Protecting Biodiversity: Why?

In The Huffington Post article, “America’s Commitment to Nature: Another Endangered Species?” (20 October 2010) the authors, Peter Seligmann and Harrison Ford, make a few striking claims regarding biodiversity. These claims seem to be used as evidence in why the United States of America should sign the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), an international agreement that ensures native plants and animals, as well as the interests of the indigenous people, are fully considered by all nations.

The first claim made by the Seligmann and Ford is as follows: “For every species of plant and animal that disappears, humanity forever loses the unique and sometimes critical scientific resources that species can provide” (Seligmann & Ford, 2010). There is no evidence provided that suggests this, but rather it itself is used as evidence in convincing people why America should sign the CBD. The problems with this claim will be further discussed.

The second, and perhaps most radical, claim is: “For each biological secret we have uncovered about Earth's plants and animals, there is exponentially more that we do not know about nature's potential benefits to people. That is why protecting the planet's vast biological diversity should matter so much to all of us. Every person, every family, every nation, depends on nature to survive and thrive” (Seligmann & Ford, 2010). This quote suggests that the reason for protecting biodiversity is that we do not know the benefits we may be giving up. It does not take into account the argument of intrinsic value, where we should protect biodiversity for itself regardless of its benefits towards humans. This argument will also be further discussed.

By examining the above claims, it appears that Seligmann and Ford’s argument is that all species of plant and animals are beneficial to human beings, and should be protected accordingly. The authors offer no evidence, appearing to assume that it is true. I think there are two problems with these claims and intended argument. First of all, even though many species do provide scientific knowledge, especially regarding medicine, that does not mean that every species will be beneficial to us. Many species do not provide us with any new medicine, and can even cause us bodily harm. Second, as mentioned above, there is no account for the intrinsic value when protecting species. The authors have not addressed the question of why one should protect a species if it is not beneficial.

Species without Benefits

When considering reasons for protecting biodiversity, many people believe we should because of all the benefits received from nature, and those that may come. This is very understandable when one considers that more than 25% of prescription drugs come from plants and other natural resources (Seligmann & Ford, 2010). For instance, the bark of a white willow tree contains acetyl salicylic acid, more commonly known as aspirin, which is a very prominent pain reliever (John Innes Centre, n.d.). In addition, extracts from the skin of the Ecuador phantasmal poison frog can block pain up to 200 times more than morphine, seemingly without side effects or addiction (Seligmann & Ford, 2010). However, not every species of plants and animals are beneficial to humans. For example, mosquitoes transmit many deadly human diseases such as malaria (Science Clarified, 2010), and more recently West Nile Virus. In addition, many species of fungi cause infections to the skin and cause over 37 million people to have allergies (Doctor Fungus, 2007). Considering that these species, and many more that may be undiscovered, are or could be harmful to humans and other species, people would see little reason to protect them. However, these species are still important to food chains, ecosystems, and biodiversity. Such a weakness is problematic when trying to convince people, and the United States government as in the article, that biodiversity must be protected for the sole purpose of the benefits received.

Intrinsic Value

Following the problem of protecting species that are not beneficial to humans, the argument of intrinsic value arises. When something, in this case a species or ecosystem, has intrinsic value it means that it is an end in itself rather than a means to an end. Another way to put it is that its value is not based on the benefits it provides to others, but rather the benefits to itself. A common example of something with intrinsic value is human beings. There are four viewpoints that I will briefly describe, each with a different view on what has value. The first is called anthropocentrism and states that nothing in the world would have value if there were no humans, since they are the only species capable of feeling happy, which according to utilitarians is the only thing that has intrinsic value. The second is sentientism and is similar except it states that humans are not the only ones capable of valuing things. They assert that sentient creatures, those that can consciously feel pain, are also capable of valuing. The third is biocentrism, which declares that all living organisms have intrinsic value, even if no creature is around to recognize it. Finally, the viewpoint of ecocentrism holds that everything, including non-living things like species, habitats, and ecosystems, has intrinsic value. The latter of the two views explains why living, or non-living, things that may not be beneficial to humans should be protected—for their intrinsic value. Of course, there is a need to justify if something has intrinsic value, but that is not the focus here. If the authors had taken into account the concept of intrinsic value, then I think that their argument about why the United States should sign CBD would be more convincing.

