The Case for Conservation Podcast

From time to time certain concepts rise to prominence in biodiversity conservation circles, and some of these follow in the footsteps of climate change analogs. One such concept is biodiversity credits. Biodiversity credits are a mechanism that allow for biodiversity conservation or restoration activities to derive a revenue stream through the production and sale of a quantifiable unit of improvement in biodiversity. Despite the technical and philosophical challenges involved in trading in biodiversity credits, or even defining a single unit, biodiversity credits are being used to offset damages to biodiversity. And given the explosion of private and public interest in biodiversity credits, they are worthy of further exploration. Helping us to explore them is Harrison Carter, an interdisciplinary conservation scientist at the University of Oxford’s Biology Department. Harrison has studied biodiversity credits in detail and shares his personal views on this complex topic. This is a fairly technical conversation, but non-conservationists should still find it interesting, and it gets easier as it goes along. We talk about the good and the bad around biodiversity credits, starting with a broad description of the concept. Links to resources:What is a unit of nature? A webpage from the University of Oxford's Department of Biology about biodiversity credits including Harrison's workVisit www.case4conservation.com

Half a century ago a group of more than 2,000 scientists signed a warning of environmental crisis and nuclear war. Named after the French town where it was compiled, the “Menton Message” turned out to be somewhat hyperbolic in its environmental predictions, and did not account for some of humankind’s remarkable developmental progress over the following decades. However, some of its concerns certainly remain prescient today. And so another, smaller, group of scientists convened, on the 50-year anniversary of the Menton Message, to revisit and modernize some of its assertions. The resulting document is “A letter to fellow citizens of Earth”, which was also summarized in an article for the journal “Nature”. It makes three key points:“individualistic, materialistic, exploitative short-term thinking has led us to lose sight of the public good”“a focus on economic growth distracts from achieving well-being and happiness… and… destroys our shared resources”“current economic, political and social institutions are failing us”Although the new letter acknowledges some of the progress that we have made since the Menton Message, it emphasizes the threats and asserts the urgent need for change. Sharachchandra Lele is one of the two main authors of the 2022 letter, and the Nature article. I pushed him on the accuracy of some of the letter’s claims and assertions. The resulting conversation interrogates different aspects of the letter, and questions the idea that we are on completely the wrong track to make things right. Our conversation jumps around a bit and does not follow the sequence of the letter. But it’s about more than the letter. It’s about the notion that we need to drastically change the way we run the planet and how to affect those changes. This episode and episode 48 with Ron Bailey function as counter-points to each other, so they can be listened to as a set.Links to resourcesThe Menton Message - The original French version of the message (the English is probably available online somewhere)A letter to fellow citizens of Earth - The follow-up to the Menton Message, compiled by Sharad and othersFifty years after UN environment summit, researchers renew call for action - 2022 correspondence in the journal, Nature, co-authored by Sharad, and summarizing "A letter to fellow citizens of Earth"Visit www.case4conservation.com

International organizations, or “IOs” for short, are typically organizations to which multiple countries belong as members. They cover virtually every aspect of human endeavor and there are many that are related to environmental protection. International organizations may influence our lives quite profoundly and yet, outside our own field, we might struggle to name more than a few of them. Furthermore, it has been proposed that most of them are not functioning entities, but rather so-called“zombie organizations”.That’s what Julia Gray has suggested. Julia is an associate professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, who has been researching zombie organizations for years. She joins me to explain how zombie organizations come about; why we don’t notice them; and what are their consequences.Links to resourcesLife, Death, or Zombie? The Vitality of International Organizations - A 2018 article on the topic of zombie organizations, in International Studies QuarterlyThe Montreal Protocol - Background on The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, to which we refer in the episodeCARICOM - This is a link to the website of the Caribbean Community, to which Julia refers at the end of the episodeVisit www.case4conservation.com

Protection of the environment is strongly associated with regulation of the human activities that threaten it, and regulation is usually administered by government. Although almost everyone would probably agree that some regulation is necessary, regulation has a patchy record when it comes to environmental protection. And there is another approach to achieving environmental goals. Free market environmentalism, instead of protecting nature from market forces, harnesses those forces to protect nature. Or at least that's the idea.Ronald Bailey is the longtime science writer for Reason Magazine, a renowned American libertarian news & opinion outlet that’s been around for more than 50 years. Ron joins me to flesh out the case for free market environmentalism.Links to resourcesRonald Bailey - Ron's profile page on the Reason websiteThe limits to growth - 1972 book about the possibility of exponential economic and population growthPopulation bomb - 1968 book by Paul Erlich that speculated about the dangers of overpopulationSilent Spring - 1962 book by Rachel Carson about the effects of pesticide on the environment and peopleEnvironmentalists Shocked That Local People Protect Forests Better Than Do Governments - 2014 article of Ron’s in Reason Magazone, including links to further information, about how indigenous peoples and local communities can be good stewards of the environemntThe Environmental Trinity — 2024 article by Jesse Ausubel about ecomodernism and decoupling from resource-useOur World in Data - A website that shows global trends in easy-to-grasp graphic formatVisit www.case4conservation.com

