I will be pleased to see the monarch listed as threatened as it certainly is. There is a much larger issue, however, which is the huge number of insects species that are threatened or endangered. This problem cannot be approached by listing one species at a time. It will require that broader issues like excessive pesticide and herbicide use be addressed. A good start would be to ban neonicotinoid pesticides since they are systemic poisons that make an entire plant, including the pollen and nectar, toxic to insects. These compounds have been banned by the European Union for a number of years.
You are so right, Ron. I recently read entomologist Dave Goulson's book Silent Earth and it was eye-opening. He's based in the UK so of course the EU regs no longer apply there, and his take is that neonics are decimating English insects. I just saw something in the Guardian about the UK govt possibly approving them again next year.
Re: monarchs. I live in Toronto. This year I saw zero monarchs. What a difference from my childhood 50+ years ago, when I regularly saw a kaleidescope of monarchs in parks, playgrounds, school fields. Monarchs were omni-present. Now they are not.
Whether they are threatened or endangered, monarchs are a species at risk that need our help in protecting them. It might be helpful to start banning certain pesticides still in use. And of course plant milkweed where you can.
Excellent work, Rebecca. Like you I've been watching the weird relationship between the language of "climate" and all other environmental issues for a while. The media made climate change and environmentalism synonymous (I'm tempted to say that CO2 took all the oxygen out of the room...) by virtue of neglecting other issues, but what we're seeing in the Post's Climate Coach round-up is I think a weak push-back. The Times' climate newsletter does the same thing. They're either taking a wimpy editorial approach to the reality that biodiversity loss is just as important to report on, or they're gently reminding their climate-obsessed readers of that fact. At the Guardian, meanwhile, they have an amazing range of biodiversity loss coverage, esp. in their Age of Extinction section. I'd like to see the Post and Times create a similar newsletter and push it hard as a twin to the climate coverage.
I like your Cerberus metaphor. I'm partial to the Planetary Boundaries concept, but it's a heavy lift for discussion. (Sidenote: Coincidentally, HCR's sister Katharine Richardson is one of the primary researchers behind the planetary boundaries work.)
I totally agree, nature is too often being subsumed into climate in all types of reporting. Also, nature is too often now seen as being fair game for destruction in the building of 'green' infrastructure, which really speaking is only addressing the climate part of green.
I will be pleased to see the monarch listed as threatened as it certainly is. There is a much larger issue, however, which is the huge number of insects species that are threatened or endangered. This problem cannot be approached by listing one species at a time. It will require that broader issues like excessive pesticide and herbicide use be addressed. A good start would be to ban neonicotinoid pesticides since they are systemic poisons that make an entire plant, including the pollen and nectar, toxic to insects. These compounds have been banned by the European Union for a number of years.
You are so right, Ron. I recently read entomologist Dave Goulson's book Silent Earth and it was eye-opening. He's based in the UK so of course the EU regs no longer apply there, and his take is that neonics are decimating English insects. I just saw something in the Guardian about the UK govt possibly approving them again next year.
Re: monarchs. I live in Toronto. This year I saw zero monarchs. What a difference from my childhood 50+ years ago, when I regularly saw a kaleidescope of monarchs in parks, playgrounds, school fields. Monarchs were omni-present. Now they are not.
Whether they are threatened or endangered, monarchs are a species at risk that need our help in protecting them. It might be helpful to start banning certain pesticides still in use. And of course plant milkweed where you can.
An interesting perspective on how (not) to talk about climate change.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/climate-advocates-finally-won-in-wa-how-by-not-talking-about-climate/
Excellent work, Rebecca. Like you I've been watching the weird relationship between the language of "climate" and all other environmental issues for a while. The media made climate change and environmentalism synonymous (I'm tempted to say that CO2 took all the oxygen out of the room...) by virtue of neglecting other issues, but what we're seeing in the Post's Climate Coach round-up is I think a weak push-back. The Times' climate newsletter does the same thing. They're either taking a wimpy editorial approach to the reality that biodiversity loss is just as important to report on, or they're gently reminding their climate-obsessed readers of that fact. At the Guardian, meanwhile, they have an amazing range of biodiversity loss coverage, esp. in their Age of Extinction section. I'd like to see the Post and Times create a similar newsletter and push it hard as a twin to the climate coverage.
I like your Cerberus metaphor. I'm partial to the Planetary Boundaries concept, but it's a heavy lift for discussion. (Sidenote: Coincidentally, HCR's sister Katharine Richardson is one of the primary researchers behind the planetary boundaries work.)
I totally agree, nature is too often being subsumed into climate in all types of reporting. Also, nature is too often now seen as being fair game for destruction in the building of 'green' infrastructure, which really speaking is only addressing the climate part of green.