IPBES chair Robert Watson says the “overwhelming evidence” presents an “ominous picture”.

“The health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever,” Sir Robert said. “We are eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide.”

A million species of plants and animals are threatened by extinction. Three-quarters of the planet’s land and about two-thirds of the oceans have been significantly altered. It’s now “likely” there will be “grave” consequences for people around the world.

The report says it’s not too late if we make “transformative change” – fundamental, system-wide reorganisation – at every level from local to global.

We need to focus on how to make that happen.

First, don’t indulge in despair. Despair leads to inertia and doing nothing means certain calamity.

Every action to save nature will improve our collective and personal futures. The only way to respond to a threat of this scale is with determined action rooted in dogged optimism. Bonus: doing something will also help you feel better.

Second, we need relentless focus. In a hospital emergency department or when paramedics arrive on a scene they use the concept of “triage” to ensure the most urgent cases get treated first.

Saving the natural world needs that kind of thinking. We don’t have the capacity to do everything at once. We need to make hard choices.

There are many social causes I support, some that affect me personally and some that don’t, but none are as important as this.

At the national level, we need to mobilise our resources on the scale of the total war footing of World War II. In this context it becomes clear that the recent political debate over Labor’s costings for climate change missed the point. Did we ask whether we could afford to fight the Nazis and Japan, or did we get on with it?

Our goal for reducing greenhouse gases should be set on the basis of scientific knowledge, and the political debate should be about the most economically efficient way to achieve it.

The endless arguments over climate change suck the oxygen out of the wider environmental debate. It's critically important – and certainly no hoax – but it's part of a bigger picture of biodiversity and healthy eco-systems.

The report says the culprits are, in descending order: changes in land and sea use; direct exploitation of organisms; climate change; pollution; and invasive alien species.

That suggests one of the biggest things we need to do is to protect the forests and other ecosystems that we have now, and build out from there. Australia's record on land-clearing is poor, so there's clear room for improvement.

Third, as a society we need to fundamentally rethink our economic goals. We can’t afford endless growth.

I’ve become interested in the concept of “doughnut economics” as outlined by Oxford University researcher Kate Raworth.

As shown in the graphic below, this concept is illustrated by two circles inside each other. Within the inner circle, humans have a shortfall of basic needs, while beyond the outer circle, we’re exceeding planetary limits. The “safe and just space for humanity” should be in the ring between the two circles. That should be our goal.

Finally, be clear about where your power lies. I’ve written before that consumer power won’t save the world. In a democracy, you have far more power as a citizen than as a consumer.

Loading

Economic forces mean that conscious consumerism can sustain niche brands but it can’t create the kind of transformative change required. Trying to consume less, to mend and make do, is better.

But your energy is best spent understanding science and public policy, using your vote wisely and putting pressure on governments at all levels during and between elections. (Pressuring businesses can also work because they care about reputational damage.)

There are signs of hope. Britain recently went more than a week without using coal to generate electricity for the first time since Queen Victoria was on the throne, and the country is on track to have a carbon-neutral electricity system by 2025.

This didn’t happen by accident. As NRG Expert analyst Edgar van der Meer said, "This has been a product of many years’ buildup: it’s not a fluke."

Meanwhile, New Zealand has just introduced a price on carbon with multi-partisan support.

In the words of the great primatologist and environmental educator Jane Goodall: “What you do makes a difference, and you have to decide what kind of difference you want to make.”

Caitlin Fitzsimmons is the associate editor of The Sun-Herald. Find her on Facebook.