Controversy and Environmental Protection

by Allison Jones

Since the beginning of the environmental movement there has been controversy in what and how to protect and preserve nature and environmental quality.  

Now we know more about how valuable nature can be, but still some people will use natural resources in non-sustainable ways.  We need knowledgeable people to watch over what remains so that something is left and our environment is healthy.  But there is conflict between what is done to preserve and the people trying to make a living.  For example, predators serve a vital function in ecosystems, they help keep the prey animals in check, but farmers and ranchers don’t want those predators around their livestock potentially killing their livelihood.

Also, it is cheaper and easier to clear cut forest instead of selectively harvesting trees.  But that degrades the environment and can cut land’s long term profitability.  Cleared forests have reduced productivity; it takes longer for trees to recolonize the area.  Increased erosion causes streams to clog with sediment, threatening fish populations including the ever popular trout, and reduces the nutrients available for trees to use to regrow.  The loss of territory also displaces wildlife that will either die or perhaps move closer to human settlements.

Many human actions have unintended consequences.  One such example is that groomed snowmobile trails in mountains have allowed coyotes to spread into higher elevations in winter and encroach on lynx territory.  A lynx’s huge paws will support it in soft snow, but a coyote’s smaller paws will not.

While we understand more now about the environment and how nature’s systems work than 50 years ago, we are still far from understanding all of it.  We still need those who keep watch so that we know when our actions are detrimental.

What we do not need are those who turn environmental science into overblown crises and political ammunition.  Overstating the evidence can be just as harmful as ignoring it.  Part of this problem comes from how the media tends to sensationalize scientific findings to make them more interesting and eye-catching to the public.  Also, scientists need funding for their research and may be influenced by that as well.  

Another problem is that when someone discovers a problem, they must raise awareness of it so that something may be done about it.  But people have a short attention span, so often activists try to create a sense of urgency and crisis to prolong the public’s interest.  Unfortunately, this can lead to more people becoming disillusioned and consequently dismissing the problem regardless of its veracity.  That sense of panic does not lead to well thought out policy which can cause further harm.  Reactions may include ineffective solutions or ones that produce undue economic repercussions.  People who cannot keep themselves or their families fed do not care if there is less land for wildlife. 

Another source of conflict is that between the scientists themselves.  Contradictory interpretations of data exist.  These conflicts are settled through more research and peer reviewed publication.  Scientists are required to provide evidence for their interpretations and their results must be able to be duplicated by others.  “The sound core of knowledge that has been tested and relied on is always surrounded by an amorphous boundary of uncertainties that are the domain of current research,” says Lisa Randall.  By repeated testing and further research consensus is reached.  This usually takes longer than most people have patience for.  When results are reported in mainstream media, often more definite and sweeping language is used than the results call for.

As we gain further knowledge of Earth’s systems, we will be able to make better choices for our long term benefit.  But our lack of complete understanding should not prevent us from taking reasonable steps to preserve the environment and our natural resources.