drivers of the loss, so that is clear, and it is a new dimension in political debate. 0ne dimension in political debate. one of the critical areas would seem to be this 30 x 30, as people call it, so protecting 30% of the earth s land and ocean by 2030. it has a good ring to it. does it have a scientific basis? yes, and assigns is very clear that unless we start reversing altogether reversing the loss of forests, the loss of wildlife, particularly on that but also in the ocean with fishing some of these ecosystems will reach a tipping point, that means they will start to grading on their own, so we need to stop that by protecting 30%, globally, of the nature that is left on the planet but also manage unsustainably the rest, and thatis unsustainably the rest, and that is the important part because we need to change how we produce and consume food, how we create infrastructure, and how it is dominated technology that we have, what
first of all, let me say that today s events with that of states, than talking about that as a signal that this is the type of the agenda, alongside climate change, it is considered as dangerous as climate change, and this is really important because we need to understand that we need to be and are nature positive society. sorry to interrupt you on that, thatis sorry to interrupt you on that, that is an important point, nature positive is not a phrase that comes to mind. carbon neutral, carbon negative, carbon neutral, you have been a poor relation of this climate change issue. yes, and i think we believe that we need, as a world, to embrace a global goalfor embrace a global goal for nature embrace a global goalfor nature as much as we have embraced in paris a global goal for climate. the two together will support each other, because, as i said earlier, there is no way we can address climate change without protecting nature, and climate change is one of the main
plant and animal species are now threatened with extinction. wildlife populations have dropped on average by 68% since 1970, that is unprecedented, and damage to our ecosystems has a direct impact on others, our livelihoods, food security and health. experts say that protecting those ecosystems is one of the best ways to counter climate change in itself. i think boris engineers by excavating waterholes and fertilising the land. money is the key there is a figure, but for every dollar that governments do spend a nature, $4 governments do spend a nature, $a is spent on agriculture, forestry and fisheries, which exploit and degrade it. i spoke to the director general of the wwf about what steps are being taken to meet the challenge.
we need to put into place, the funding we need to redirect, and not to destroy the environment develop but not destroyed. that is where it sounds so desperately difficult to change some of the things that are the absolute base plates of our civilisation. it is difficult, but first of all we understand it is necessary, and that is a major cultural revolution. we have taken it for granted up until now, nobody began to understand the consequences for us of nature loss such as climate change, is disastrous. the risk of an action is much higher than the $700 billion that we do spend defects nature loss. then i should say this, we today expand, an equivalent amount of what is needed to save nature on the planet and at the wrong way, we are giving subsidies to countries that destroy the soil polluted through over fishing, destroy the soil polluted through overfishing, we through over fishing, we subsidise