Greening the apocalypse

Climate change should be countered by working with nature rather than relying on untried technology

Helen Phillips
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 18 June 2009 22.30 BST

Today is a significant one for our thinking about climate change, with the latest government ­projections now suggesting that average summer temperatures will ­increase by as much as 6C, with peaks in London over 40C.
Even under the old scenarios we were looking at a radical alteration in our ­climate, and we have already had a taste of the potential effects – the heat wave of 2003, for instance, resulted in the death of more than 2,000 people in Britain. By the 2040s, that could be a normal summer. And floods like those in 2007, which cost about £3bn, will be far more commonplace.
These changes will also have an enormous impact on our wildlife. Parts of our green and pleasant land could become dry and dusty within decades, and some of our native species will face a major struggle for survival.
In the face of these challenges the imperative of conservation is no longer preservation: it's about adaptation and enabling the environment to function naturally. In the process we may have to accept that some of our wildlife, especially species at the edge of their range, will leave us.
A few animals, like the capercaillie, mountain ringlet or mountain hare, are facing extinction if climate change takes hold in the way that is predicted. But most wildlife will adapt to the climate if we help it – by improving habitats or managing landscapes so species can migrate in step with the climate. And we have already seen new species from overseas colonising the UK – little egrets are now established, turtles are more commonly sighted off our coastline and butterflies are moving in from Europe.
To some, a healthy natural environment may seem a luxury when society is faced with major threats. Many will argue that we need to invest more heavily in defences and to put the environment on the back burner – and we may have no choice but to protect vulnerable communities. But as the default solution that cannot be the way forward. If we do not work with nature to a much greater degree we are doomed to failure in the fight against climate change.
To cope with climate change we have to allow natural processes within the environment to function and resist the interference of the last 50 years. For instance, peat bogs are the most important store of carbon in the UK, storing more than all the forests of Germany and France combined; and saltmarsh protects hundreds of miles of the coastline at no cost. The buffering benefits provided by coastal habitats like saltmarsh and sand dunes have been estimated at more than £1bn a year.
Together, land and the oceans absorb around half of all greenhouse gas emissions. Urban green spaces help cool built-up areas by up to 4C and better protected upland rivers can increase the supply of fresh drinking water. Conserving a healthy natural environment is therefore not only morally correct, it is also cost-effective action preparing our nation for the effects of global warming.
Viewed in this light we are ill-prepared for the challenges ahead. We have put in place some spectacularly high hurdles in the way of our ability to respond to environmental change.
Our coastline is "defended" by concrete barriers that cannot adapt to rising sea levels and may make erosion worse. We have overgrazed many peatlands, and overexploited farmland. We have overfished seas so that fish stocks may crash. On the land, development, pollution and agriculture have forced species to retreat to isolated habitats with no room to move when climate change hits.
Protecting and working with nature makes economic sense and can be done now. Continuing to rely on undeveloped technologies as a safety net for climate change would be a disaster.