Editor’s Note: This piece is brought to you by Adam Ellis. Having written his undergraduate dissertation on the UK’s biodiversity policy, he has since gone on to work in sustainability consultancy. Be sure to follow Adam and his work, here.
When Ed Miliband accepted his appointment as Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, he set out a vision for Britain as a ‘clean energy superpower’. It is a lofty ambition, if it can be put into practice. Yet, in the fight against climate change, the challenge is far greater than simply grappling with emissions. This research was undertaken nearly two years ago yet its findings are as relevant – if not more so – today. While Net Zero might have emerged as the primary long-term goal guiding national climate policies, biodiversity is at stake too.
Net Zero generally refers to the UN goal of cutting Greenhouse Gas emissions to as close to zero as possible, with more than 150 countries (producing 89% of emissions) adopting Net Zero targets. The point of this goal was to cap global temperature rises to 1.5C with a maximum of 2C. The difference in 0.5C is, simply, “a planet that’s still suitable for humans and one that’s not”. Emissions, however, are not the full picture. The UK has some of the lowest biodiversity in the world and further loss of biodiversity creates a host of issues. The big problems include: food insecurity; depletion of biomass necessary for medicines; loss of nature-based services like water filtration and pollution; and reduced recreational activities. Simply, we are more vulnerable and limited in what we can do if we do not take better care of the life around us.
Even though the UK improved its commitments to Net Zero back in 2022 at the Glasgow COP; there was not a single specific update on conservation.
The Research
To tackle the issue of an overbearing focus on emissions when it comes to climate change, the question driving this research was simply:
How can the UK’s primary decarbonisation commitments be modified to help achieve net zero by 2050 while conserving biodiversity?
To find the answer to this question, this research undertook a mixed methods approach. First was the quantitative analysis of a range of key UK climate change documents to determine how much focus was being placed on emissions as opposed to biodiversity. This was followed by a range of qualitative methods that were used to provide a more thorough understanding of the issues at hand.
The focus of the research was on the 6th Carbon Budget (updated as of 2020) and how it compares to the UK’s National Determined Contribution; the Net Zero Strategy document; Build Back Greener report; and the Ten Point Plan (For a Green Industrial Revolution). Between these documents, an idea of how the UK analysed the challenges of climate change, and how it aimed to go about managing it, is made clear.
In the first, quantitative, section of the research, the key documents all emphasise decarbonisation substantially more than biodiversity. The Net Zero Strategy: Build Back Greener document, for example, mentions ‘net zero’, ‘low carbon’, ‘decarbonisation’, ‘zero emission’, and ‘carbon capture’ nearly 1,500 times while ‘biomass’ and ‘biodiversity’ are mentioned 116 times. These documents also offer unambitious goals with the Ten Point Plan putting forward commitments that are insufficient to reach net zero by 2050.
Qualitatively, it is clear that many of the key policy documents fall too far short of adequate consideration of biodiversity. The Ten Point Plan lacks conservation policies, consideration of the impacts on biodiversity for each of its points, and fails to outline mitigation efforts on almost all ten of its points. The National Determined Contribution also only offers vague plans for halting the decline of terrestrial biodiversity and fails to provide a framework for achieving this goal. Tellingly, the conservation commitments were included in a separate section from the decarbonisation commitments.
Overall, quantitative analysis found that conservation terms were given less consideration and were isolated from decarbonisation terms. Qualitative analysis further supported these findings, indicating that the impact on biodiversity was overlooked in all three documents, with 90% of the Ten Point Plans points proving unambitious and neglectful of biodiversity. This was attributed to the lack of consideration for the impacts of decarbonisation on conservation, including land use, resource extraction, pollution, and invasive species introduction in the ecosystem.
Next Steps
The final piece of this research involved conducting interviews. These provided access to opinions and insights that were up-to-date, evolving, and gleaned from those working on projects first-hand. These interviews suggested that integrating conservation and decarbonisation measures is the best way to overcome this imbalance. By prioritising biodiversity within the framework of net zero strategies, the challenges associated with decarbonisation could be mitigated, allowing for emissions to be reduced and biodiversity to thrive as opposed to being merely preserved.
Ultimately, conservation efforts are often overlooked when addressing climate change, despite the importance of biodiversity to supporting human life. When done correctly, the strategies of conservation and decarbonisation can be stacked by increasing collaboration between government, local authorities, and departments while integrating carbon capture techniques with conservation. One suggestion put forward is of a new biodiversity metric. This could be used to measure carbon savings that avoid actions detrimental to biodiversity and which could motivate financial engagement with conservation. New funding and appetite for conservation efforts could protect and promote biodiversity when done correctly.
Final Thoughts
Despite shifting political landscapes since its completion in 2022, this research remains highly relevant amid the escalating biodiversity crisis. The UK, one of the world’s most nature-depleted countries, has lost nearly 50% of its biodiversity, with one in six species at risk of extinction (State of Nature Report, 2023). This loss directly impacts essential ecosystem services, including food security and climate resilience. For instance, over 70% of UK butterfly species and many wild bee populations are in decline, threatening the estimated £690 million annual contribution of pollinators to agriculture. Soil biodiversity loss further exacerbates food price volatility by reducing fertility and yields.
Despite evidence that biodiversity-friendly practices, such as maintaining wildflower-rich habitats, enhance agricultural productivity, such strategies remain underutilised in mainstream policies. Moreover, recent setbacks in the UK’s climate commitments, including the delay in phasing out petrol and diesel vehicles, highlight the failure to integrate biodiversity and climate strategies.
Since finishing university, Adam has since pursued a career as a sustainability consultant, supporting motorsports organisations such as Formula 1 in obtaining environmental certifications. Through this work, he has observed a persistent oversight of biodiversity considerations within sustainability frameworks, with accreditation processes often prioritising carbon reduction while neglecting the critical role of ecosystems in long-term environmental resilience. Furthermore, many clients remain largely unaware of biodiversity’s significance—not only for broader ecological health but also for the sustainability and longevity of the sports they are committed to preserving. This gap in awareness highlights the urgent need for a more holistic approach to sustainability that integrates biodiversity conservation alongside carbon reduction strategies.
This research underscores the critical interdependence of these two objectives;
- Prioritising one at the expense of the other is a false dichotomy. Without immediate, large-scale interventions, the continued loss of biodiversity will exacerbate climate change, disrupt essential ecosystem services, and accelerate ecological tipping points with profound consequences for both the natural world and human society.
- Urgent, integrated action is required to prevent irreversible environmental degradation and to secure a sustainable future.
Read the full research, here.