Most Americans believe climate change is one of the biggest threats to wildlife. However, data indicates that species are tougher than we give them credit for. Species have adapted to environmental changes faster than we would have thought. If we truly understood what was happening to Earth and its inhabitants, we could push back against the narrative of inevitable ecological disaster.
Wildlife Adaptation and Resilience
Some species are pretty adaptive. For instance, American pikas move to cooler microclimates to avoid heat stress without a population decline. Snowshoe hares in some regions are changing their coat color. These examples demonstrate the flexibility of wildlife, which is one of the arguments that goes against the idea that climate change is making species move toward extinction.
Climate Change vs Other Threats
Climate change is often considered the main cause of species extinction. But it is often many other factors that are the cause. For instance, brook trout are more harmed by predators than by the increase in water temperature. Also, polar bear populations remain unchanging in certain areas, which goes against the idea that ice loss is the biggest threat to these bears.
Climate Cycle
Historically, Wildlife has experienced natural climate deviations before industrialization came about. Despite little human impact, the British ring ouzel also decreased in the 19th century. Today’s changes in birds’ breeding timings are identical to the behavior observed during the previous warming periods historically, which proves that the species is capable of handling these changes.
The Limitations of Climate Impact Assessments
Many scientific studies that show links between climate change and wildlife threats are based on fragile evidence. Many of the studies are based on small sample sizes and short term data that do not capture actual natural trends. The models used to predict mass extinctions based on climate change are based on assumptions and are therefore not very reliable.
Wrongways of Conservation
Doomsday scenarios can misguide conservation efforts. There are numerous cases of organizations promoting climate-induced extinction in order to get funding. This may take funds away from real preservation organizations that animals need the most.
Questioning Anthropogenic Climate Change
Although the concentration of CO2 has increased, there are still natural climate drivers. The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age took place before the industrial era. Solar cycles and volcanic activity also cause temperature changes, which makes it more problematic to pin current warming on human activity.
The Polar Bear Paradox
Polar bears are the face of climate change, yet the population data is not as straightforward. Some subpopulations of polar bears have continued to grow or stayed constant despite the loss of Arctic ice. It is likely that regulations on hunting and pollution have been more effective to their preservation than measures taken that fight climate change.
Emotional Narratives and Media Bias
The media shapes the public’s perception because it prefers sensational news. Climate change is discussed extensively when it comes to polar bears and coral reefs because these are easy to picture. Yet, other species that are equally affected and less appealing to the eye do not get much exposure, which gives the public the wrong impression of actual ecological trends.
The “Shifting Baseline” Effect
Each generation tends to think that the environmental changes taking place are doing so for the first time. They ignore historical changes and forget that history repeats itself. This cognitive bias makes normal ecological shifts appear threatening, and this leads to the perception that the changes are being caused by human activity when they may actually just be a consequence of normal environmental cycles.
Climate Change as a Political Issue
The belief that wildlife is under threat as a result of climate change is closely associated with politics. Conservatives need more proof than progressives, who advocate for preventive measures. This polarization of conservation goals sometimes leads to a lack of common sense and few data-based approaches to conservation.
The Role of Advocacy and Economics
Conservation associations must make their projections dramatic if they want to get funding and support for their policies. Estimates that 15-37% of species will become extinct by 2050 serve the purpose of increasing fundraising. But these statistics are based on questionable models. Using alarmist language may exaggerate the risks and distract from the actual concerns that need to be addressed in conservation.
A More Balanced Perspective
Climate change does affect wildlife, but many species are quite resilient, and other hazards, such as invasive species and habitat demolition, are more significant. It is thus important to approach conservation with an even keel, without panic, and always with scientific evidence rather than sensationalism.
Discover more of our trending stories and follow us to keep them in your feed
Yellowstone’s Giants: 2,000 Years of Giant Roaming Herbivores
Yes, You Can Blame Climate Change for the LA Wildfires and Their Habitat Destruction
12 Dangerous Animals That Every Dog Owner Should Watch Out For
The Global Disaster That Reduced Us To 1,300—And How Animals Helped Us Recover
References:
Reference 1
Reference 2
This article first appeared here
Stay connected with us for more stories like this! Follow us to get the latest updates or hit the Follow button at the top of this article, and let us know what you think by leaving your feedback below. We’d love to hear from you!
