D he extinction of species is the most threatening problem of our time because it attacks our livelihoods. This is described by the statement that how we deal with the climate crisis determines how we live, and how we deal with the biodiversity crisis. whether we survive. The attention that society and governments are paying to the loss of biodiversity is disproportionate.
That is understandable. Understanding the climate crisis is easy. It dominates the news, as floods, snowstorms, droughts, forest fires. It also offers business models such as the expansion of renewable energies or new forms of mobility. Understanding the species crisis is more difficult: animals and plants disappear unnoticed – unless you are an ornithologist or lepidopterist. Small, important organisms such as algae, fungi and bacteria are not visible to the naked eye anyway. If the loss of biodiversity gets images, then it is in the form of field hamsters or amphibians, according to the motto: Nice to have, but can go away if they prevent effective agriculture or infrastructure measures.
But that is a wrong path. And the World Biodiversity Council’s report published on Monday deserves the greatest attention. Although, well, the work is difficult to understand and speaks great truths very calmly. One of 100 recommendations to companies and governments is: “Set ambitious commitments and goals and integrate biodiversity into your corporate strategy.” Yes, how can this happen? asks the medium-sized company with declining sales markets. But the scientists are fact-based and meticulously working out that the status quo of the global economy is making soil, water and air unusable. State chancelleries and boardrooms should immediately set up special commissions and, with alarm, present concrete strategies on how we want to make money in the future without extinguishing life, poisoning water and destroying fertile soil.
It was to be expected that the politically short-sighted black-red federal government would not hear the shot and that the relevant ministries – economy, environment, agriculture, research – would snore away. That’s what they did in their umpteen years of government before the traffic light government. It is also not surprising that they want to abandon the progress made in Berlin and Brussels, such as the supply chain law or the European laws to protect waters. The fact that even the Greens are now shredding the topic of nature in order to mess with the post-Fridays-for-Future zeitgeist is bad. Social majorities for the protection of nature can be wonby explaining why it is important. Which is why we should all deal with the IPBES text.