Importance

“Save the environment!” is an influential political slogan whose importance also reflects the value many people place on the state of their natural surroundings. While the slogan is often effective as a broad call to action, it leaves substantial ambiguity about what sort of action is needed or recommended. In other words, “saving” the environment could range from small individual efforts such as recycling milk cartons and taking shorter showers to national or global policies on carbon emissions and restoration of toxic chemical spill sites. Without clarity on what people are saying we should do, it may prove difficult to translate agreement into collective action. It’s also hard to critically assess what people precisely want and whether the actions they’re recommending will actually lead to the desired results.

More broadly, thinking about what it means to save the environment matters because we depend on it for essential resources to live, so threats to these resources pose threats to our most basic aims in life. Some natural resources are impossible or extremely difficult to replace. The world’s freshwater supply of fresh (in contrast to salt water in the oceans), for example, is essential to many plant and animal species, including humans. Loss of water due to drought or unsustainable human use can cause irreversible desertification of ecosystems . Similarly, coral reef ecosystems provide a major source of food for hundreds of millions of people across the Earth, but they are vulnerable to warming ocean temperatures and destruction by industrial fishing using trawling or other techniques. The coral reefs in decline may take decades or centuries to replace through natural processes and are likely to disappear entirely in many places based on current trends.

These examples also suggest an important economic perspective on why environmental decline matters for humans. “Economic and environmental performance must go hand in hand. The natural environment is central to economic activity and growth, providing the resources we need to produce goods and services” (Everett, 2010). Another contribution of the environment deals with tourism. For ages people have been fascinated with the endless variety of ecosystems the world has to offer, from tropical jungles to deserts, grassy plains, and coasts. The very popularity of these natural attractions, however, can threaten their sustainability.

Lastly, the environment has significance as a source of knowledge, both practical and existential, as the only home for humanity and all of life. Jack Turner states in his book, The Abstract Wild, “there is knowledge only the wild can give us, knowledge specific to it, knowledge specific to the experience of it.” (Turner, 1996). Studying wild species and ecosystems can lead to important practical and theoretical discoveries, from medicinal cures to explaining the origin of life, and Turner’s quote also encompasses the idea that wild nature has a unique and awe-inspiring ability to show us deeper insights into the place of humans in nature.

Is There a True Natural State of the Environment?

The science of ecology has historically been a largely descriptive practice, but restoration, by contrast, involves an intervention which alters the ecological dynamics of a desired landscape (Jordan, 1999). Ecological restoration often aims to revert the area in question to what it used to be, most likely right before human interventions began to degrade the landscape. However, while this is likely the most common colloquial definition of the practice, the goals of restoration ecology continuously evolve in concert with the conceptions of what is considered “wild,” “natural,” and “restored.” The field has been historically dominated by the conservation mindset, which “has traditionally been a rearguard measure to prevent further degradation rather than a means for increasing resources or natural capital” (Hilderbrand, 2005). This task is far simpler than an environmental restoration, as it often simply requires that certain destructive practices (e.g., deforestation) be halted in order that the degradation of an ecosystem be likewise stymied. It has a clear goal of maintaining whatever biodiversity and ecological structure may remain, and to minimize any further damage that might befall a given ecosystem using any practical means that might be available.

Restoration, however, is a more involved, intricate, and nuanced process which lacks many of the luxuries that conservation carries with it. As Hilderbrand and colleagues again remark, “the incredible complexity of nature forces us to simplify the systems we study in order to develop theory and generalities by reducing them to understandable subsets” (Hildebrand et al., 2005). Restoration requires a much more precise and integrated knowledge of an ecosystem in order for it to prove effective. There is a seemingly endless list of variables associated with even a single ecosystem and an even longer list of the interrelations of these variables and how changing just one of them can have a cascading effect which impacts nearly every aspect of a landscape. Because of these complex interactions, bringing about a particular ecological state is impossible without a detailed picture of how altering certain biotic or abiotic factors will impact the other entities present in the system. A common belief in this regard is that the presence of humans makes something unnatural as humans greatly alter their surroundings. William Cronon argues for the ultimate absurdity of this view when he says “If nature dies because we enter it, the only way to save nature is to kill ourselves” (Cronon, 1996).

