An article this week in the New York Times explores an interesting predicament: In an era of climate change, conservation groups that work to preserve biologically important landscapes could find their work eventually undermined, or even pointless.
The story is “The Preservation Predicament,” by Cornelia Dean, published January 29. In it, she talks to people from The Nature Conservancy, Everglades National Park and the Center for Biodiversity Research and Information at the California Academy of Sciences, among others.
She mentions that some of the questions conservationists and scientists face include:
- Should we continue to maintain or re-estabilsh salmon runs in the Pacific Northwest, if climate change could eventually render the rivers too warm for salmon?
- Should we restore the fresh-water flow in the Everglades, given that rising sea levels could turn much of the ‘glades into a salt-water area in 100 years?
- Should we try to preserve coral reefs, even if they may not survive in a warmer world?
- Should we protect some inland areas, so that coastal wetlands can migrate there when sea levels rise?
Climate change and its possible effects thus have conservationists trying to predict which ecosystems will be most valuable to protect in the future. That’s a tricky thing to do.
As Dean points out in her story, “No one is suggesting that land conservation done so far has been a wasted effort. Many argue that preserved areas will contribute immensely to ecosystem resilience as the climate changes.” All of the things listed above are worth doing in the short term and may also have benefits in the long term.
The idea of triage in conservation seems hard to swallow, but it makes sense: You try to protect and preserve as much as you can, but at some point you have to prioritize projects based on time, money and people — and now climate change — constraints.
I don’t think it’s time, though, to give up on the coral reefs, the Everglades and the salmon.
I support land and species conservation because they benefit us in many ways. It seems problematic, however, to plan conservation based on predictions of what the landscape will look like decades from now. I guess we should preserve what we can now, and if we can get a good bead on what would be best to preserve for 10, 20 or 100 years from now — and we can do it — then we should preserve that land, too.
What do you think? Post your comments here!
We must begin to place less emphasis on individual species and more emphasis on the wild spaces that dispersing species will need in a largely fragmented landscape. For example, while we may or may not be able to save the grizzly bear in the Northern U.S. Rockies, we must step up efforts to protect the region’s still-wild landscapes, by curbing sprawl on private lands and by bringing the provisions of the Wilderness Act to public lands that are still roadless. We can’t know exactly which array of species will benefit from these measures, but we can - and must - provide the opportunity.
http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/269259
THE CAPITAL TIMES, Madison, WI
OVERPOPULATION ISSUE OVERLOOKED BY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
Rob Zaleski — 1/25/2008
where i live we have barrier islands. these islands have changed over millions of years. as each storm changes the shore more residents that live right on the beach demand taxpayers should help them with their beach erosion because their houses could be lost. this means all inland residents should pay to keep up the value for this property.they claim they are concerned for all of us. nature happens time happens and the process of nature will be here long after we are gone. could it be that special concerns would not exist if we did not? what would we have done had we existed during the beginning of the last ice age? would we claim it was due to human events and could it have been justified that it was in fact our fault? i think we could have.
It is unlikely that any efforts we make to “change” climate change are going to have any positive effects. The only thing we can really do is to continue to adapt to a constantly changing reality. If we bust our economy trying to “save” the environment, we will cause death. Death in the human species.
We do not control the macro-climate. I don’t believe we even effect it. We might cause some short term anamolies here and there, but 200 years from now, life will go on as before. Take a look at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Arguably, the worst work of human destruction to date. Flowers live there. Trees live there. Dogs live there. Humans live there. There is no evidence of long term damage. And that was our worst and only 60 years ago.
Nature always triumphs. Our job is to preserve our lifestyle and culture if possible. I am not saying it is advisable, smart or even right to foul our own nests. What I am saying is that we sometimes think we are a little more powerful than we really are. In ten thousand years, what will remain of our culture? I thnk little.