[Error: unknown template qotd] Biggest environmental concern: all of them, really. The Environmental Issue Olympics -- pitting pollution vs. global warming vs. environmental justice vs. resource depletion vs. peak oil vs. whatever against each other -- doesn't do anybody any good; if I've learned anything from my ES classes so far, it's that all the issues are connected to each other in some way, and all the issues are extremely complex, with different people wanting different things, to the point that compromise is needed. And even compromise doesn't work all the time -- in fact, while it seems like the best solution to deadlock, it doesn't even work most of the time. The best thing to do is have all the people who focus on specific issues find common ground, and use the resources we have -- compromise, regulation, grass-roots, etc. -- to remain vigilant on holding back environmental degradation, and maybe making up some of what has been lost.
While I think that global climate change may bring us the best impetus for real change -- a greater emphasis on renewable energy and decreased consumption, to sum it up -- it may not be the best "cause" to rally around. I'm starting to come to the opinion that even though I think a significant portion of climate change is anthropogenic, it isn't the only factor, and reports of it being caused solely by greenhouse gas emissions are exaggerated. Granted, I haven't read much of the literature on the subject on both sides; most of this has come from friends who are complete meteorology/climatology geeks, though I do plan doing my own research starting this summer. But I think that although we must do our part to slow down emissions (getting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere below 350 ppm is a good start), we need to realize some of this is beyond our control, and that nature has a tendency of righting itself eventually. I remember reading something by Michael Pollan about how environmentalists tend to view nature the same way capitalists and libertarians tend to view the economy: as an "invisible hand" (to quote Adam Smith) that knows what's best. This is why capitalists and libertarians tend to believe the government needs to keep its hands off the economy and let it do its own thing, and many environmentalists do the same thing with nature -- that is, if a bunch of trees get knocked down due to a storm or something or other, to just leave it be and let nature (i.e. succession) take its course. (I
know I'm grossly oversimplifying this, but I'm trying to recall this from my admittedly spotty memory, so bear with me.) But Pollan would argue that even though nature seeks equilibrium, this equilibrium is
not always best for us -- it is not some god to worship that "knows" best. Just as the economy needs
some intervention so that you have more competition and innovation and less inequality and disadvantage, the planet needs stewardship -- active involvement, preferably by us, so that we can live with what it provides us and not place any large, demanding burdens.
( Cut for length... ) ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