Conclusion

Seligmann and Ford’s argument is that all species are beneficial to human beings and, therefore should be protected. I think this is the wrong way to approach the notion of protecting biodiversity. There is no doubt that there are species that are beneficial, especially in the area of medicine. However, many species do not benefit us in any particular way, and even cause us pain or death. Therefore, those oppose to protecting biodiversity would argue that the loss of the species would in fact be better and that we should pursue their extinction. However, the argument of intrinsic value, especially from an eco- or biocentrism point of view, counteracts this notion and gives a stronger position into why the protection of biodiversity is so important. By including this, the authors would have a much better argument for convincing the United States to sign the CBD. I personally think the belief that biodiversity should be protected solely for its benefits is the wrong approach and can create problems in some situations, as seen above, not to mention devaluing the reasons why we believe conserving is so important.

By: Megan Nelson

Word Count: 1122

References

Doctor Fungus. (2007). Introduction to Fungi. Retrieved from http://www.doctorfungus.org/thefungi/index.php

John Innes Centre. (n.d.). Plants & Medicine Top 10. Retrieved from http://www.plantsandus.org.uk/top-10_medicine.htm

Science Clarified. (2010). Insects—Insects and Humans. Retrieved from http://www.scienceclarified.com/He-In/Insects.html

Seligmann, P., & Ford, H. (2010, October 20). America’s Commitment to Nature: Another Endangered Species? The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-seligmann/americas-commitment-to-na_b_769442.html

What the Green Movement Got Wrong

What the Green Movement Got Wrong is the title of an environmental documentary which exposes the errors of environmentalism. In the documentary, opinions are given of how environmentalists’ oppositions to accepting technological advancements have had negative consequences on the health and wellbeing of the human population and ironically the Earth itself. A contributing speaker in the documentary, Adam Werbach, who is the author of the book Strategy for Sustainability: A Business Manifesto and who works for the global agency Saatchi & Saatchi, voices his critiques: “After decades of work, after billions of dollars spent, the environmental movement has failed to achieve job one, which is to protect the planet” (Werbach, 3). Werbach believes the environmental movement has failed based mainly on their rejection of genetically modified organisms and nuclear energy; food aid was prevented from reaching starving people in developing countries for fear of the genetically modified seeds contaminating the local seeds, and in not implementing nuclear energy more fossil fuels are being used, contributing to climate change. He suggests that the environmental movement has somewhat lost its perspective, and believes it should “rethink its most basic assumptions…Environmentalists need to start seeing people as the solution, not the problem” (Werbach, 7). In this article, Werbach argues that the environmental movement has failed; environmentalists should alter their policies and behaviours in order to have a significant standing in the future, and to achieve this they must incorporate our increasing human population and technological advancements into their solutions. However, Werbach makes a weak argument due to his lack of sufficient and different types of evidence and simply including a few examples to support his claims.

Part of Werbach’s claim is that the environmental movement has failed in protecting the planet. To support this argument, he introduces the examples of disregarding the starving people of the world to prevent seed contamination and being unsuccessful in finding a solution to climate change by opposing nuclear power. This claim is not strong because there is not enough evidence to support this argument, and the examples alone are not strong enough. If environmentalism involves protecting the planet, it would include all life forms on the planet: species, ecosystems, sentient and non-sentient organisms, and human beings. In the first example, by rejecting genetically modified seeds, the environmentalists are protecting ecosystems and non-sentient organisms. In the second example, environmentalists are concerned with the negative effects of nuclear energy on all life forms. Thus, Werbach’s claim that the environmental movement has failed in protecting the planet is weak because he does not consider all the components of the Earth or other examples of which environmentalists have protected a certain species, organism, etc. Rather, he unfairly looks at the two controversial examples and makes the generalization that because humans and the environment in the examples are not benefiting, the environmental movement has made no progress. His examples used and argument made are exaggerated.

