Every day I hear new debates on what is happening with global climate. It's changing. It's not changing. It's changing but it's not our fault. Storms are due to global warming. We always had storms. We all have to switch to new light bulbs to stop greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases aren't it. Yes, they are.
Whenever anything is claimed (and the claims can be confusing), some dismiss it all if the expert is labeled an environmentalist (to some synonym for party-pooper at the least and communist at the most ).
They are not to be trusted because
their goals are suspect. So what does being an environmentalist, as I consider myself, mean?
The dictionary says first it's an expert on environmental problems. (Well, I am no expert. I am, however, an observer of life and an explorer of issues, does that count?) Second definition: any person who advocates or works to protect the air, water, animals, plants, and other natural resources from pollution or its effects. (By that definition, I am one, supporting such efforts on a broad scale and working on them in my own life on a small scale.)
Some right wingers lose it before they get to the word environmentalist. Just saying environment triggers defense mechanisms, but what is environment? 1. the aggregate of surrounding things, conditions, or influences; surroundings; milieu. 2. the air, water, minerals, organisms, and all other external factors surrounding and affecting a given organism at any time. So it's what we live with and within.
The problem some have with environmentalists is a word missing in the list above. Where is making money or maintaining the stock market's growth? Profit is not a factor in assessing environment. No wonder environmentalists are such impediments to a fully functioning society. Given the deification of capitalism, it's no surprise some have seen environmentalists as the stumbling block on their way to Utopia.
To see how this impediment interferes on a practical issue, let's take highway construction. Who doesn't like wide, safe roads? Not surprisingly, when a new road is proposed or even an existing road going to be widened, the questions environmentalists would ask would not be asked by truckers, those who make construction materials, nor by people in a hurry to safely get to a new ski resort or a development tucked into a beautiful, wooded terrain.
If you look at the environmentalist's list of concerns, the freeway will be considered for how it impacts air quality, community life already there including animal, and water (as roads cut through natural drainages). The developer won't care about whether there is an elk habitat that this cuts in half. They won't even want to know it. Besides, what is an elk to a developer who only sees progress in terms of building?
The extreme environmentalist would develop nothing while the extreme developer would develop everything. The need is compromise so that nobody gets it all while we try to balance the needs of environment with those of growth.
Some environmentalists go too far with their demands as a way to stop any development. Protecting an endangered three-toed squirrel when there are plenty of four-toed squirrels is silly. Don't dare plow that field because the habitat is of a striped scorpion that is almost extinct while ignoring the fact that the environmental niche is filled by tan scorpions which are everywhere.
We are living on this earth that some call Gaia. We do not understand totally how it works. There could be many reasons for observable changes, but isn't it conservative to go slowly figuring out when it we might be us doing that would impact our environment in a way from which we can't come back or it takes centuries?
When environmental issues are closer to home, they are easier to see the consequences. I faced an unpleasant one on this farm recently-- too many cattle on too small of acreage. I have shown pictures of the cattle herd. I take great pride in watching and tending them, but walking back in the pasture this winter has shown a problem impossible to ignore. It isn't like reading about the ocean or the air quality thousands of miles away or an ozone layer overhead, it was right here-- ground getting chopped up. Grass down to 1/4" in places.
The problem was evident and undeniable. The solutions were repugnant to me. We try to market our beef direct to buyers. This means healthy, grass-fed beef for the consumer as well as good, quick death for the animal. The market this year has not supplied enough customers = environmental problem = emotional one for me.
The only real solution, since buying more land was not possible and would only delay the issue, was selling animals at auction. I have written here how much I value giving our animals a good life. It's called husbandry. There was no way to solve this problem, however, without sacrifice-- the animals and mine.
Last Friday, we sold at auction 13 young animals. My heart hurt for this, but I had to grit my teeth and bear it because their environment had reached its limits and only a hard solution would solve the problem. Any less painful solutions would have had to be enacted months ago, even a year. We tried but it hadn't worked and so here we were with a solution that was painful but had to be done. The herd seems relieved as their life is now better with less pressure for space and food. I still feel sad; but solutions don't always come without cost.
When it's immediate, most people can see environment as mattering. Like when we were driving into town one morning last week and suddenly a small black and white critter came scurrying out from the side and crossed the road right in front of us. Oh no, oh no, were the vocals while brakes were applied and a swerving mechanism avoided the skunk. Talk about a risk to our immediate environment!
Sometimes we have to do things, that might cost us individually, to improve our environment in a worldwide sense. Cute movie on this topic is
Happy Feet, give it a try. It is a sweet, animated story with a lot of good music and a lesson about how one group can impact another. Even there some argued, who cares! We all should.
A blog coming soon will be on something science is observing regarding the environment but over which we might not have a choice. No light bulb solutions. No sale of animals. Maybe no way to swerve around. When such things happen, then we, as a world community, need back-up plans. Do we have them? Yes, they cost money. :)