There are few environmental issues more emotive than the hunting of whales. Although the focus of environmentalists has shifted to other topics in recent times, whaling remains contentious whenever it is brought up. This is understandable considering that, for the first half of the 20th century and into the 1970s, several whale species were hunted to near-extinction. But as crude oil took over from whale oil as the fuel of industry whale populations began making impressive recoveries. Nevertheless, a handful of countries and populations continue to hunt them, much to the chagrin of the rest of the world. Perhaps the most high profile whaling country is Japan. To add to the saga, in 2019 Japan ended about seven decades of membership of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) - the global body responsible for the “management of whaling and conservation of whales”.There are countless sources providing the anti-whaling point of view, to some of which I will provide links in the podcast description. But comprehensive accounts of the other side of the story are less easy to find. Joji Morishita has been, among many other things, Japan’s Commissioner to the IWC (2013 - 2018) and IWC Chair (2016 - 2018) and I doubt there is any better person in the world to tell Japan’s side of the whaling story. In this fascinating discussion he explains why Japan withdrew from the IWC, and he takes on many of the core arguments against whaling. Links to resourcesJapan whaling: Why commercial hunts have resumed despite outcry - 2019 BBC overview of the topicJapan's Withdrawal from International Whaling Regulation - Book co-authored by Joji in 2023Commercial Whaling - International Whaling Commission statements on the whaling moratorium and commercial whalingHistory of Whaling - A chronology of whaling going back to the 9th Century, on the website of the Japan Whaling AssociationSave the Whales - GreenPeace website on whalingReflections on the Future of the International Whaling Commission - The first of a four-part series of articles by Joji Visit www.case4conservation.com

Agriculture has been by far the biggest driver of land change and land degradation worldwide. And yet, it is also fundamental to the very existence of humankind. This mismatch often comes up in public discourse. Over the past year or two, for example, several European countries have seen extensive farmer protests - against rising costs and restrictive environmental regulations, among other things. Environmental groups have responded to the farmers’ appeals mostly with indignation… and yet farmers and environmentalists have a lot in common - at east potentially.Philippe Birker is co-founder of “Climate Farmers”, and his work is aimed mostly at promoting regenerative agriculture. He and I cover a range of topics in the discussion that follows, from the farmer protests to the relationship between agrochemical companies and government. Along the way, there were several “rabbit holes” that we could have gone down, and several points that I would have liked to challenge Philippe on in greater depth. But, with limited available time, I needed to bookmark most of these for another time and for future guests.Visit www.case4conservation.com

Insects are among the most abundant organisms on Earth. About 350,000 beetle species, alone, have been described by science and this is considered to be only a fraction of their total number. In a variety of ways, insects are a fundamental part of natural and human-adapted systems. While some cause disease or ruin crops, others play a key role in ecosystem service provision, for example by pollinating certain crops or as food for other beneficial animals and people. Overall, the loss of insect species is a major concern. Some of the more exuberant headlines broadcasting this message have gone so far as to declare an imminent “insectageddon”. However, although many insect species are declining or in danger of decline, there is reason to be wary of such excessive claims. Data need to be carefully considered, revealing the complex patterns of change. Unfortunately the media, in particular, is often incentivized to focus on the more extreme findings and neglect the nuances. Jane Hill (OBE) is president of the Royal Entomological Society and a professor at the University of York. She helps me to pick apart the "insectageddon" idea, including how valid it is and how it came about in the first place.Links to ResourcesHow worried should we really be about "insectageddon"? - A Guardian interview with Jane in 2022.Plummeting insect numbers 'threaten collapse of nature' - An earlier Guardian article, pushing the idea of "insectageddon".Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers - The 2019 peer-reviewed literature review that may have started the "insectageddon" idea, in the journal Biological Conservation.Visit www.case4conservation.com

