When it comes to climate action, politicians can't see the wolves from the trees

When it comes to climate change and biodiversity, we ignore scientists and academics at our peril, writes Ciaran Brennan

Wolves play a crucial role in maintaining healthy ecosystems and biodiversity by regulating prey populations, which can lead to a more balanced and diverse ecosystem. Picture: John Wall

What have experts ever done for us?

“I think the people of this country have had enough of experts,” British Conservative MP Michael Gove famously said during the Brexit debate, as he dismissed concerns about the potential downside impacts of leaving the EU.

But Gove and a lot of people thought they knew better. Well, it seems many may have buyer’s remorse or ‘Bregret’ over the decision. 

Since late July 2022, the share of people who regret Brexit in surveys has consistently been above 50%. As of May 2025, 56% of people in Great Britain believed it was wrong to leave the European Union, compared with 32% who thought it was the right decision.

Just when we thought things could not get any worse, the American electorate and Donald Trump said ‘Hold my beer’. Even the most pessimistic person could not have been ready for the vengeful gutting of scientific and educational standards, contempt for the law and disdain for facts and the truth during the second Trump term.

But like most right-wingers, Trump seems to hold a special contempt for the environment and any person or body protecting the environment. 

He has launched more attacks on the environment in 100 days than his entire first term — hitting protections for land, oceans, forests, wildlife and climate.

But lest we get complacent and superior over on this side of the water, it looks like those in charge in Europe and Ireland are just as willing to ignore experts and academics when it suits them, and particularly when it comes to the environment.

Recently, the European Parliament voted to lower the protection status of wolves under the Habitats Directive — with no sound scientific basis. This proposal was a politically motivated U-turn away from science-based conservation. 

Ireland’s own experts in the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) advised against supporting it, as the wolf remains in an unfavourable conservation status in six out of seven biogeographical regions in Europe. 

A data-driven reassessment of the species conservation status is due later this year, and the NPWS concluded any change to the species protected status before then was premature.

Fine Gael MEP Regina Doherty was quoted as saying: “A high wolf population can be a threat to biodiversity conservation, farmers, rural communities and tourism.”

In fact, wolves play a crucial role in maintaining healthy ecosystems and biodiversity by regulating prey populations, which can lead to a more balanced and diverse ecosystem, the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park in 1995 being just one example.

As for the threat to farmers and rural communities, it seems MEPs could have appraised themselves of some studies before they made their decision.

Wolf predation represents a very small fraction of total livestock losses, according to nature strategist Kriton Arsenis. 

In a LinkedIn post, he referenced a peer-reviewed study from Poland which found grey wolves avoid eating farm animals — even when thousands roam unprotected. 

In an area where more than 4,000 cattle and 700 horses graze freely each year, scientists found over a two-year period:

• Only three cattle calves were consumed by wolves;
• No horse attacks were recorded;
• Livestock made up just 3% of the wolf diet — and even that was likely scavenged — meaning wolves fed on animals that were already dead;
• Instead, wolves fed mainly on wild prey — roe deer and wild boar made up over 80% of their diet.

And then there’s the effect on tourism — but not in the way that Ms Doherty thinks. Nature and wildlife tourism is a growing market. 

Wildlife tourism centred around wolves is growing across Europe, with organisers highlighting its value for both conservation and rural revitalisation.

And it’s more profitable than killing wolves. There are already areas with wolves that make 10 times more money organising sightseeing tours than for shooting them, according to the Wilderness Society.

Forestry minister Michael Healy-Rae’s suggestion to allow forestry on peatlands 'about the dumbest thing we can do'.

Many people may not care about wolves. But if we allow these laws to unravel without any evidence or expertise taken into account, what’s next. And we in Ireland are not immune from ignoring or threatening to ignore expert and scientific advice, particularly in relation to the environment.

“About the dumbest thing we can do” from the point of view of climate action were the words of Peter Thorne, a professor of climate change at Maynooth University in response to forestry minister Michael Healy-Rae’s suggestion to allow forestry on peatlands, which would be a reversal of Government policy, which prohibits afforestation on deep peat.

The Irish Peatland Conservation Council warned such actions would have severe environmental consequences and undermine Ireland’s commitments to biodiversity and climate action. 

Peatlands are one of Ireland’s most valuable ecosystems, serving as critical carbon sinks, supporting unique biodiversity, and regulating water quality.

Scientific research has repeatedly shown afforestation on peatlands disrupts their natural hydrology, accelerates carbon release, and damages habitats essential for rare and endangered species. 

Of course, the minister’s suggestion is cloaked in a faux argument that if you don’t plant forestry in bogs, the only other option is to import them: a Sophie’s Choice of tree planting. You should always be wary when you’re offered a binary choice to a complex problem.

More recently, concerns have been raised over Government plans which will lower protections for rivers and lakes by labelling them “heavily modified water bodies”. 

Sustainable Water Network chief executive Sinéad O’Brien said the Government’s plan to lower protections for one in 10 of our rivers, lakes, and coastal waters, without evidence or proper explanation, shows disregard for the public.

This is all starting to sound familiar.

We need experts, academics and scientists to help us make decisions based on the best knowledge, information, evidence and science available. 

The laws of science and nature do not really care about your political affiliations, party policy or whether you think the world is flat — they just carry on regardless. 

They can’t just be discarded on a whim or because the political wind has changed direction. And you ignore them at your peril, as we’re finding out with our changing climate.