Thank you for another beautifully written and researched critique of yet more extinction porn. UK environmental NGOs just don’t seem to be able to resist a gloom and doom slant, whatever the nature news. It’s all of a part with the ‘mass extinction across the world’ story caused by us terrible humans and their terrible activities. A ‘fact’ endlessly asserted by environmental NGOs, many campaigning scientists and now whole government departments. This big lie must, in NGO eyes, always and everywhere, be reinforced whatever the facts of the matter.

There’s something desperately chauvinist, Royston Vasey and sad, if not stupid, about obsessing and fretting about what happens to a particular species in the UK. What ‘matters to the species’ is not what’s happening here, but what’s happening worldwide. When climate changes, and it always does, species distributions change too. It was, and ever will be, thus. The fact that species numbers go down in the UK often/usually/almost always only matters to the locals who don’t see/catch/eat as many XXX or YYY. This is a personal, parochial concern. Although I admit if one of the birds that I relish seeing goes down in number, I am disappointed, but that doesn’t matter ‘to the species’.

Most environmental groups default to the, ‘any reduction in number is bad’ and a sign of man-made doom. Some can’t resist automatic default to apocalyptic doom even if the numbers are large and/or going up! The RSPB “Handbook of British Birds” (which is excellent) is full of obligatory doom or, more often, doom-lite. So, although there are between “20,000 – 39,000 pairs in the UK…and numbers have increased slightly” of Black Guillemots, various threats are listed under “Conservation” including the obligatory oil pollution and, maybe, a lack of sand eels. Even the Herring Gull, of which there are about 140,000 pairs in the UK, and is hardly threatened by anything, gets a “Some have suffered from botulism – a disease caught from bacteria found on refuse tips and in shallow pools..”. There must always be a manmade threat, however trivial.

Your article beautifully punctures this sad, silly, parochial, neurotic, journalistic tick. Thank you, again.

Sorry, but I do have to point out another contradiction in what you say: “ It’s one of the political success stories of the past 50 years that we’ve got a lot better at cleaning up pollution, protecting endangered species etc.” but you go on to say: “ I imagine that those who do so may sometimes feel discouraged by their lack of success..”

I agree that the last 50 years have brought spectacular successes in regard to environmental awareness and better practice, so I do not understand why one would need to invoke global warming to validate work done in this area: “ a theory of mine that the global warming narrative serves in part to give sense to what otherwise might seem thankless tasks.” An interesting if somewhat flawed theory Mr Chambers, based as it is on your own muddled premises.

It is probably more true to say that given the wealth of information from the Earth sciences, there is a growing realisation of the interconnectedness of life on Earth, a kind of globalization in thinking about our Earth system. This is the basis of the science of ecology. Climate change is a global phenomenum and anyone investigating the wonderful world of dragonflies for example will go beyond local habitats and look at the issue more broadly.

I am interested to know your reasons for believing that the AGW is a failed theory and why you consider it to be a “pernicious quasi-religious belief system”

Kind regards SJ

We know full well that we affect our atmosphere adversely. Look at the Montreal Protocol which takes steps to reduce the detrimental effects of CFCs on the ozone layer. Acid rain. Airborn particulates, etc etc. Investigating the consequences of our activities and acting accordingly to reduce adverse effects is both intelligent and responsible. Ignoring or denying consequences is neither.

Attributing `herd mentality´ to humans falls far short of affirming human intelligence or responsiblity. Presumably you do not include yourself in this category. Presumably you are intelligent and responsible. And aware enough to understand the long term effects of increasing greenhouse gas release into the atmosphere, deforestation, loss of biodiversity through habitat destruction, land and water contamination and other `nerdish´occupations.
What would those long term consequences be, in your opinion?

Most objections to environmental protection come from the big polluting industries themselves, who see it as eating into their profits. Yet in reality it makes economic sense to protect the environment. It is far more costly in the long term to deal with environmental problems.

Environmental protection is mainstream, it is not the preserve of a few left wing extremists. Just take a look at the legislation in the European Union, for example, that govern environmental practices. Imagine the chaos that would result if they were not enforced.

And we could go further, we should be moving towards cleaner energy production, greater energy efficiency and reducing environmental problems. We can do that. We are surely intelligent enough to realise that human progress is not possible in a degraded contaminated world, and creative enough to develop new cleaner technologies and lifestyles that reflect this deeper understanding. It is not intelligent behaviour to ruthlessly vandalise nature. The environment is fundamental to our health, well being and prosperity; these things derive directly from environmental health. And those that speak up for its protection are those who recognise human responsibility in regard to the environment and the detrimental consequences of environmental malpractice and irresponsiblity.

You say that you do not understand the Greens preoccupation with the environment. I do not understand those who regard the natural world as secondary, or even, of no importance, and sneer at those who love and respect nature and work to ensure its protection and continuation.

From the Melbourne Principles: Adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio 1992

3. Recognise the intrinsic value of biodiversity and natural ecosystems, and protect and restore them.
Nature is more than a commodity for the benefit of humans. We share the Earth with many other life-forms that have their own intrinsic value. They warrant our respect, whether or not they are of immediate benefit to us. It is through people’s direct experience with nature that they understand its value and gain a better appreciation of the importance of healthy habitats and ecosystems. This connection provides them with an appreciation of the need to manage our interactions with nature empathetically. Just as humans have the ability to alter the habitat and even to extinguish other species, we can also protect and restore biodiversity. Therefore, we have a responsibility to act as custodians for nature.