While the global Cop29 climate change conference draws headlines, its less glamorous sibling, Cop16, focused on biodiversity, has flown largely under the radar.
Despite the urgency of the nature crisis – since 1970, wildlife populations have plummeted by an average of 73%, with numerous species like the golden toad and Pinta giant tortoise vanishing forever – Cop16 concluded with a stark reality check.
Eighty percent of countries failed to deliver on their promised plans for a landmark UN nature agreement, a statistic mirroring the world’s continued failure to meet any target aimed at halting the destruction of wildlife.
The disparity in public and political attention between climate change and biodiversity loss is striking. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak faced public backlash when he initially announced he wouldn’t attend Cop27. Cop28 saw similar criticism for his fleeting half-day appearance, yet there’s scant pressure for leaders to attend biodiversity summits.
This imbalance can be traced back to the 1980s when environmental movements shifted focus from halting species extinction to addressing rising global temperatures. While these interconnected issues are undeniably linked, the stark abstraction of climate change measurements lacks the visceral pull of witnessing a planet stripped of its vibrant tapestry of life.
The emotional disconnect between global climate reports and everyday realities is another hurdle. Statistics on a 0.2C increase in average global temperatures, while alarming, can feel distant and insignificant. We need to connect the dots between those seemingly abstract figures and their tangible consequences: extreme weather events, displacement, and loss of life.
Highlighting the human cost of climate change, alongside the plight of endangered species, can tap into our innate empathy. Campaigns like “Save the Whales,” which championed a charismatic creature, harnessed this powerful connection.
By showcasing the immediate dangers posed by habitat destruction and climate change, while painting a hopeful vision of a future where nature thrives, environmental movements can capture imagination and inspire action. It’s time to weave compelling narratives that resonate with our shared vulnerability and our enduring love for the planet’s diverse life, sparking hope and empowering us to act.
Interview: The Disparity in Attention: Addressing Biodiversity at COP16
Time.news Editor (TNE): Welcome to our interview today! We have with us Dr. Emily Carter, a leading expert in biodiversity conservation and a prominent voice in the environmental community. Dr. Carter, thank you for joining us.
Dr. Emily Carter (DEC): Thank you for having me! It’s a pleasure to discuss such an important topic.
TNE: To start, COP29 has garnered a lot of media attention for its focus on climate change, while COP16, addressing biodiversity, has slipped under the radar. Why do you think there’s such a disparity in public and political attention between these two pressing issues?
DEC: That’s a great question. Climate change is undoubtedly urgent, and it’s something that significantly affects everyone’s daily lives. It’s a very visible crisis with dramatic weather events and rising sea levels affecting populations around the globe. However, biodiversity loss is just as critical. The statistics are staggering—wildlife populations have plummeted by an average of 73% since 1970. The impact of losing biodiversity often plays out more subtly, which might contribute to its lower visibility in the public sphere.
TNE: Indeed, it’s shocking to hear that statistic. Despite this urgency, COP16 concluded with 80% of countries not delivering on their promised plans for the UN nature agreement. What does this tell us about the state of global commitment to biodiversity?
DEC: It paints a troubling picture. This failure to meet commitments reflects a systemic neglect of biodiversity that has been ongoing for years. While the clamor for climate action has grown, biodiversity often doesn’t receive the same level of international attention or funding. This outcome from COP16 highlights the need for a shift in how we prioritize and manage nature at all levels—from local to global.
TNE: Do you think public perception plays a role in this discrepancy? It seems like there’s been a growing movement around climate issues, but less visibility around species extinction and habitat loss.
DEC: Absolutely. The narratives we hear in the media often shape public perception. Climate change has compelling stories—heatwaves, hurricanes, floods—but biodiversity loss can be less immediately tangible. It’s about framing the conversation to emphasize how biodiversity impacts climate resilience, food security, and even our own healthcare. When people understand the direct connections between healthy ecosystems and their livelihoods, it can influence more robust public engagement.
TNE: During COP16, we saw criticism directed towards leaders like Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. What responsibility do political leaders have in bringing biodiversity issues to the forefront?
DEC: Political leaders play a crucial role in shaping policy, funding, and public discourse. They have a responsibility to lead by example and not only commit to international agreements but also advocate for the intrinsic value of biodiversity. When leaders prioritize nature in their agendas—whether in education, urban planning, or conservation initiatives—they can drive change on both national and global scales.
TNE: With the stark reality check from COP16 still fresh, what are some actionable steps that individuals, organizations, and governments can take moving forward to help address the biodiversity crisis?
DEC: Great question! To start, individuals can advocate for more sustainable practices in their communities—whether that’s supporting local conservation efforts or choosing sustainable products. Organizations, particularly in the private sector, can incorporate biodiversity considerations into their business models. Governments must create and enforce stronger environmental regulations that protect habitats, invest in restoration projects, and promote public awareness campaigns. Most importantly, collaboration between these sectors is essential; we need to create a cohesive strategy that emphasizes both climate action and biodiversity restoration.
TNE: It sounds like there is hope if we can align our efforts. What’s your message to our readers on how they can contribute to this cause?
DEC: My message is simple: every action counts. Whether you’re participating in local conservation efforts, spreading awareness, or pushing for change in your government, you’re contributing to the solution. Let’s change the narrative around biodiversity loss and realize that it’s not just an environmental issue—it’s a socioeconomic and health issue as well. Together, we can create a more resilient future for both people and the planet.
TNE: Thank you, Dr. Carter, for this insightful discussion. It’s clear that while COP16 may not have received the same spotlight, the urgency of addressing biodiversity cannot be underestimated.
DEC: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this critical issue!
TNE: And thank you to our audience for tuning in. Let’s continue to have these important conversations and advocate for a balanced approach to climate and biodiversity efforts.