[photopress:Reichholf.jpg,full,pp_image]

Some excerpts from Speigal’s Olaf Stampf and Gerald Traufetter interview with Biologist, Josef Reicholf. . .

SPIEGEL: Mr. Reichholf, are you worried about global warming?

Reichholf: No. Personally, I’m even looking forward to a milder climate. But it will also not pose any major problems for mankind as a whole.

… The vast majority of people today already live under warmer and, in many cases, far more extreme conditions than we pampered Central Europeans.

Homo sapiens is the only biological species that can handle practically any type of climate on earth — from the deserts to the polar regions, from the constantly humid tropics to the high altitudes of the Andes …

SPIEGEL: In what sort of climate does man feel most comfortable?

Reichholf: Biologically speaking, we are children of the tropics.

Wherever man lives, he artificially creates tropical living conditions. We do this with warm clothing, and with heated offices and homes …

SPIEGEL: But, as an ecologist, aren’t you at least concerned about animals and plants?

Reichholf: Many species are certainly threatened, but not by climate change

… Many species have already fled from the countryside to the cities, which have been transformed into havens of biodiversity.

… If higher temperatures are truly so bad, why do more and more animals and plants feel so comfortable in our cities?

SPIEGEL: And what is your view of the prognoses that global warming will cause up to 30 percent of all animal species to become extinct?

Reichholf: It’s nothing but fear-mongering, for which there is no concrete evidence.

On the contrary, there is much to be said for the argument that warming temperatures promote biodiversity … To put it succinctly, the warmer a region is, the more diverse are its species.

… It’s no accident that most of the species on Germany’s red list of endangered species are the heat-loving species. Many of them could be given new opportunities to survive in Germany.

SPIEGEL: But aren’t you underestimating the rapid pace of the current warming? Many animals and plants are unable to adapt quickly enough to a changing climate.

Reichholf: This claim is already contradicted by the fact that there have been much faster climate fluctuations in the past, which did not automatically lead to a global extinction of species.

As a biologist, I can tell you that only the fewest animals and plants are accustomed to rigid climate conditions.

SPIEGEL:… how would polar bears survive global warming?

Reichholf: Then let me ask you in return: How did the polar bear survive the last warm period?

Perhaps Knut at the Berlin Zoo is an exception, but polar bears in the wild don’t exactly survive by sucking on ice. Seals are the polar bear’s most important source of food, and the Canadians slaughter tens of thousands of them every spring.

That’s why life is becoming more and more difficult for polar bears, and not because it’s getting warmer.

Look at the polar bear’s close relative, the brown bear. It is found across a broad geographic region, ranging from Europe across the Near East and North Asia, to Canada and the United States. Whether bears survive will depend on human beings, not the climate.

SPIEGEL: Is there really no plant or animal species that isn’t at risk of extinction because of a further rise in temperatures?

Reichholf: I certainly can’t think of any. There are a few flatworms that can only exist in icy cold springs.

These creatures do in fact appear to be disappearing in places where the springs are warming up. But this could also be a coincidence, because the closest relatives of these worms tolerate a much broader temperature spectrum.

SPIEGEL: Conversely, should we be worried that malaria, as a result of global warming, will break out in our latitudes once again?

Reichholf: That’s another one of those myths.

Many people truly believe that malaria will spread as temperatures rise. But malaria isn’t even a true tropical disease.

In the 19th century, thousands of people in Europe, including Germany, the Netherlands and even Scandinavia, died of malaria, even though they had never gone abroad.

That’s because this disease was still prevalent in northern and central Europe in previous centuries.

We only managed to eliminate malaria in Europe by quarantining the sick, improving hygiene and draining swamps.

That’s why I consider it virtually impossible that malaria would return to us purely because of climate change. If it does appear, it’ll be because it has been brought in somewhere.

SPIEGEL: Why has it become a dogma that we should be afraid of warmer times?

Reichholf: It’s a mystery to me. As recently as the 1960s, people were more concerned about a new ice age — and that would indeed pose a great danger to us. The most catastrophic eras were those in which the weather became worse, not phases of warmer climates.

Precisely because we have to feed a growing population on this planet, we should in fact embrace a warmer climate. In warmer regions it takes far less effort to ensure survival.

Report This Post