Werbach’s main argument is that it is necessary for the environmental movement to change and modernize to adapt with the changing times; environmentalists must take into account the world’s booming population and must eventually embrace technological advancements. Again, using his two examples involving genetically modified organisms and nuclear energy, Werbach ceases to consider the negative effects of genetically modified crops and nuclear power – essentially the reasons why the two topics are debated in the first place. Instead, because he is for GMO’s and nuclear power, he sees them as the solutions in solving the problems of starvation and climate change. Environmentalists on the other hand believe in alternative and more sustainable solutions. In this case, Werbach’s argument is weak because he does not take into account any supporting facts of either side of the debatable solutions and simply states that technology is our solution.

Because Adam Werbach is expressing an opinion, it is natural for his arguments to be biased. Werbach raises interesting considerations; however his arguments are not strong enough because his evidence is not strong enough. A main reason why this article is not strong is because the author neither anticipates nor addresses any objections to his argument. Thus he also does not have evidence to argue any opposition. In my opinion, a strong argument would have solid points with strong evidence for each claim (such as facts, statistics, examples) and would also consider opposing arguments and be able to argue it. This is especially applicable in this article since Werbach criticises the environmental movement on not helping the human race and encouraging the use of fossil fuels through the rejection of genetically modified organisms and nuclear power, when these two topics are very controversial and would definitely arise arguments against them. In doing so, the author could have shown that he understands and has considered the views of the environmentalists regarding the technologies; however he could have convinced the reader that their benefits outweigh the risks and make his argument stronger. Werbach’s argument that the environmental movement has not been successful in protecting the planet and that their policies and behaviours should change to accept technological advancements is weak, due to his lack of variety and sufficient evidence and a disregard for considering objections to his argument.

Werbach, Adam. "Debating 'What the Green Movement Got Wrong' - Adam Werbach -

Culture – The Atlantic." The Atlantic. 5 Nov. 2010. Web. 08 Nov. 2010.

.

By: Sarah Law

The Recycling Myth

Recycling is a huge part of today's society, it is a very key component of modern waste reduction. It does not only turn used products into potentially useful materials but also reduces the consumption of fresh raw materials, reduces energy usage,air pollution(from incineration), and water pollution(from landfilling). Recycling is what steers us away from "conventional" waste disposal and significantly lowers our greenhouse gas emissions. It is a process that has always been admired and respected for it's certain environmentally friendly benefits. Although it is very uncommon for anyone to think otherwise, few people don't see the recycling industry in the same way. In the blog " The Recycling Myth" the author who goes by the name "the revolution" strikingly regards the cycling industry as a "myth". He claims that recycling isn't worth it, with his main point arguing that the environmental benefits of recycling do not equal the costs required to run and maintain the recycling industry. " The Revolution" believes that recycling only increases emissions. He supports this by exposing the faults and defects he sees in the recycling process. However, despite his interesting opinion "The Revolution" makes a very weak argument due to his lack of strong sufficient evidence, his biased opinion, and only including few examples in supporting his claim.

The author starts off supporting his claim by arguing that the recycling bin itself is non-environmentally friendly. Stating that fossil fuels are being used in the production of every plastic recycling bin which, according to the author, puts us in an "environmental hole" and contributes to our carbon footprint even before we start to recycle. Secondly, " the revolution" discusses the running of the trucks on recycling day and that the fuel expended by these trucks increases carbon emissions and harms our atmosphere rather than helping it. He claims that recycling causes garbage trucks to be run "twice as often as otherwise needed"("The Revolution" 2010). Another argument that the author presents is that all recycling plants are run on fossil fuels, claiming that when recycling a bottle it is processed in a plant run on oil which also only increases emissions and harms the environment. He states that environmentalists want to take a stand against fossil fuels but are using them without regard. With these arguments " The Revolution" presumes that recycling is just contributing to a negative impact on our environmental footprint. His argument against recycling would be much more convincing if there were any evidence or stronger examples used. Although some of his arguments may be true how are we supposed to be convinced of them if he has only his opinion to back it up? " The Revolution" assumes that all plants are run on fossil fuels and all recycling bins require fossil fuels to be made. There is nothing that the author tells us or gives as an example that lets us know how fossil fuels are used or how much is used during these processes. It is true recycling plants do use fossil fuels but only a very minimal amount is used, and many recycling bins are made out of plastic but not all of them are. There are eco-friendly recycling bins available made out of recycled plastic or even wood and paper.

