the bottom of this subject.
Five major extinctions have occurred during the past 550 million years, since the time of the Cambrian explosion when large, multicellular life forms emerged.[5] These extinctions are clearly documented in the fossil record. During the three billion or so years before that time, when all life was microscopic, unicellular, and aquatic, there is not a sufficient fossil record to distinguish extinction events clearly.
The most devastating extinction known occurred 250 million years ago, marking the end of the Permian era.[6] By this time all the major forms of life that exist today had already developed. The major life forms are called phyla. All vertebrates, that is, animals with backbones, are grouped into the phylum Chordata. Other examples of phyla are mollusks (Mollusca), segmented worms (Annelida), arthropods such as insects and crabs (Arthropoda), corals (Cnidaria), and ferns (Pteridphyta). In the Permian extinction, about 90 percent of all marine species and 70 percent of terrestrial species were exterminated by what was likely either an asteroid impact, massive volcanic eruptions, or a combination of the two. Miraculously, after every major extinction event the number of living species recovered and became even more abundant than they were before the collapse. This is one of the great hallmarks of the evolution of life, particularly during the 560 million years since multicellular life forms developed. As a result, the biological diversity of living things is higher in our era than it has been at any time since life began.
The most recent mass extinction was what we call the dinosaur extinction, which occurred 65 million years ago, but it was much more than a dinosaur extinction. Tens of thousands of species of all life forms were lost in what many scientists believe was the aftermath of an asteroid impact between Florida and the Yucatan.[7] The environmental conditions necessary to cause such a vast extinction were extremely harsh. The sun was largely blocked by atmospheric dust and debris for years. Plant species died out for lack of light and the animals that depended on them died out with them. Nothing remotely resembling this is occurring today.
As with many catastrophe theories there is, however, a grain of truth to the current mass extinction theory. Humans are known to have caused a large number of extinctions. This phenomenon began tens of thousands of years ago as we developed tools and weapons. In Australia, the extinction of most large mammals coincided with the arrival of humans about 50,000 years ago. Similarly, the arrival of humans in the New World (the Western Hemisphere) about 15,000 years ago is strongly correlated with the extinction of mammoths, mastodons, saber-toothed tigers, and many other large mammals that had evolved long before humans arrived on the scene. Interestingly, this pattern did not occur in sub-Saharan Africa, where our hominid ancestors evolved over millions of years and where the native wildlife had the opportunity to adapt to humans as they first threw rocks and then spears.
In more modern times, a considerable number of extinctions have occurred as a result of human activity. These fall into three categories:
• Overhunting and eradication. In other words killing an entire species with clubs, spears, and guns. The dodo bird and the passenger pigeon were victims of overhunting for food; the Carolina parakeet, the only parrot that was native to North America, was eradicated by farmers because it ate their crops. The parakeets came in large flocks and as the farmer shot them one at a time the remaining birds circled around the growing heap of dead fellows until the last one was shot. Not a very good survival strategy in the face of a farmer with a gun. The evolution of human technology overwhelmed millions of years of parakeet evolution in a few decades. The species was pronounced extinct in 1939.[8]
• Conversion of native forests and other ecosystems to vast areas of farmland. About one-third of the original area of forest has been cleared and converted for agricultural use during the past 10,000 years. Most of this clearing has taken place in the past 200 years. Some species of plants, which can’t easily migrate like birds and mammals, disappeared when their habitats were transformed to produce food for a growing human population.
• The introduction of exotic species. In particular, when Europeans colonized Australia, New Zealand, and many smaller islands in the Pacific and elsewhere, they brought with them rats, cats, foxes, snakes, and diseases not native to those places. Some species of native animals could not defend themselves from these new predators and diseases and were exterminated by them. This resulted in a pulse of extinctions as the most vulnerable native species succumbed.
There are well-documented lists of species that have become extinct due to these three human activities. The rate of extinction has slowed considerably in recent decades, partly because the most vulnerable species are already extinct, and partly because there are recovery programs in place to prevent currently endangered species from going extinct. But as the human population continues to grow there will be increasing pressure on vulnerable species.
Most overhunting for land animals and birds is now mainly an issue of illegal hunting and poaching. Tigers are poached for their hides, birds are taken for the pet trade and for their feathers, and rhinos are killed for the alleged aphrodisiacal power of their powdered horns. Ending these practices requires increased enforcement of hunting regulations and education about endangered species.
