252
Prospects and challenges
different taxa and from several different regions of the
world. The simulations indicated that a potentially substantial proportion (15 – 37 per cent being the favoured
range, but perhaps as low as 5.6 per cent or above 50
per cent) of these species would be ‘ committed to
extinction ’ , based on loss of habitat driven by climate
change scenarios for 2050 (see Box 7.3 for details).
Despite the authors clearly describing these percentages as being ‘ an estimate of proportions of species
committed to future extinctions as a consequence of
climate change over the next 50 years ’ , and ‘ not the
number of species that will become extinct during this
period ’ , the global news media almost universally misreported the story. In the UK, 26 out of 29 newspaper
reports were factually incorrect (Table 10.2 ), with the
most frequent misrepresentation being that one million
species would go extinct by the year 2050 (Ladle et al. ,
2004 ).
The source of the remarkable claim of one million
species being threatened with extinction was the press
release issued by the lead author, and it may be derived
by picking a value within the wide range of possible
values reported in the paper, say 25 per cent, then
assuming this proportionate loss can be extrapolated
to all species on the planet and then making the further
assumption that there may be around 4 million species
of land plants and animals on Earth (Ladle et al. , 2004 ).
If Thomas had chosen a perfectly reasonable value for
global species diversity of, for example 10 million then,
by this reasoning, 2.5 million species would have been
considered ‘ committed to extinction ’ .
Unsurprisingly, the fi gure of a million threatened
species was widely misunderstood, as illustrated by a
letter sent to a leading UK newspaper from a staff
member of a high - profi le national conservation NGO.
The letter stated that, ‘ The recent report from Professor
Chris Thomas and his research team gives further evidence of the fragility of a million known species, as
well as probably several million that are still unknown ’
( “ Revealed: how global warming will cause extinction
of a million species ” , J. Purvis, The Independent , 8
January, p. 19). The writer was clearly unaware that
the million species were substantially made up of the
‘ still unknown ’ .
It will be appreciated by readers of this book that
there are, of course, several other important assumptions inherent in the extrapolations involved here, not
least that the models can be relied upon in their forecasts of species range losses and consequent extinctions, and that the species in the Thomas et al . (2004)
Advances are already being made in this direction;
for example, Richardson et al . (2009) recently developed a multidimensional decision - making framework
for managed relocation of species as a response to
anthropogenic climate change – one of the most
radical and potentially socially divisive conservation
strategies currently being considered. Their heuristic
tool incorporates both ecological and social criteria
and, critically, produces outputs that can be depicted in
graphical 2 - D space, making it easier for diverse stakeholders to interpret and use.
In the broader context, effective mainstreaming
requires that environmental stakeholders and wider
society are made aware of the importance of biodiversity and its current status. This can be achieved
through better education and communication.
10.2.4 Education, c ommunication and
p ublic e ngagement
In a recent review of the representation of ‘ biogeography ’ in UK newspapers, websites, and blogs, Ladle
( 2008 , p. 390) concluded that, ‘ [the term biogeography has] very little presence in the public sphere, and
that this probably refl ects a lack of understanding of
the subject area and its relevance in contemporary
environmental debates ’ .
A lack of popular representation and understanding
can often be traced back to a lack of exposure during
formal education. It is perhaps revealing that a search
for ‘ biogeography ’ teaching resources in the UK government ’ s schools National Curriculum website carried
out in August 2008 (while the site was still publically
available) returned no results, whereas searching for
‘ biodiversity ’ resources produced 219 separate documents. This suggests that in the UK, at least, biogeography is hardly seen as a discipline at all in schools, let
alone one that has a contemporary importance.
It should be noted, however, that while the term biogeography is poorly represented, biogeographical subjects are richly covered across the electronic and
popular media, especially those related to conservation
and the future of the natural world. Unfortunately, the
translation of such information into the public domain
via these media often misinterprets or sensationalizes
fi ndings.