In making the accusation that recycling is worse for the environment than it is good, the author is assuming that these environmental costs of the recycling industry that he outlines in his blog outweigh the many environmentally friendly benefits associated with recycling. In the blog the author also gives us his solution to this " problem". He states that we should eliminate recycling completely which would get rid of the "extra" pickup day and reduce garbage truck emissions by 50%. He also states that we should shut down all recycling plants which will stop all fossil fuels being used by them and will, in turn, supposedly improve our carbon footprint. It is clear that " The Revolution" hasn't done his research. His solution is indicating that there should be virtually no recycling and only waste. In my opinion this would be significantly worse for the environment. Plastic bottles constitute close to 50% of recyclable waste in the dumps, the average time taken by plastic bottles to decompose in a landfill is close to 700 years. Plastic not only adds to landfill space and takes forever to decompose, used plastic dumped into the sea kills and destroys sea life at an estimated 1,000,000 sea creatures per year( Statistics Canada 2008). Without recycling, the amount of waste would skyrocket and possibly have a detrimental affect on the environment. Landfills produce about 25% of Canada's methane emissions, one of the most powerful greenhouse gases (Statistics Canada 2008). Without recycling this number would be sure to rise. These are just a few of the many reasons why the authors' solution is a very unrealistic one with negative outcomes. "The Revolution" only looked at and discussed the negative effects of recycling and assumed that if these were taken away that it would only be helpful in decreasing carbon emissions. He did not take into consideration the many benefits of recycling or the cons of his solution.

The author only had points against the recycling industry and did not give very much information on the benefits of recycling. There is a vast amount of benefits and reasons which suggest that the recycling industry is a very efficient one and should continue to exist for many years. Because " The Revolution" did not address or anticipate any of these opposing objections and did not bring evidence to hear these opposing objections the writing is biased and therefore a unreliable unconvincing argument and source of information.

In conclusion, " The Revolution" presents an interesting opinion on the recycling industry but a very weak argument. The blog lacked the evidence and examples needed to make a reliable convincing argument to the reader. The claim that the costs outweigh the benefits of recycling is not backed up with enough evidence to persuade people of this opinion. The assumption of having no recycling at all will decrease the size of our carbon footprint is unrealistic and impractical. It is clear that a world with recycling is much more environmentally friendly than a world without it. The authors' argument is also a biased due to overlooking the considerations of opposing arguments. Overall I beleive that this blog states an interesting opinion but nothing more, it is a unreliable source of information and a unconvincing argument.



References


The Revolution,(2010). 2010, October, 5. Retrieved from http://therevolutionagain.blogspot.com/2010/10/recycling-myth.html


Recycling In Canada. (2008). Statistics Canada, Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-002-x/2007001/article/10174-eng.htm

Words: 1084

By: Sean Ellison

The Ongoing Global Warming Debate

Whether or not global warming is happening or if humans are the reason for the rising temperature has been an ongoing debate between scientists, activists and many other individuals. In the blog “No Science, Fake Science, and the Destruction of the Nation” the author Alan Caruba makes many claims and arguments. His main claim is that CO2 should not be controlled. He thinks that global warming is a scam and that government is lying to people.

