Yes the propsal for biodiversity "credits" is absurd and is shameless greenwashing. Unlike the mindless proposals of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, shouldn't the first step toward biodiversity be NOT ONE NEW SACRIFICE ZONE? That means what it says. Meanwhile, look at this link and see the infographic on biodiversity by _mass_. The first critical step in improving biodiversity should be reducing the numbers of humans and/or cattle. You choose.
"Humans and livestock mammals far outweigh wild mammals, which account for just 6% of Earth’s mammal biomass. The weight of all house cats combined is nearly twice that of all African elephants, and pigs’ biomass is twice that of all wild land mammals. Almost half of the wild-mammal biomass is made up by even-hoofed mammals, such as deer and boar. Of wild mammals, most species, and most individual animals, are bats. (PNAS Commentary: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2301652120 ) (L. Greenspoon et al./PNAS (CC BY-NC-ND))"
I would sign that letter also!
Yes the propsal for biodiversity "credits" is absurd and is shameless greenwashing. Unlike the mindless proposals of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, shouldn't the first step toward biodiversity be NOT ONE NEW SACRIFICE ZONE? That means what it says. Meanwhile, look at this link and see the infographic on biodiversity by _mass_. The first critical step in improving biodiversity should be reducing the numbers of humans and/or cattle. You choose.
"Humans and livestock mammals far outweigh wild mammals, which account for just 6% of Earth’s mammal biomass. The weight of all house cats combined is nearly twice that of all African elephants, and pigs’ biomass is twice that of all wild land mammals. Almost half of the wild-mammal biomass is made up by even-hoofed mammals, such as deer and boar. Of wild mammals, most species, and most individual animals, are bats. (PNAS Commentary: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2301652120 ) (L. Greenspoon et al./PNAS (CC BY-NC-ND))"