Impacts on terrestrial biodiversity of moving from a 2°C to a 1.5°C target

Pete Smith (Corresponding Author), Jeff price, Amy Molotoks, Rachel Warren, Yadvinder Malhi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)
6 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

We applied a recently developed tool to examine the reduction in climate risk to biodiversity in moving from a 2°C to a 1.5°C target. We then reviewed the recent literature examining the impact of (a) land-based mitigation options and (b) land-based greenhouse gas removal options on biodiversity. We show that holding warming to 1.5°C versus 2°C can significantly reduce the number of species facing a potential loss of 50% of their climatic range. Further, there would be an increase of 5.5–14% of the globe that could potentially act as climatic refugia for plants and animals, an area equivalent to the current global protected area network. Efforts to meet the 1.5°C target through mitigation could largely be consistent with biodiversity protection/enhancement. For impacts of land-based greenhouse gas removal technologies on biodiversity, some (e.g. soil carbon sequestration) could be neutral or positive, others (e.g. bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) are likely to lead to conflicts, while still others (e.g. afforestation/reforestation) are context-specific, when applied at scales necessary for meaningful greenhouse gas removal. Additional effort to meet the 1.5°C target presents some risks, particularly if inappropriately managed, but it also presents opportunities.

This article is part of the theme issue ‘The Paris Agreement: understanding the physical and social challenges for a warming world of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels'.
Original languageEnglish
Article number20160456
JournalPhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A
Volume376
Issue number2119
Early online date2 Apr 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 13 May 2018

Fingerprint

Biodiversity
Gases
Carbon Sequestration
Paris
Climate
Soil
Carbon
Technology

Keywords

  • biodiversity
  • climate change targets
  • land
  • greenhouse gas removal

Cite this

Impacts on terrestrial biodiversity of moving from a 2°C to a 1.5°C target. / Smith, Pete (Corresponding Author); price, Jeff; Molotoks, Amy; Warren, Rachel; Malhi, Yadvinder .

In: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Vol. 376, No. 2119, 20160456, 13.05.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Smith, Pete ; price, Jeff ; Molotoks, Amy ; Warren, Rachel ; Malhi, Yadvinder . / Impacts on terrestrial biodiversity of moving from a 2°C to a 1.5°C target. In: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A. 2018 ; Vol. 376, No. 2119.
@article{8e52ab9ba24a4ba985f7ce28b2f0bcd2,
title = "Impacts on terrestrial biodiversity of moving from a 2°C to a 1.5°C target",
abstract = "We applied a recently developed tool to examine the reduction in climate risk to biodiversity in moving from a 2°C to a 1.5°C target. We then reviewed the recent literature examining the impact of (a) land-based mitigation options and (b) land-based greenhouse gas removal options on biodiversity. We show that holding warming to 1.5°C versus 2°C can significantly reduce the number of species facing a potential loss of 50{\%} of their climatic range. Further, there would be an increase of 5.5–14{\%} of the globe that could potentially act as climatic refugia for plants and animals, an area equivalent to the current global protected area network. Efforts to meet the 1.5°C target through mitigation could largely be consistent with biodiversity protection/enhancement. For impacts of land-based greenhouse gas removal technologies on biodiversity, some (e.g. soil carbon sequestration) could be neutral or positive, others (e.g. bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) are likely to lead to conflicts, while still others (e.g. afforestation/reforestation) are context-specific, when applied at scales necessary for meaningful greenhouse gas removal. Additional effort to meet the 1.5°C target presents some risks, particularly if inappropriately managed, but it also presents opportunities.This article is part of the theme issue ‘The Paris Agreement: understanding the physical and social challenges for a warming world of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels'.",
keywords = "biodiversity, climate change targets, land, greenhouse gas removal",
author = "Pete Smith and Jeff price and Amy Molotoks and Rachel Warren and Yadvinder Malhi",
note = "The input of PS contributes to the following projects: DEVIL [NE/M021327/1], MAGLUE [EP/M013200/1], UGRASS [NE/M016900/1], Assess-BECCS [funded by UKERC] and Soils-R-GRREAT [NE/P019455/1]. AM is supported by a BBSRC EastBio studentship. JP was supported by the EU FP7 HELIX project. Climate data used in the biodiversity analysis was produced during the Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change project funded by the former UK Department of Energy and Climate Change",
year = "2018",
month = "5",
day = "13",
doi = "10.1098/rsta.2016.0456",
language = "English",
volume = "376",
journal = "Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A",
issn = "0080-4614",
number = "2119",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Impacts on terrestrial biodiversity of moving from a 2°C to a 1.5°C target

