What if We Admitted Nature is in Charge?

Giving Back Half to Nature.

Photo by Jason Hogan on Unsplash

Anyone looking at the planetary boundaries framework will see 6 of those 9 boundaries already crossed, with ocean acidification on the way.

How do we stop destroying ourselves – and what would that look like?

I’ve talked about what policies could help, what leaders need to do, and what each of us can do to get that done, but let's step back and take a broader look at the problem this time.

Let’s look at nature itself from a broad level and remove ourselves from the equation as much as possible.

Just how much of nature can we set aside, to let nature do its thing; save itself, and therefore save ourselves?

Many environmentalists set a target of protecting 30% of land and marine territory by 2030. That was the idea behind the 2022 Kunming Montreal Biodiversity framework which adopted several ambitious environmental goals. Below is the 30% language from the framework itself:

Restore 30% of all Degraded Ecosystems

Ensure that by 2030 at least 30 percent of areas of degraded terrestrial, inland water, and marine and coastal ecosystems are under effective restoration, to enhance biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, ecological integrity, and connectivity.

Conserve 30% of Land, Waters, and Seas

Ensure and enable that by 2030 at least 30 percent of terrestrial and inland water areas, and of marine and coastal areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are effectively conserved and managed through ecologically representative, well-connected and equitably governed systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, recognizing Indigenous and traditional territories, where applicable, and integrated into wider landscapes, seascapes and the ocean, while ensuring that any sustainable use, where appropriate in such areas, is fully consistent with conservation outcomes, recognizing and respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities, including over their traditional territories.

Ensure that by 2030 at least 30 percent of areas of degraded terrestrial, inland water, and marine and coastal ecosystems are under effective restoration, to enhance biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, ecological integrity, and connectivity.

Those are pretty nice goals. But how close are we to those 30 percent goals?

So how are we doing?

Not great.

As of 2021, about 17% of land and 8% of the oceans were protected. The silver lining in those low numbers is that about 42% of that protection happened between 2011 and 2021.

Organizations like Nature Needs Half advocate setting aside half of terrestrial land for nature to adequately combat climate change and biodiversity loss.

In 2017, E.O. Wilson wrote a book called Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life. Wilson argued that if we protect half the Earth’s land and sea and manage sufficient habitat to safeguard the bulk of biodiversity, we could go a long way toward getting where we need to be on our environmental goals. Wilson’s idea was to create a “moon shot” goal that would inspire humanity to act.

As an example, Wilson cites studies that show that if we could set aside the entire blue water outside the Exclusive Economic Zones of the coastal nations, and prohibit fishing throughout the open sea, we would increase, not decrease, the global growth of fisheries.

Just leaving the majority of the ocean alone would benefit humanity greatly.

But can we do that, or anything remotely close to it?

Do we have the wisdom to retreat?

We need somewhere to live, places to play, places to grow our food, and places to work. But we surely don't need to exercise dominion over all the places we feel we have conquered.    

Currently, about 41% of the land in the lower 48 states in America is used for raising or feeding cattle. Those percentages are similar in other developed countries.

Beef tastes great, and many of us eat plenty of dairy – but if what we eat and drink is making our lives untenable, maybe we should make a bit of a change. The below graphic from Vox shows how our demand for beef and dairy has led to deforestation, which is a main driver of climate change, and biodiversity loss, and pushes us to the negative side of land use and water use planetary boundaries as well.  

What if we treated Nature with the reverence it deserves?

The answer is a strategic retreat from Nature. Land use for cattle is just one example. There are others. We need to manage our land and water better. Often this “better management” is to not manage it at all.

The world’s tallest living tree, a 600 - 800-year-old Redwood named Hyperion, is now off-limits to visitors. People who attempt to see the tree could face fines of $5,000 or up to six months in jail for damaging the fragile ecosystem around the tree.

The National Parks Service rule is an effort to preserve the ecosystem around Hyperion to protect it from destruction.

This rule could be a model for leaving a nation alone, and letting it regenerate.

If we get out of the way, and in many cases, just remove ourselves from the equation, nature heals, regenerates, and provides us with the ecosystem services we have taken for granted. A strategic retreat from nature will give us cleaner air, water, and land.

You can’t have a footprint in a place where you don’t set your foot.

Half-the-earth is an aspirational goal we should aspire to. E.O. Wilson’s “moon shot” is still one we should aim for.  

It’s time we admit that Nature is a better steward of Nature than we are.

Since the Industrial Revolution, we have lied to ourselves, claiming we have dominion over nature. We do not. Nature has dominion over us. Humbly stepping back and bowing to Nature’s majesty, giving her back the reins is just the first step we should take.

But we have not taken it yet.  We need to work on that.