Humankind’s transformation of the Earth is embodied in the idea that we are living in the “Anthropocene”. Most people who have heard of this concept were probably unaware that it describes a specific unit of geological measurement - an epoch. A debate has been ongoing for more than a decade about whether to make that designation official - for the Anthropocene to take over from the Holocene epoch. This debate concluded just a few weeks ago with a definitive “no”.In this episode of The Case for Conservation Podcast renowned Anthropocene expert Erle Ellis explains what happened to the Anthropocene… and why it doesn’t really matter that it was rejected as an epoch. Erle is an environmental scientist who divides his academic time between the university of Maryland in the US, and Oxford University in the UK. He is a prolific author and public commentator on this and related topics.Links to resourcesAnthropocene: A Very Short Introduction - 2018 book authored by Erle.The Anthropocene is not an epoch − but the age of humans is most definitely underway - A recent update from Erle in "The Conversation".Visit www.case4conservation.com

Conservation and sustainability scientists are often expected to advise policymakers and other decision-makers. But some of the issues that they are expected to advise on, have broader consensus than others. So, when is it appropriate to advise? When is it appropriate to advocate? When should they simply present all the options or interpretations, and leave it to the decision-makers?Françoise Cardou is a plant and a community ecologist and postdoctoral fellow at Carlton University in Ottawa, interested in understanding how people and nature affect each other in socio-ecological systems. In a recent paper in Biological Conservation, she and her colleague Mark Vellend discuss how important it is for conservation scientists to know which role is appropriate, to avoid being so-called “stealth advocates”.Links to resourcesStealth advocacy in ecology and conservation biology - Françoise's article in the journal, Biological Conservation.Visit www.case4conservation.com

Sustainability science, which includes conservation biology and various other environmental studies, is not a “hard science” like physics or mathematics. Nevertheless, one might expect it to be reasonably independent of political affiliation. But is this the case? If not, what is the problem with leaning too far in one political direction, especially if that direction is left and generally considered to be “pro environment”? If it is a problem, what can we do about it?Örjan Bodin is a sustainability scientist at the Stockholm Resilience Centre at Stockholm University, who has thought a lot about this topic and published a recent paper on it. Örjan is quick to point out that he has not formally studied political polarization. However, with decades of research experience in sustainability science, he provides some compelling reasons why we should pay attention to this overlooked but potentially highly consequential issue.Links to resourcesHas sustainability science turned left? - Örjan's article in the journal, Sustainability Science.Visit www.case4conservation.com

Capitalism gets a lot of negative press these days, and one of the main arguments against it is the environmental degradation with which it’s associated. But how much is capitalism itself responsible, and how much are people conflating it with associated phenomena? Are the realistic alternatives any better, or should our efforts be focused on reforming this system, which has already done so much for human flourishing?Russell Galt has many thoughts about the problems with capitalism, but he is also wary of how we go about changing the system. Russell is Head of Policy and Science at Earthwatch Europe, a Partner at the sustainability consultancy, Value-based Work, and Chief Development Officer at Urban Biodiversity Hub. He’s also a friend, upon whom I know I can rely for an honest opinion, and he recently completed an MBA to add to his environmental qualifications. This discussion attempts to touch on various aspects of the arguments for and against capitalism in the context of the environment. The main point is to illustrate the complexities of the issue, rather than to arrive at definitive answers to my questions.Links to resourcesUK updates water company insolvency laws amid fears over sector’s finances - Financial Times article about the water company issue Russell discusses.Value-based Work - The sustainability consultancy at which Russell is a partner.Visit www.case4conservation.com

As a result of our success as a species, we have been ushering other species toward extinction for thousands of years. The pace of those extinctions increased markedly with the growth of the world’s population since the Industrial Revolution. But we are now within reach of the “Jurassic Park” -type fantasy of being able to reverse extinctions - to bring back species from the dead. On the other hand, assuming we get beyond the remaining technological obstacles, de-extinction is still a very complex topic with conservation and ecological considerations that are not necessarily being considered by those who are most likely to make it happen.Virginia Matzek is a restoration ecologist and professor at Santa Clara University, who navigates us through this convoluted subject. The first part of the discussion is an explanation of how de-extinction “works”. After that, we get into the various arguments “for” and “against”. Virginia is remarkably even-handed in her treatment of both sides of the argument, and some of her reasons are not  what one might expect.Links to resourcesThe Species That Went Extinct Twice - Forbes article describing the story of the short-lived return of the Pyrenean ibex.Revive & Restore - Website of the organization promoting the incorporation of biotechnologies into standard conservation practice.Colossal Laboratories & Biosciences - The outfit working on de-extincting the wooly mammoth and thylacine.Into the wild: playing God with resurrection biology - A written Santa Clara interview with Virginia.Visit www.case4conservation.com

