Snow of tomorrow | Nature conservation vs. climate protection

"I think climate protection is good, I always have my jute bag with me when I go shopping and only buy organic food!" Have you ever heard that? And have you ever asked yourself whether this is climate protection? Or rather environmental protection? Or perhaps nature conservation? What's the difference between the three? And: does it even make sense to separate them from each other?

Definition of the terms

I ask myself this time and again. I would therefore like to clarify the terms first. A quick google and Wikipedia has the answer:

"Environmental protection denotes the totality of all measures to protect the environment."
"The term nature conservation includes measures to preserve biodiversity (i.e. species diversity, ecosystem diversity and genetic diversity). It includes measures to protect species, manage ecosystems and restore disturbed ecological relationships."
"Climate protection is the collective term for measures to counteract global warming caused by humans and to mitigate or prevent possible consequences of global warming."

In short, reducing greenhouse gas emissions is climate protection. Nature conservation relates directly to ecosystems and biodiversity. Therefore, climate protection and nature conservation are also part of environmental protection. So if I now support Sea Shepherd or Whales and Dolphin Conservation, I am a conservationist. As a member of Fridays for Future, I am clearly a climate protector. But can there also be points where the two issues overlap?

Recently, the outlook on the northern edge of the Alps was still rather summery.

Lisa Amenda

Renewable energies: climate protection versus nature conservation?

I keep researching on the internet and keep coming across the topic of renewable energies.

"Energy is used in almost all areas of life and products. As it is largely obtained from fossil, carbon-containing energy sources, the provision and use of energy is the most important source of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The entire energy sector is the largest source of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for around 83.9 percent in 2018", according to the Federal Environment Agency. Regarding renewable energies, it says: "Renewable energies are wind and solar energy, biomass, geothermal energy and hydropower. They can make a significant contribution to climate protection. They also contribute to security of supply and the avoidance of raw material conflicts."

If we now have coal mining and the almost 84 percent share of greenhouse gas emissions in mind, it should be immediately clear that fossil fuels make no contribution to either nature conservation or climate protection. Renewable energies, on the other hand, are clearly on the side of climate protection. If we sign up with a green electricity provider, we are told how much CO2 we will save compared to conventional electricity before we sign the contract. But does this mean that renewable energy automatically protects nature? Well, have you ever heard discussions about the construction of wind turbines? That this could endanger bird nesting areas or bats? Or have you ever seen how the construction of hydropower plants changes a river and its catchment area? No? Then I definitely recommend the documentary Blue Heart of Europe by Patagonia. Now the saying "Every medal has its flip side" would probably be apt.

With the current snowfall it will hopefully be white soon! — With the current snowfall, it will hopefully be white soon!

LH

Nature conservation is climate protection

But I still don't want to settle for that. Because as the saying goes: everything is connected. And on our planet anyway. I find what I'm looking for at the IPCC and IPBES: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the World Biodiversity Council (IPBES), for example, warn that the irreversible consequences of climate change on ecosystems and the associated loss of species will increase, as will climate disasters and extreme weather events. IBPES also warns that the more biodiversity is lost, the more climatic disasters and ecological tipping points will be exacerbated. However, it also emphasizes that healthy and diverse ecosystems can make a major contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The protection of oceans, forests and moors, for example, should contribute to climate change. After all, they are huge natural greenhouse gas sinks. But only if they are in balance and are not destroyed by peat extraction, for example, or disrupted by immense plastic pollution. Because then everything can turn into the opposite and lead to even greater greenhouse gas emissions in the future - and these actual sinks can become dangerous drivers of climate change.

What should I do now

And now? I have to admit, somehow I'm as smart as when I started. I already had the feeling before that one thing doesn't make sense without the other. That I can't just be a climate or nature conservationist. And that's probably how it is. Our world has functioned quite well without the influence of humans. The ecosystems were created by nature in such a way that everything always regulates itself. It works on its own. However, man's contribution has thrown these systems out of balance. That's why I would suggest that we do our best to straighten things out. With nature AND climate protection. Because we are not only saving the earth, but also, quite pathetically, ourselves.