So the question lately is becoming a philosophical one, and a testament to human need to cling to the present, the known, and the anticipated. Management agencies are being forced to ask whether or not they should change focuses - to acknowledge climate change as a significant enough force driving change to the landscape and larger schemes that are threatening, for example, the stability of certain national parks. The question becomes about whether the parks should put so much effort into trying to save the parks for what they were known for, or to shift the management policies to support the new, overtaking species or developing scheme. Obviously, climate change continues today, even with the ending use of CFCs like they were used in the past, but how long will it take to realize there need to be changes? Just as CFCs and other chemicals are allowed to persist in the environment much longer than they should, even after understanding develops regarding the dangers surrounding their use, people may be prolonging the need to change in other ways. It may not be waiting for studies to prove the need to ban CFCs, but it may be just as important as slowing our introduction of factors leading to global warming and climate change in determining the character of our national and global landscapes and resources. Are we moving from spending too much time in banning dangerous chemicals to spending too much time avoiding accepting the need to change management practices? Either way, our stalling changes the makeup of the planet.
|
AuthorBlog entries from the 3 student website builders ArchivesCategories |