"An unprecedented joint statement issued by the leading scientific academies of the world has called on the G8 governments to take urgent action to avert a global catastrophe caused by climate change.
The national academies of science for all the G8 countries, along with those of Brazil, India and China, have warned that governments must no longer procrastinate on what is widely seen as the greatest danger facing humanity. The statement, which has taken months to finalise, is all the more important as it is signed by Bruce Alberts, president of the US National Academy of Sciences, which has warned George Bush about the dangers of ignoring the threat posed by global warming. ...
Human activities are causing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to rise to a point not reached for at least 420,000 years. Meanwhile average global temperatures rose by 0.6C in the 20th century and are projected to increase by between 1.4C and 5.8C by 2100.
(5.8 degrees would be very bad.)"
"
(Josh) Donlan, at the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University, is the lead author on a paper in the latest issue of Nature entitled "Re-wilding North America" (subscriber-only, unfortunately), which argues that a range of megafauna once found (in somewhat ancestral form) in North America should be gradually re-introduced the American mid-western plains.
Such animals include Bolson Tortoises, Bactrian Camels, wild horses of different types, Cheetah, African and Asian Elephants and, eventually, Lions. All roaming free over the American Great Plains.
The BBC and the Christian Science Monitor have good summaries of the arguments for those without access to Nature. Donlan and colleagues don't look at this as experimentation. Such a re-introduction would have enormous ecological value..."
"In Union County New Jersey, the county administration recently authorized the killing of thousands of geese, producing a predictable outcry. ...
It is simply a question of aesthetics, in the end. What is more beautiful, a lake or stream with many Canada geese on it and feces on its banks, or a feces-free bank with no geese? Which is more beautiful, a mixture of woods and meadows with many deer feeding and living within that environment while also causing damage to automobiles and household gardens (as well as to many plants they eat, and the other mammals and animals that rely on the plants that the deer eat)?
(No alternative given in the original text.)
This question cannot be answered with reference to the management or preservation of ecological systems. Even the argument for the preservation biodiversity (which weighs heavily against deer and Canada geese) is in some ways an aesthetic argument: it is not clear that an ecology with a smaller number of generalist species is in some utilitarian or functional way inevitably superior to an ecology with a larger number of specialist, niche species except perhaps that the generalist-biased ecology is more vulnerable to catastrophes because of a smaller reserve of genetic variation. It is more that humans tend to find variety in nature appealing, for very good cultural and intellectual reasons. ...
The argument that geese or deer must not be culled ultimately comes down to, “What animals do you like best, and what experience of nature do you treasure most?” If that’s seeing geese in the local pond—and you don’t ever walk barefoot through the grass next to the pond—you will inevitably and legitimately object to having geese killed.
In matters of public policy, what you like is a defensible basis for action only inasmuch as you can make a good case that your tastes are instrinsically better than anyone else’s, or that the preservation of what you find pleasurable is part of a good management strategy for the public nurturing of cultural and aesthetic diversity, or that your preferences are shared by the majority. Such arguments only work well if they do not involve actively harming or diminishing the preferences of other individuals. ...
Environmentalism ought to be one of the most potent, urgent political forces on the landscape. It can’t be until it grows up a little and gets beyond being a sentimental fashion accessory for the suburbanite who wants everything: a goose, a lawn, and eternally preserved property values to match. A real stewardship of the environment has to embrace culling and some of the costs and difficulties of living inside of an ecology that includes animals and plants that inconvenience and occasionally even endanger human well-being."
Great stuff. You should read the original; a few other philosophical issues are mentioned but I've snipped them here.
Undue Influence
:
Tracking the environmental movement's money, power, and harm
"Americans are unaware of just how "symphonically" their environmental opinions have been molded by big-money foundations that tell green groups what to do and how to do it, all with the help of bureaucrats providing federal grants and insider policy manipulation.
This "iron triangle" of:
wealthy foundations,
grant-driven environmental groups,
and zealous bureaucrats
- cuts off natural resource extraction from America's federal lands, ending the supply of timber, minerals, food, and fiber you use every day.
- calls the gradual removal of resource workers from rural lands "transition," envisioning gentrification with upscale retirees, modem gypsies and rat-race refugees in a boutique economy.
- destroys the lives and jobs of rural resource workers, whose cries of anguish and anger
are called "incivility" by the rich and powerful who are destroying them.
- tightens their regulatory grip on private property so you can't use what you own—and you can't get compensation for what you lose.
- increases the size of big government by taking more land for "nature preserves" even though government already owns nearly half the nation.
- widens the rural-urban prosperity gap. While cities enjoy a booming economy, rural communities suffer severe economic pain caused by the "iron triangle" through bans on logging, mining, ranching, farming, and all forms of natural resource extraction.
- perverts the media you rely on, rearranging your mind, making sure you believe what they want you to believe and crushing all opposing views.
- dismantles industrial civilization piece by piece.
This website follows the money and the power and the harm and takes you along."
Generally speaking, I think of environmentalists as the "good guys" and anti-environmentalists as the "bad guys".
On the other hand,
I freely admit that there are a lot of dumb environmentalists out there who really should wise up a little,
and that some environmentalists use tactics that I really can't approve of.
Later: Re-reading this, it seems quite obvious to me that the amount of money donated to and spent by the environmentalists is but a small fraction of that spent by pro-business (anti-environmentalist or environment-indifferent) interests.