An example of this was the coverage of a large study
by Thomas et al . (2004) , collating bioclimatic envelope
modelling efforts for 1,103 species from several
Prospects and challenges
different taxa and from several different regions of the
world. The simulations indicated that a potentially substantial proportion (15 – 37 per cent being the favoured
range, but perhaps as low as 5.6 per cent or above 50
per cent) of these species would be ‘ committed to
extinction ’ , based on loss of habitat driven by climate
change scenarios for 2050 (see Box 7.3 for details).
Despite the authors clearly describing these percentages as being ‘ an estimate of proportions of species
committed to future extinctions as a consequence of
climate change over the next 50 years ’ , and ‘ not the
number of species that will become extinct during this
period ’ , the global news media almost universally misreported the story. In the UK, 26 out of 29 newspaper
reports were factually incorrect (Table 10.2 ), with the
most frequent misrepresentation being that one million
species would go extinct by the year 2050 (Ladle et al. ,
2004 ).
The source of the remarkable claim of one million
species being threatened with extinction was the press
release issued by the lead author, and it may be derived
by picking a value within the wide range of possible
values reported in the paper, say 25 per cent, then
assuming this proportionate loss can be extrapolated
to all species on the planet and then making the further
assumption that there may be around 4 million species
of land plants and animals on Earth (Ladle et al. , 2004 ).
If Thomas had chosen a perfectly reasonable value for
global species diversity of, for example 10 million then,
by this reasoning, 2.5 million species would have been
considered ‘ committed to extinction ’ .
Unsurprisingly, the fi gure of a million threatened
species was widely misunderstood, as illustrated by a
letter sent to a leading UK newspaper from a staff
member of a high - profi le national conservation NGO.
The letter stated that, ‘ The recent report from Professor
Chris Thomas and his research team gives further evidence of the fragility of a million known species, as
well as probably several million that are still unknown ’
( “ Revealed: how global warming will cause extinction
of a million species ” , J. Purvis, The Independent , 8
January, p. 19). The writer was clearly unaware that
the million species were substantially made up of the
‘ still unknown ’ .
It will be appreciated by readers of this book that
there are, of course, several other important assumptions inherent in the extrapolations involved here, not
least that the models can be relied upon in their forecasts of species range losses and consequent extinctions, and that the species in the Thomas et al . (2004)
Advances are already being made in this direction;
for example, Richardson et al . (2009) recently developed a multidimensional decision - making framework
for managed relocation of species as a response to
anthropogenic climate change – one of the most
radical and potentially socially divisive conservation
strategies currently being considered. Their heuristic
tool incorporates both ecological and social criteria
and, critically, produces outputs that can be depicted in
graphical 2 - D space, making it easier for diverse stakeholders to interpret and use.
In the broader context, effective mainstreaming
requires that environmental stakeholders and wider
society are made aware of the importance of biodiversity and its current status. This can be achieved
through better education and communication.
10.2.4 Education, c ommunication and
p ublic e ngagement
In a recent review of the representation of ‘ biogeography ’ in UK newspapers, websites, and blogs, Ladle
( 2008 , p. 390) concluded that, ‘ [the term biogeography has] very little presence in the public sphere, and
that this probably refl ects a lack of understanding of
the subject area and its relevance in contemporary
environmental debates ’ .
A lack of popular representation and understanding
can often be traced back to a lack of exposure during
formal education. It is perhaps revealing that a search
for ‘ biogeography ’ teaching resources in the UK government ’ s schools National Curriculum website carried
out in August 2008 (while the site was still publically
available) returned no results, whereas searching for
‘ biodiversity ’ resources produced 219 separate documents. This suggests that in the UK, at least, biogeography is hardly seen as a discipline at all in schools, let
alone one that has a contemporary importance.
It should be noted, however, that while the term biogeography is poorly represented, biogeographical subjects are richly covered across the electronic and
popular media, especially those related to conservation
and the future of the natural world. Unfortunately, the
translation of such information into the public domain
via these media often misinterprets or sensationalizes
fi ndings.
An example of this was the coverage of a large study
by Thomas et al . (2004) , collating bioclimatic envelope
modelling efforts for 1,103 species from several