Issue 4: Is BioDiversity Overprotected?

Issue 4

Is Biodiversity Overprotected?

Authors: David N. Laband and Howard Youth

1. (2pts) Definitions. List the important new terms and concepts used by the author. Define terms with which you were not familiar. Circle those that you think need clarification and discussion. Minimum 4.

a. tragedy of the commons (introduced by Garrett Hardin) – the conflict of the individual and common good, wherein the common good has the least invested upon it and the individual ends up bearing the load of the work, costs, etc.

b. tragedy of the political commons – similar to the tragedy of the commons, although in this case, a political environment is added to stigmatize or otherwise punish an individual who does not comply to the ‘common good’ and bear the brunt of efforts.

c. biodiversity – the variation of life forms within an ecosystem. The value of biodiversity is normally divided up with intrinsic and instrumental values. Intrinsic is basically that we have diverse life forms here – isn’t that great? And aren’t they pretty? Instrumental value lies more with what use we or the ecosystem gets from such a diverse array of organisms.

d. exotics – nonnative species in an area that characteristically overtake the habitat because of a lack of natural predators and non-adapted prey.

2. (4pts) Summary. In your own words, summarize the themes and key points developed in this chapter, article, or section of an assigned book. Write as if you were the author telling another educated person what you were trying to say in the assigned piece. In this section, do not give your opinion. Present the arguments and themes of the assigned author.

David N. Laband, a professor of economics, provides the positive argument. He believes that biodiversity is protected only because political leaders and citizens do not have to bear the burdens of it.

He points out that we desire the reduction of timber being cut, but we still want to have housing, furniture, paper, and paper products. We want our cake and to eat it too. He says we can’t have it both ways.

He believes the urbanites, which do not have to pay any direct payment to preserving biodiversity. The costs of such preservation falls upon land owners, who are now required, for instance, to replant within two years an equal amount of timber that they have cut.

He quotes Garrett Hardin, who uses a sheep herder as an example. Sheep will graze the land until there is nothing left of it. A sheep herder will increase his sheep herd to create gains in profits. “Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit – in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in society that believes in freedom of the commons.” (p. 57)

He also points out that there are currently no incentives for land owners to allow an endangered species on their land. As the Endangered Species Act is so restrictive, a person can no longer use her land as she wants or needs to. So, he says, it is understood why landowners will “shoot, shovel, and shut up” when sighting an endangered animal. This does not help our biodiversity, the goals of the ESA, or satisfy the landowners. But they do it because they have to.

When urbanites claim to appreciate biodiversity, he says, look at their lawns. They use chemicals and lawnmowers, grass trimmers and brush hogs in order to keep their lawns looking fresh and neat – the exact opposite of biodiversity. And even though they pay for such treatments to their own lawns, it is obvious where their value is placed more highly.

He concludes by saying that it is irresponsible that land owners should bear the financial burden of environmental protections, but reiterates that for as long as we all do not share the burden of protecting the environment and its biodiversity, those removed from the costs will vote on ideology and not actual practice.

Howard Youth, a wildlife conservation research and writer, argues for the negative side. He believes we need to protect our biodiversity for our future and for our economy. He points to bird extinction in his article, and says the threats they have to deal with are habitat loss, human disasters, and disease. Bird extinction is now 50 times the natural rate of extinction.

Human population expansion from 1.6 billion to 6 billion in the last century contributes largely to the greatest threat: habitat loss birds and other life forms are experiencing. Almost half of the world’s forests have been claimed by farms, pastures, and settlements, and for timber. Only 4% of North America’s grasslands remain. Spain has lost an estimated 60-70% of its wetlands since the 1940s. Mountains are now looked to as the last terrain, and with their steep elevation, have narrower strips of habitat. Human invasion of mountains is already evident by the removal of mid-elevation forests, which has led to severe erosion problems that have affected humans and birds alike.

Exotic species can wreck havoc on their new habitats as well. They lack their natural predator and their prey is ill-adapted for them, and so they decrease the biodiversity of a region dramatically. The estimated annual cost of the damage exotics plague on our nation and the cost of measures to control them are not $137 billion.

Other human activities adversely affect bird populations as well – hunting for sport, poaching, smuggling, global warming, and pesticide use. Just by our efforts to control some contaminants – PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) and DDT, bird populations have rebounded.

There are conservational programs that work, offering some hope. In Florida, the Florida Ecological Network has been established. It targets the most diverse remaining habitats and wildlife and plans to protect and provide for these areas. They secure funding to buy acres of land in need of protection and turn it over to government protection or it is kept for private preserves. The cost for this is an annual $105 million. Here’s something that the people in Mr. Laband’s examples would appreciate: “Some properties are held in conservation easements, under which property owners receive state payments or tax incentives in return for managing property as wildlife habitat.” (p. 66)

3. (3pts) Creative Reaction and Integration. Record some of your own ideas that came to you as you were reading and thinking about the issue or issues the author is discussing. Formulate these in well-written sentences, develop them as best you can, and relate them to the author’s discussion and possibly to other readings and course themes.

Laband uses a similar argument that is used in Issue 8, where the author makes the claim, with supporting evidence, that ideology can be strong as we would like it to be, but when it comes to practical application, ideology falls short.

4. (2pts) Opinion – Not graded, 2 points awarded if completed.

I don’t think biodiversity is overprotected, but I believe that we should all bear the burden of the costs. We all require much of our world, and companies and people are often vilified for extracting that resource for our use. For example, we hate oil companies for what they do to the environment, but we fill our cars and heat our homes from their efforts. We must all be found guilty of hurting the environment, and we must all be responsible for its care.