A needed U.N. pact for the planet

Opinion editor's note: Editorials represent the opinions of the Star Tribune Editorial Board, which operates independently from the newsroom.

•••

Climate change, unfortunately, isn't the only global ecological crisis. An "unprecedented" loss of biodiversity and "accelerating" rate of related extinction threatens present and future generations as well, according to a landmark 2019 U.N. report.

"The health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever," the report concluded. "We are eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide."

Humans caused, and are endangered by, this biodiversity spiral. Humans must also address it, so it's welcome news that nearly 190 nations agreed on Monday to a U.N. accord that is the most significant effort yet to protect the world's land and oceans.

At the centerpiece of the agreement adopted at the United Nations Biodiversity Conference is a plan called "30 by 30" — in effect, conserving 30% of land, inland waterways, and coastal and ocean areas by 2030. It's an admirable, albeit ambitious, target: Only about 17% of land and 10% of marine areas now have some form of protection.

Meeting the target will be difficult, given the relatively short eight-year span and the economic incentives and pressures for even more natural-resource exploitation. And it will be made even more difficult because the new pact is not legally binding. Just like the Paris climate agreement and subsequent climate-change accords, it's up to individual nations to meet the global objectives.

Then there's the issue of cost. In the U.S. and other relatively affluent nations, to be sure, but especially for the more underdeveloped global south, home to some of the most precious — and unprotected — biodiversity in the world. Several African nations, in particular, pushed back against the accord, claiming that although up to $30 billion per year of the newly doubled $200 billion spent annually on biodiversity efforts would be earmarked for poorer nations, it is not enough and not legally binding.

Inaction, however, is even more costly — for biodiversity and its interrelation with climate change.

"We must see biodiversity and climate change as interrelated," Jessica Hellmann, the executive director and Ecolab chair for environmental leadership at the University of Minnesota's Institute on the Environment, told an editorial writer in an email interview. Hellmann, who attended the recent U.N. climate change conference in Egypt, added that there were many references between the two crises at both conferences.

"Climate is one of the most important threats to biodiversity worldwide, and climate change must be stopped if we have any hope of sustaining a large fraction of global biodiversity," Hellmann wrote, adding: "And nature-based solutions are some of the most durable and 'shovel-ready' climate strategies that we have — to prevent greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., slowing and stopping deforestation and peatland loss), to absorb carbon that has been emitted (e.g., forest and agricultural carbon sequestration), and to adapt to climate change (e.g., green infrastructure in urban areas and habitat restoration to prevent flooding)."

Achieving these ecologically necessary objectives will require not just goals but building answerability, stressed Hellmann, who added that because the U.S. is not party to the U.N. convention "we sit on the sidelines with even less accountability."