• 6 minutes U.S. Shale Oil Debt: Deep the Denial
  • 12 minutes Knoema: Crude Oil Price Forecast: 2018, 2019 and Long Term to 2030
  • 17 minutes WTI @ $75.75, headed for $64 - 67
  • 2 hours Trump vs. MbS
  • 8 hours Satellite Moons to Replace Streetlamps?!
  • 4 mins Nucelar Pact/Cold War: Moscow Wants U.S. To Explain Planned Exit From Arms Treaty
  • 2 hours Why I Think Natural Gas is the Logical Future of Energy
  • 2 days EU to Splash Billions on Battery Factories
  • 8 hours Can “Renewables” Dent the World’s need for Electricity?
  • 24 hours The Dirt on Clean Electric Cars
  • 22 hours Owning stocks long-term low risk?
  • 2 hours Get on Those Bicycles to Save the World
  • 2 days The Balkans Are Coming Apart at the Seams Again
  • 2 days The end of "King Coal" in the Wales
  • 11 hours Closing the circle around Saudi Arabia: Where did Khashoggi disappear?
  • 2 hours Can the World Survive without Saudi Oil?
Alt Text

An Unexpected Carbon Tax Proposal

Dyed-in-the-wool, rock-ribbed Republicans have proposed…

Alt Text

Refiners Aren’t To Blame For Climate Change

Big Oil is often criticized…

Alt Text

Europe’s Toxic Radiation Cloud Remains A Mystery

Last month’s mysterious radiation cloud…

David Gabel

David Gabel

David is a writer at Environmental News Network

More Info

Trending Discussions

The Paradox Faced by Environmentalists

The signs are all around. Many places in the world show degradation of the air, water, and soil. Species becoming extinct as natural habitats are being destroyed. The emissions of greenhouse gases that can alter the planet's climate are unacceptable. All the environmental issues put together amount to a very serious threat to human welfare. Yet at the same time, all accepted measures of well-being show that, on average, quality of life is improving around the globe. How does an environmentalist call society into action under such conditions?

A team of researchers examine this issue of the "environmentalist's paradox" in the latest issue of the journal, BioScience. They confirm that improvements in overall well-being are real, despite overwhelming evidence of ecosystem decline. The aggregate complacency that is occurring can be attributed to three main culprits.

- Increases in food production
- Technological innovations that decouple people from ecosystems
- Time lags before well-being is affected

The team of authors, led by Ciara Raudsepp-Hearne, agrees with the influential Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, which rates the capacity for ecosystem services for human purposes as low. They also agree with the Human Development Index (measures income, life-expectancy, and literacy), which shows significant improvements in the last forty years.

Unfortunately, the authors find little reassurance for a continued rise in aggregate well-being in the coming years. The observed effects to the environment threaten new gains in agricultural production. These threats can come in the form of wild temperature swings as well as an increased prevalence of floods and droughts. Technological advances can provide only a limited buffer in this regard. There is mixed evidence that society will be able to successfully adapt to further environmental degradation.

The team argues against complacency by pointing out what they call "ecosystem brittleness." They urge a greater understanding by researchers and decision makers, of the actual benefits of healthy ecosystems to human welfare. In the end, understanding this environmentalist's paradox is crucial to guiding future management of nature's services.

By. David Gabel

Source: Environmental News Network


x


Back to homepage

Trending Discussions


Leave a comment

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News