|
|
|
|
|
|
by mirimir
2583 days ago
|
|
|
> Talk of "efforts to protect what natural habitats are left" does not seem to relate to warming from CO2 emissions. They're connected. I mean, everything is. Even if we didn't emit so much CO2, we destroy habitat for other species through agriculture and forest harvesting. And if we hadn't destroyed so much habitat, there'd be lots more slack for CO2 emissions. And as you say, destroying habitat through biomass energy production -- whether it's fast-growing trees for pellets, or palm oil for biodiesel -- just makes it worse. |
|
|
I was in a hurry, and didn't say how habitat loss increases extinction rates from global warming. The issue is habitat fragmentation. We degrade/destroy habitat for other species through agriculture, forest modification and harvesting, urbanization, road building, etc. But that not only decreases the amount of high-quality habitats. It also fragments habitats.
Without global warming, habitat fragmentation hurts other species in various ways. At some point, fragments become too small to support viable populations for many species. Especially larger animals, for example. But overall, it's not a huge issue, relative to the amount of habitat loss itself.
However, with global warming, habitat fragmentation becomes a huge issue. As the planet warms, species tend to shift toward the poles, more or less, to stay in habitats that they're adapted to. But when habitats are fragmented, that can't happen. And so you end up with isolated populations on mountains, for example. Given that "up" ~ "away from the equator". And with further warming, there's no more up, so they die off. One mitigation is creating habitat corridors. Through cities and farmland. Across roads, using bridges or tunnels. You can see habitat bridges in I-78 in eastern New Jersey.
Another factor is the speed of anthropogenic global climate change. It's too fast now for evolutionary adaptation.