We should thank “Dot Earth” blogger Andrew Revkin writing in the New York Times for helping stir the debate about what is the right approach to protect our planet.
On April 3, he highlighted the views of Peter Kareiva, an Inconvenient Environmentalist.
The posting stirred up heated debate. And rightly so.
Kareiva is the chief scientist of the world’s biggest environmental group, the Nature Conservancy, and is “inconvenient” because he tells raises some uncomfortable issues about how environmentalists are going about their campaigns.
Kareiva claims:
• Nature is often resilient (i.e. BP oil spill, wildlife thriving in the vicinity of Chernobyl), not fragile.
• There is no wilderness untrammeled by man.
• The disappearance of one species does not necessarily lead to the extinction of any others.
• Conservation, by most measures, is failing. To survive it must change.
Watch Kareiva’s presentation with both an open and questioning mind
Kareiva writes:
What should be the new vision for conservation?
It would start by appreciating the strength and resilience of nature while also recognizing the many ways in which we depend upon it. Conservation should seek to support and inform the right kind of development — development by design, done with the importance of nature to thriving economies foremost in mind. And it will utilize the right kinds of technology to enhance the health and well-being of both human and nonhuman natures.
Instead of scolding capitalism, conservationists should partner with corporations in a science-based effort to integrate the value of nature’s benefits into their operations and cultures. Instead of pursuing the protection of biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake, a new conservation should seek to enhance those natural systems that benefit the widest number of people, especially the poor.Instead of trying to restore remote iconic landscapes to pre-European conditions, conservation will measure its achievement in large part by its relevance to people, including city dwellers. Nature could be a garden — not a carefully manicured and rigid one, but a tangle of species and wildness amidst lands used for food production, mineral extraction, and urban life.
The bottom line is that conservation must give up its view of preserving pristine wilderness and focus on developing natural settings that are more people friendly.
Now check out the responses and rebuttal –
Critic of Conservation Efforts Gets Critiqued
What’s your take?
(Editor’s Note: Earth Tribe is not taking sides in this debate. The debate is important.)