Many conservation managers and scientists may not be aware that there is a single, common set of global biodiversity targets that inform national conservation strategy in almost every country in the world. These 23 targets are the main part of the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework”, or GBF. The GBF was agreed on by Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in late 2022, and the targets are meant to be achieved by 2030. This is a monumental task, considering that the multi-year strategy that preceded the GBF, which concluded in 2020, unfortunately failed to fully achieve any of its targets. The GBF is also accompanied by a monitoring framework of indictors for countries to measure their success toward achieving the GBF’s targets. That monitoring framework is still being compiled, and an “ad hoc technical expert group” has been tasked to guide its development and completion by late 2024. The GBF and its monitoring framework might seem distant and disconnected from on-the-ground conservation but they can be hugely influential on prioritization of conservation worldwide. Conservationists of any kind would probably benefit from a better understanding of what’s behind them, and what’s inside them.Alice Hughes is a conservation scientist, prolific author of peer-reviewed articles, and Associate Professor at the University of Hong Kong, who has published two recent peer-reviewed papers that analyze the GBF. She joins me to discuss the challenges behind the GBF and its monitoring framework, and she is open about her concerns over the setting and measuring of the GBF targets. We also explore how the GBF and its monitoring framework might be improved, or might have been improved. Links to resources:The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: what it does and does not do, and how to improve it - A recent paper by Alice and a colleague in the journal Frontiers in Environmental Science.The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework - text of the GBF including some of the terms duscussed in this episode. A link to the actual text of the GBF is at the bottom of the page ("decision 15/4").The Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: How did we get here, and where do we go next? - Alice's earlier paper on the GBF.Determining the sustainability of legal wildlife trade - Recent journal article by Alice and colleagues that relates to a specific aspect of the GBF.Visit www.case4conservation.com

This month’s episode is about activism and science communication, and whether or not they should be combined. There are obvious tensions here because science is meant to be as objective as possible, while activism is characteristically impulsive and political. And, of course, there can be activists on both sides of a debate. There can also be incomplete or poorly reported science, upon which that activism is based. On the other hand, could there be a role for scientists to guide activism, making it more rooted in fact, more strategic, and more appealing in its approach?Andrea Bandelli is a science communicator, and former Head of International Relations at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, in The Netherlands. He helps to unravel this topic, pointing out that activism need not be “brutal”, and arguing for more overlap between science communicators and activists.Links to resourcesActivists as “alternative” science communicators — Exploring the facets of science communication in societal contexts - A relevant set of commentaries in the Journal of Science CommunicationThe blurred boundaries between science and activism - A relevant article by Andrea, with self-explanatory titleThe Construction of Lay Expertise: AIDS Activism and the Forging of Credibility in the Reform of Clinical Trials - An article from the 90s, the topic of which Andrea uses as an example in the episodeVisit www.case4conservation.com

Climate change gets a lot more attention and funding than biodiversity. But, as conservation organizations are keen to point out, climate and biodiversity are intimately linked and there is, therefore, a good argument for addressing them side by side. Part of that argument is that conserving biodiversity is good for the climate. But an even more obvious link is that climate affects biodiversity. Human beings can adapt rapidly to change through innovation. But nature adapts over evolutionary time, much slower than the predicted changes in climate. And yet the countless books that continue be produced about climate change, are almost exclusively focused on its effects on humankind.  Adam Welz, however, has just released a highly acclaimed book to fill this gap, “The End of Eden”.  Adam is a writer, photographer, filmmaker and self-proclaimed conservation theorist with a long-standing interest in the effects of climate change on biodiversity. We interrogate this big subject, and Adam’s book in particular, in his second appearance on the podcast. In case you missed it, the last time was episode 11, in June 2021, when we discussed the problems with “performative conservation”.Links to resourcesThe End of Eden: Wild Nature in the Age of Climate Breakdown - Adam's new book, released on 26 September 2023 by Bloomsbury.Visit www.case4conservation.com