One of the author’s claims is that there is no such thing as dirty energy and the reason that people are attacking coal, natural gas, oil and nuclear power companies is their economic success. To support this claim he uses the first law of thermodynamics which states that “energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change form.” I would consider this to be true, but it is how we get this energy and its’ impacts when it is used that is dirty not the actual energy itself. He states something that most people would take as fact to try and enforce his argument and distract us from the reality that there really are many energy sources that are dirty. Coal extraction uses strip mining. Coal creates acid rain when it is burnt. It has major negative effects on the environment and people’s health. The extraction and refinement of natural gas and oil also causes a lot of pollution by toxins being released into the air and spills that will enter water sources. Nuclear could be seen as clean but if any of the by-products are disposed of improperly there can be catastrophic effects on humans and the environment.

Caruba states that wind and solar energy are undependable and inconsistent. Here he lists downsides of wind and solar energy, but does not state their benefits; he is only showing one side. Here is he not telling the whole truth to support his claim. The pros of wind and solar energy far outweigh the couple of negatives stated by the author. Solar and wind energy may not be as reliable as other energy sources, but if they are strategically placed they can be much more reliable. The major benefit of renewable sources is that they really are renewable and we are unlikely to just run out of sun or wind. If that ever happened, we would have much bigger problems than our energy source. Further, they do not produce dangerous by-product like the other energy sources.

Another claim of this author is that the Earth has always gone through periods of heating and cooling and this is just another one of those warmer periods. This can be a very strong claim, but there is more to this statement that should be considered. Here yet again the author only shows one side of the story. The problem with this claim is that CO2 levels are related to the temperature of the Earth and with higher CO2 levels comes higher temperatures. With the level of CO2 being higher now than ever before it seems very likely that the Earth’s temperature will also increase to a much higher level than it has ever been in the past. Hotter temperatures could result in disastrous effects to us as humans and the entire planet.

Caruba claims that only models have been used to show that the Earth’s temperature will increase with increasing CO2 levels which is apparently a ‘fake science.’ He states that it can be very easy for scientists and other individuals to skew the results to show a more exaggerated relation of CO2 and temperature. I can agree with him that is can be very easy to skew results. Here he is showing readers human error, which can de-validate someone else‘s argument. Even with human error this is not strong enough support. How are we to predict the future and determine if we are causing potential disasters unless we use scientific models? There is no way to know what is going to happen in the future unless we look as trends in the past and apply them to present data to peer into the future. Even if scientific results are slightly skewed it has been shown again, again that temperature will increase as CO2 increases. Caruba also states that models are ‘fake science’ this can be seen as true, because there is no experiment involved and it is mostly mathematics. Mathematics is necessary in science however, and the models are based off of scientific research. The definition of science is also controversial.

He also criticizes carbon credits. He believes that this would just give the government more power and only those that are investing in alternative energy will benefit. This seems to be a very true argument and I do not believe that carbon credits will solve any sort of problem. The difference between my opinion and Caruba’s is that he thinks there is no problem to fix and I do not think that that carbon credits are a real solution. Credits will just move around money between power companies, strengthening companies that are associated with the government. He is criticizing a controversial idea to support his own theory.

The author Alan Caruba has many arguments as to why he believes that global warming is a scam, but he fails to show the other side of most of his arguments. He uses human error to support his argument which is really not enough to back up his claims. He claims that we are using ‘fake science,’ which is hard to define and it seems to me that models are not complete fantasy. There is much evidence supporting that global warming is occurring. What humans need to consider is if we are willing to risk the future of our children and grandchildren by continuing our current actions. Would we rather do nothing and continue on our current route and take the risk. Or will we do something not knowing for certain if disastrous outcomes will occur, but at least try to prevent what seems to be a future with extreme temperature. Do we want future generations to hate us for making their lives more difficult and depriving them of all that we have now?

By Tara Wilson

References:
Caruba, Alan. "No Science, Fake Science, and the Destruction of the Nation." Warning Signs. 19 Sept. 2010. Web. 8 Nov. 2010. http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2010/09/no-science-fake-science-and-deliberate.html.