Overfishing of marine species is often done legally in international waters where there are no catch limits, or if there are limits, it may occur due to insufficient policing. While many fish species have been severely overfished, it is unlikely they could be driven to extinction, as it is virtually impossible to catch every last fish. Fish and other marine species are protected by the fact that they are underwater and much more difficult to detect than species that live on the land. Marine mammals are generally well protected, and even though Japan stubbornly insists on continuing to hunt whales in Antarctica, this will not lead to the extinction of any whale species.
One of the best examples of species loss due to clearing land for farming can be found in the Wheatbelt of Western Australia. The region around the city of Perth was extensively cleared over 100 years ago when there was little concern for endangered species or extinction, especially of plant species. Only about 5 percent of the original natural area remains today. There were many unique plants and animals in the region and they suffered from the combined impact of habitat loss and predatory species, which European settlers introduced. At least six species of mammals disappeared and many plant s
pecies are now critically endangered.[9] In recent decades a great effort has been made to prevent further extinctions by protecting the remaining natural areas and controlling introduced predators. These recovery programs have largely been successful, and they demonstrate that when we set our mind to it we can prevent extinction and even bring some species back to a healthy population size.[10]
The region of Brazil called the Cerrado is one of the most biodiverse areas on earth. It is largely savannah, open grasslands with large wooded areas. The region, which is three times the size of Texas, was once thought to be marginal or useless for agriculture due to nutritional deficiencies in the soil. Due to advances in agronomy, it has become one of the largest areas of agricultural expansion, allowing Brazil to surpass the United States in soybean production.
The Cerrado is home to 935 species of birds and nearly 300 species of mammals as well as more than 10,000 species of vascular plants. Some of these species, such as the Cerrado fox, jaguar, and maned wolf, are already listed as endangered. A wide range of environmental and conservation groups are focused on the Cerrado, working to prevent further clearing for agriculture. The state of Mato Grosso, which encompasses the largest part of the Cerrado, has established a number of large protected areas. The federal government has also intervened, creating protected areas and large reserves for the exclusive use of indigenous people, who tend not to clear land for farming. As a result, no “great extinction” will occur in the Cerrado.
The Brazilian Cerrado will no doubt fare much better than the Australian Wheatbelt because the Cerrado is being developed in an era when concern for endangered species and extinction is almost universally shared. But both these examples highlight the fact that habitat loss caused by clearing land for farming is the biggest threat to biodiversity today. This is especially true in the tropical developing countries where populations are growing and biodiversity is highest.
There are a number of key elements that will prevent most endangered species from becoming extinct if they are adopted. First and foremost is the establishment of protected areas, some of which are large enough to provide sufficient habitat for large predators. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) works to ensure representative ecosystems are protected around the world, especially in “biodiversity hotspots,” where large numbers of unique species live. Second, there must be proactive programs aimed at individual species in danger of becoming extinct. We now have a great deal of experience with species recovery programs and will no doubt get better as we learn more about what works and what doesn’t. Third, we must recognize that intensive agricultural methods produce more food on less land, thereby reducing the amount of land cleared for farming. This means encouraging the use of improved technology, chemistry, and genetics where this results in increased yields.
The threat of extinction from introduced species is not as great today as it was in the past, but there is still work to be done, such as eradicating rats from islands that support nesting bird colonies. The main pulse of extinctions in modern times occurred as Europeans colonized islands, including the largest one, Australia. The most susceptible native species were wiped out early on and a vast majority of the ones surviving today will likely continue to meet the test of time. There are still active programs in Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii, and other islands to control or eradicate introduced predators and to protect native species from them.
Forestry and Biodiversity
It is most unfortunate that many leading environmental groups have purposely given the public the impression that forestry or “multinational forestry corporations,” as they are fond of calling the industry, are responsible for the majority of deforestation and species extinction. This is one of the gravest mistakes of groups such as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund. Everyone involved in the science of land use, biodiversity, and endangered species knows that clearing land for farming is the main cause of deforestation, and hence, along with hunting, one of the main threats of extinction.
When you think about it, it is clear the main purpose of forestry is to cause reforestation, the opposite of deforestation. The big environmental groups are likely aware that the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) publishes a lengthy document titled “State of the World’s Forests” every two years. The FAO makes it abundantly clear that clearing land for agricultural purposes causes 95 percent of deforestation and yet Greenpeace and its friends, preying on the public’s love of trees, paints the forest industry as the villain. It turns out deforestation is not an evil plot; it is what we do to grow our food and make room for our cities and towns. It is a basic part of our survival.