In decades past, conservation was notorious for ignoring other development goals. These days, its focus has expanded to consider those other goals, including the prevention of poverty and hunger. In fact, there seems to be a tendency to assume that conservation is always compatible with them, and necessary to achieve them. There is certainly truth in that, but are we talking enough about the inevitable trade-offs? And if everyone agrees that we should minimize trade-offs, why is the Green Revolution - one of the greatest “trade-off minimizers” in history often vilified by environmentalists? In this episode of The Case for Conservation Podcast, Prabhu Pingali shares his thoughts on the green revolution, and more generally on trade-offs between development goals. Prabhu is Professor of Applied Economics at Cornell University and has worked in senior positions at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, FAO, the CGIAR, and other key development institutions.Links to resourcesUnintended consequences lecture - A video masterclass presented by PrabhuAre the Lessons from the Green Revolution relevant for Agricultural Growth and Food Security in the 21st Century? - An open access book chapter by Prabhu on "the policy redirections needed for a ‘redux’ version of the Green Revolution that enhances food and nutrition security and economic development while minimizing social, environmental, and health tradeoffs"Green Revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead - Prabhu's 2012 PNAS article, to which we refer in our discussionHunger and environmental goals for Asia: Synergies and trade-offs among the SDGs - An article by Prabhu in 2022 article in the journal "Environmental Challenges"Visit www.case4conservation.com

Species. We take them for granted as the main currency of biodiversity. But how many of us really know what species are? And do we attach too much importance to them, especially in the context of conservation? Over centuries, taxonomists have categorized and re-categorized life forms and graphically presented their relatedness in the form of a so-called ”tree of life”. The trunk of the tree is common to all life on Earth. It branches into major “taxa” like the “kingdoms” of plants, animals and fungi, and then continues branching into increasingly more specific taxa (phylum, class, order, family, genus, etc.) until, near the branch tips, are species and subspecies. The more specific the classification, the less obvious it is where to draw the line between one taxon and another, or between different levels of taxa. Taxonomy, it turns out, is as much an art as it is a science.In this episode Frank Zachos does an excellent job at explaining taxonomy, and the ways in which it is misunderstood, and he embellishes his explanations with a wealth of fascinating examples. Frank is head of the mammal collection at the Natural History Museum in Vienna, Austria, and affiliated professor at the Department of Genetics at UFS, Bloemfontein, South Africa. He has written well over 100 articles and other publications on taxonomy and related topics.Timestamps02:15   What are species and what’s involved in classifying them?07:30   Ring species09:35   Species concepts14:12   The spectrum of species classification tendencies, from “lumping” to “splitting”17:45   How important is it to determine the best species concept?23:38   Are conservationists misusing species as a tool?25:28   What is a subspecies?26:54   How many species are there really?32:52   How can we conserve without using species as a unit of coservation?35:48   Do we need more taxonomists?39:01   Classifying the Loch Ness Monster40:27   A real-world example of how species status can be worth billions of dollars42:52   How have recent technological advances helped, or not helped, taxonomy?Links to resourcesNaming the Loch Ness Monster - 1975 paper in the journal, "Nature", which we discussed during the episodeMore coming soon...Visit www.case4conservation.com

Historically, the oceans have received too little attention in discussions about the environment and biodiversity. On the topic of biodiversity loss in particular, however, one marine system has attracted almost as much attention as the rainforests: coral reefs. Coral reefs have even been described as the rainforests of the sea, thanks to their remarkably high levels of biodiversity. Recently, United Nations agencies have been voicing the alarming prediction that the world could lose as much as 99% of its corals within decades, if there is a 2 degree centigrade increase in average global temperature. Meanwhile, however, on the world’s largest reef system, the Great Barrier Reef, a 2021 survey had more positive news. It found that hard coral cover, which is used as a proxy for the health of coral reefs, is at its highest levels since the 1980s. That’s despite global temperatures already having risen by one degree over the past century. So, is the public being misled by messages of doom and gloom? Or are these seemingly contradictory messages somehow reconcilable? With me to answer this central question about corals is Mike Emslie. Mike is head of the Great Barrier Reef Monitoring Programme and senior researcher at the Australian Institute for Marine Science (AIMS).Timestamps02:29  What are corals, where are they found, and why are they important?11:28   What's special about the Great Barrier Reef and the "coral triangle"?18:00   Why are coral reefs particularly important, among marine ecosystems?23:19   How can we be losing corals if they are recovering on the biggest reef system in the world?39:19   Are coral bleaching events a new thing?41:09   Are we focusing enough on helping reefs to adapt to climate change, versus mitigating climate change?44:20   Reasons to avoid doom & gloom messaging Links to resourcesContinued coral recovery leads to 36-year highs across two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef - Summary of a recent survey by the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) report Great Barrier Reef: UNESCO calls for In Danger listing - Article about calls for changing the status of the Great Barrier Reef, mentioned by MikeAustralian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) - Website of the institute responsible for the Great Barrier Reef SurveyVisit www.case4conservation.com

