Nature loss brings catastrophic risks - ARU report

[OKIsItJustMe]

https://www.aru.ac.uk/news/nature-loss-brings-catastrophic-risks-aru-report

Food security is under threat, which could lead to economic and social instability

ARU Press office
30 April 2026

A new report from Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) and the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) warns that biodiversity loss, alongside climate shocks and geopolitical conflict, is disrupting our food system, risking catastrophic impacts for the financial system and for society as a whole.

Recent events in the Gulf region show a fragile food system being further threatened by disruption to fertiliser supply chains passing through the Strait of Hormuz. There is a real risk of further food price shocks which, alongside sharp rises in energy costs, will drive up the cost of living.

‘Planetary Solvency: Tipping into the wild unknown’, the joint Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) and IFoA authored report, explains that chronic pressures such as soil degradation and water scarcity are already leading to lower crop yields, pushing up food prices and reducing availability.

Acute shocks including trade disruption, extreme weather events and ecological collapse add further stresses, resulting in higher and more volatile food prices.

…

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. Studies

Greenspoon, L., Ramot, N., Moran, U. et al. The global biomass of mammals since 1850. Nat Commun 16, 8338 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-63888-z

Rosenberg, Y., Wiedenhofer, D., Virág, D. et al. Human biomass movement exceeds the biomass movement of all land animals combined. Nat Ecol Evol 9, 2259–2264 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-025-02863-9

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. WSJ

… When they do acknowledge the crisis, they tell us that we can’t do anything anyway. Global warming is simply “the future we’re heading toward,” because “humanity has shown that it’s unwilling to impose the limits on economic activity that would be necessary to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius,” …

Much as I hate to admit it, I’m afraid I came to that conclusion about 10 years ago.

When this study came out, I was “guardedly optimistic.”

Hansen, J., M. Sato, P. Kharecha, D. Beerling, R. Berner, V. Masson-Delmotte, M. Pagani, M. Raymo, D.L. Royer, and J.C. Zachos, 2008: Target atmospheric CO₂: Where should humanity aim? Open Atmos. Sci. J., 2, 217-231, doi:10.2174/1874282300802010217. (Get PDF Here)

Abstract: Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3°C for doubled CO₂, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6°C for doubled CO₂ for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica. Decreasing CO₂ was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, the planet being nearly ice-free until CO₂ fell to 450 ± 100 ppm; barring prompt policy changes, that critical level will be passed, in the opposite direction, within decades. If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO₂ will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm, but likely less than that. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-CO₂ forcings. An initial 350 ppm CO₂ target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO₂ is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO₂ is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.

It was stark, but clear. Maybe we had a chance, if we acted soon enough, but it seemed like no one wanted to. No one I knew seemed to make a fraction of the kind of substantive changes which were necessary.