AU - Smith, Pete

AU - price, Jeff

AU - Molotoks, Amy

AU - Warren, Rachel

AU - Malhi, Yadvinder

N1 - The input of PS contributes to the following projects: DEVIL [NE/M021327/1], MAGLUE [EP/M013200/1], UGRASS [NE/M016900/1], Assess-BECCS [funded by UKERC] and Soils-R-GRREAT [NE/P019455/1]. AM is supported by a BBSRC EastBio studentship. JP was supported by the EU FP7 HELIX project. Climate data used in the biodiversity analysis was produced during the Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change project funded by the former UK Department of Energy and Climate Change

PY - 2018/5/13

Y1 - 2018/5/13

N2 - We applied a recently developed tool to examine the reduction in climate risk to biodiversity in moving from a 2°C to a 1.5°C target. We then reviewed the recent literature examining the impact of (a) land-based mitigation options and (b) land-based greenhouse gas removal options on biodiversity. We show that holding warming to 1.5°C versus 2°C can significantly reduce the number of species facing a potential loss of 50% of their climatic range. Further, there would be an increase of 5.5–14% of the globe that could potentially act as climatic refugia for plants and animals, an area equivalent to the current global protected area network. Efforts to meet the 1.5°C target through mitigation could largely be consistent with biodiversity protection/enhancement. For impacts of land-based greenhouse gas removal technologies on biodiversity, some (e.g. soil carbon sequestration) could be neutral or positive, others (e.g. bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) are likely to lead to conflicts, while still others (e.g. afforestation/reforestation) are context-specific, when applied at scales necessary for meaningful greenhouse gas removal. Additional effort to meet the 1.5°C target presents some risks, particularly if inappropriately managed, but it also presents opportunities.This article is part of the theme issue ‘The Paris Agreement: understanding the physical and social challenges for a warming world of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels'.

AB - We applied a recently developed tool to examine the reduction in climate risk to biodiversity in moving from a 2°C to a 1.5°C target. We then reviewed the recent literature examining the impact of (a) land-based mitigation options and (b) land-based greenhouse gas removal options on biodiversity. We show that holding warming to 1.5°C versus 2°C can significantly reduce the number of species facing a potential loss of 50% of their climatic range. Further, there would be an increase of 5.5–14% of the globe that could potentially act as climatic refugia for plants and animals, an area equivalent to the current global protected area network. Efforts to meet the 1.5°C target through mitigation could largely be consistent with biodiversity protection/enhancement. For impacts of land-based greenhouse gas removal technologies on biodiversity, some (e.g. soil carbon sequestration) could be neutral or positive, others (e.g. bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) are likely to lead to conflicts, while still others (e.g. afforestation/reforestation) are context-specific, when applied at scales necessary for meaningful greenhouse gas removal. Additional effort to meet the 1.5°C target presents some risks, particularly if inappropriately managed, but it also presents opportunities.This article is part of the theme issue ‘The Paris Agreement: understanding the physical and social challenges for a warming world of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels'.

KW - biodiversity

KW - climate change targets

KW - land

KW - greenhouse gas removal

U2 - 10.1098/rsta.2016.0456

DO - 10.1098/rsta.2016.0456

M3 - Article

VL - 376

JO - Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A

JF - Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A

SN - 0080-4614

IS - 2119

M1 - 20160456

ER -