ESG is the latest buzzword in business & biodiversity circles, but it’s not actually new - only newly popular. And it’s one among many terms and acronyms in this field, which may be familiar but are often poorly understood - ESG stands for “environmental, social and governance” investing criteria. Understanding concepts like ESG is consequential because their success relies largely on convincing the general public of their value and their virtue. As we discuss in this episode, however, they are not necessarily all that they’re made out to be. To elucidate this topic with me is Ken Pucker. Ken is a professor at the Fletcher School at Tufts University and Advisory Director at the Boston-based Financial Services firm, Berkshire Partners. He was previously Chief Operating Officer of the outdoor footwear and apparel company, Timberland, one of the first companies to take an interest in sustainable production. He has written extensively on ESG and related issues in Harvard Business Review among other publications.Timestamps01:47  A brief history of CSR, ESG, and sustainability reporting09:41  ESG is not about the impact of companies on the environment13:53  Other concerns about ESG19:46  Impact investing 22:39  ESG makes policymakers complacent26:36  Are CSR and ESG in need of reform or are they fundamentally flawed?29:11  Investors care about impact, but not about how much31:17  Shopping around effect38:27  Transparency is not the main thing41:35  Has TCFD had any effect, and will TNFD have any effect?43:43  Should corporations serve shareholders or stakeholders?Links to resourcesESG Investing Isn't Designed to Save the Planet - One of Ken's most recent articles in Harvard Business ReviewGlobal Compact Who Cares Wins 2004 - Publication in which the term "ESG" was introduced in 2004GIIN - Global impact investing networkThe Case Against Corporate Social Responsibility - Wall Street Journal article by Aneel KarnaniDo investors care about impact? - Article mentioned by KenWhen A Billion Chinese Jump: How China Will Save Mankind Or Destroy It TCFD - Task force on Climate-related Financial DisclosuresTNFD - Task force on Nature-related Financial DisclosuresVisit www.case4conservation.com

There is a tendency in societies to adhere to conventional wisdom. We resist challenges to consensus views, and may even dismiss those who do challenge them as conspiracy theorists... which they sometimes are. But perhaps we take that idea too far sometimes. Perhaps we underestimate the importance of having the freedom to challenge orthodoxy. We live in an age in which more people than ever before are lucky enough to inhabit free societies, but recently it has become “conventional” to take issue with some of these hard-earned freedoms - albeit often with good intentions. Even people who don’t follow the news cycle must be familiar with the concepts of cancel culture and de-platforming. In this episode we discuss the notion of questioning orthodoxy, with a focus on the environment and especially conservation.My guest is Russell Galt, Head of Policy and Science at Earthwatch Europe, and previously Senior Programme Coordinator of IUCN’s work on urban conservation and Young Champions of the Earth Coordinator with the United Nations Environment Programme. Russell recently complete a Master of Business Administration at the University of Edinburgh, to complement his earlier studies in ecology.Timestamps  02:39 Historical examples of heterodox thinkers06:10 False consensus in the scientific literature09:42 Well-intentioned exaggeration in conservation12:28 Thought experiment on fighting lies with lies15:18 The robustness of truth 16:23 Harnessing behavioral science17:26 Attention-grabbing figures as a means of promoting conservation24:54 Less well considered threats to life on Earth; looking at the bigger picture27:08 Nature-based solutions31:07 Romantic notions of indigenous knowledge37:30 Important of a culture of debateLinks to resourcesThe Science Delusion - Book by Rupert Sheldrake exploring the idea that science is  constricted by assumptions Messaging Should Reflect the Nuanced Relationship between Land Change and Zoonotic Disease Risk - Article in BioScience on the need for nuanced science communicationPromoting health and wellbeing through urban forests – Introducing the 3-30-300 rule - IUCN website introducing Cecil Konijnendijk van den Bosch's "3-30-300" concept on urban conservationSummary for Policymakers of IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C approved by governments - IPCC webpage that makes reference to the loss of coral reefs under dofferent scenarios of climate changeContinued coral recovery leads to 36-year highs across two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef - Summary of a recent survey by the Australian Institute of Marine Science AIMS report Lo—TEK - Design by Radical Indigenism - Julia Watson’s website, with explanation and links to her book on how indigenous peoples and local communities use natureVisit www.case4conservation.com