The 1992 UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro produced agreements on two of the three key global environmental issues at that time. Consensus documents on climate change and biodiversity conservation have since led to international treaties on both these subjects. Yet agreement on forests eluded the delegates in Rio due to the conflict over whether the emphasis of an agreement should be the sustainable management of forested areas or on the preservation of forests. Those favoring sustainable forest management recognized the fact that wood is by far the most important source of renewable energy and renewable materials. Those who favor a preservationist approach are generally opposed to large-scale forestry and wish to see the majority of forests placed off-limits to commercial activity. The twain has yet to meet on this point as the debate continues, pitting forest companies and anti-forestry activists against each other as governments struggle to find compromise. At the meeting in Rio it was agreed that in order to continue discussions on forests they would create the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Forests.
In March 1996, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) held a media conference in Geneva during the first meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests. They stated that 50,000 species now become extinct every year due to human activity, more than at any time since the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago. Most significantly, WWF stated that the main cause of these extinctions is “commercial logging.”[11] This was largely due, according to then WWF director general Claude Martin, to “massive deforestation in industrialized countries.” The statements made at the media conference were broadcast on radio and television and published in newspapers around the world, giving millions of people the impression that forestry was the main cause of species extinction.
I have tried to determine the basis for this allegation, openly challenging the WWF to provide details of species extinctions caused by logging. It would appear there is no scientific evidence on which to base such a claim. WWF has provided no list of species, nor even one species, that have become extinct due to logging. In particular, the claim of “massive deforestation” in industrialized countries runs counter to information provided by the FAO. According to the FAO, the area of forest in the industrialized world is actually growing by about 0.2% per year, due to the reforestation of land previously cleared for farming.[12]
In May 1996, I wrote to Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, in his capacity as President of WWF International. I said in part:
Myself and many colleagues who specialize in forest science are distressed at recent statements made by WWF regarding the environmental impact of forestry. These statements indicate a break with WWF’s strong tradition of basing their policies on science and reason. To the best of our knowledge, not a single species has become extinct in North America due to forestry.[13]
Prince Philip replied:
I have to admit I did not see the draft of the statement that [WWF spokesperson] Jean-Paul Jeanrenaud was to make at the meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests in Geneva. The first two of his comments [50,000 species per year and the dinosaur comparison] are open to question, but they are not seriously relevant to the issue. However, I quite agree that his third statement [logging being the main cause of extinction] is certainly contentious and the points that you make are all good ones. All I can say is that he was proba
bly thinking of tropical forests when he made the comment.[14]
Since this exchange of correspondence, WWF has changed the way it characterizes the impact of forestry in relation to species extinction. At their Forests for Life conference in San Francisco in May 1997, there was no mention of forestry being the main cause of species extinction. Instead, WWF unveiled a report stating, “three quarters of the continent’s forest ecoregions are threatened with extinction, showing for the first time that it is not just individual species but entire ecosystems that are at risk in North America.”[15] The word extinction normally means something has been completely eliminated. It is entirely beyond reason to suggest three quarters of the forested areas of North America will become extinct as WWF publicly proclaimed .
In August 1998, again using a United Nations forest conference as a platform, WWF held a media conference at which it declared that 8,753 species of trees—10 percent of the world’s total—are “endangered with extinction.”[16] This statement was based on a report titled “World List of Threatened Trees” produced by the World Conservation Monitoring Center with funding from the Dutch government. A reading of the report reveals that of the 8,753 tree species WWF declared “endangered with extinction,” 6,969 are not classified as “endangered” but rather as “vulnerable,” “lower risk,” or “data deficient.”[17]
Two days after the WWF press conference a feature story appeared in the largest British Columbia daily newspaper with the headline, “Three Trees Native to BC Face Extinction.”[18] The three species were: a variety of mountain hemlock, whitebark pine, and western yew. None of these species is listed as endangered in the report. The mountain hemlock is listed as “data deficient,” western yew as “lower risk,” and whitebark pine as “vulnerable” due to an outbreak of fungus that is killing many of the trees in part of their natural range. In a subsequent newspaper article the chief forester for British Columbia stated, “The report doesn’t define any of the B.C. species as in danger of extinction the way the news article noted. So to imply they are at risk of extinction is absolutely incorrect.”[19] A spokesperson for WWF responded to the chief forester, stating, “Inevitably some flexibility slips in.”[20] Indeed!
Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist Page 42