Even so, another challenge for the practice of restoration is knowing (or rather deciding) which state of nature a given environment should be returned to. Restoration “covers a wide range of activities ranging from the purist perspective, which seeks to return an exact copy of the preexisting ecosystem and all its species to a degraded area, to less ambitious but no less worthy goals to return a degraded area to some sort of functioning ecosystem, to basic aims of returning some sort of vegetation for erosion control or food and fiber production” (Hobbs, 2008). Given the unending complexities of an ecological system and the subjectivity inherent in restoration ecology, the ability of science to return an ecosystem to its “natural” state remains elusive. Even if a coalition of scientists knew the exact conditions of a desired ecological state, they would be wholly unable to enact the appropriate actions which might affect that state in a given environment.

To further complicate the issue, there is no unchanging natural state of an ecosystem that might be used as a template for restoration. Just as organisms and populations are constantly in a state of genetic flux, so too are ecosystems constantly evolving and adapting to new climates brought about by the stochastic and ever-changing conditions which manifest on the Earth (Bormann, 1979). Environmentalists may have an idealized conception of what a given ecosystem should be—or rather what they want it to be—but that gives no indication of what the “natural” state of the ecosystem might be. To draw an analogy, imagine being able to revive a close loved one who had passed from old age. How would you want them to appear? Should they look as they did when they were last alive, right before they died? Or would you rather them be, say, in their mid-twenties, healthy and full of vitality? Perhaps you would rather let them decide how they wish to appear, in order to absolve yourself of any guilt in making a poor decision. It is the same with restoration. There are many subjective decisions to be made in revitalizing an ecosystem, and there is no objective or “natural” state which one might hope to uncover and subsequently recreate (Henderson, 1992).

When the topic of saving the environment comes up, an obvious question to ask is what exactly it means to curtail these calamities. Does it mean to return the environment to what it was before humans? If so, many would claim that impossible and thus shouldn’t even think about all the other possibilities. Cronon discusses this stance in his paper “The Trouble with Wilderness”. “Far from being the one place on earth that stands apart from humanity, [wilderness] is quite profoundly a human creation… it is a product of that civilization” (Cronon, 1996). Cronon proposes that wilderness is actually a product of civilization and should be treated as such. While wilderness used to equate to images of uncontrollable wastelands, it is now equated with designated sites. Sites like the Muir Woods, Niagara Falls, the Amazon rainforest. Yes, these locations were originally created as a result of phenomena that are non- human. However, they are maintained and protected by mankind and civilization. Cronon uses this to argue that wilderness is not something that is inherently not man made, and that by romanticizing the idea of an isolated wilderness, we end up pushing away the issues that are directly in front of us. “Idealizing a distant wilderness too often means not idealizing the environment in which we actually live, the landscape that for better or worse we call home” (Cronon, 1996).

Should ‘Invasive’ Species Be Stopped and Removed?

People often perceive “non-native” or “invasive” species to be universally bad for the environment, but recent biological research has suggested novel species to a location can sometimes bring positive benefits to ecological function, for example by filling an empty ecological niche. With invasive species no longer necessarily being viewed as an absolute negative, experts have since taken a step back to see how the environment is changing and have come up with criteria to determine whether conservation or restoration is needed and still an attainable goal (Hobbs, 2009):

· Is the system maturing or projected to mature?

· Is the system resistant and resilient?

· Is the system thermodynamically efficient?

· Is the system capable of providing the ecosystem with needed goods and services?

· Is the system providing opportunities for its individuals or community to engage?

The impacts invasive species have on these aspects of ecosystems have downstream implications for conservation and restoration. For example, should humans necessarily intervene and remove an invasive species or protect other species it causes to decline?

What Makes Biodiversity Worth Saving?

The term biodiversity was originally coined for use in environmental activism, but it has now been taken up as a broad subject of empirical and theoretical research in biology. The concept nonetheless continues to confound attempts to provide a simple, universal definition, much like the idea of the environment. Broadly speaking, biodiversity consists of the variety of living things and systems understood to include multiple dimensions of variation such as genetic and phenotypic variation among populations of organisms and compositional variation of species making up different ecosystems.

There are long-standing debates on why biodiversity is valuable. Some, often referred to as “holists,” contend that species and ecosystems have intrinsic value and a right to exist in and of themselves (O’Neil, 1997). Holists argue that the species itself has a value independent of its individual members. This renders certain ecosystems untouchable and certain activities prohibited as they would jeopardize the intrinsic autonomy of the species in question. Individualists, by contrast, highlight what is termed the “instrumental” value of a species, which is the value it affords to humans or others and is not derived intrinsically from the mere existence of that species (O’Neill, 1997). Individualists regard species as lacking intrinsic value or moral standing, meaning that whatever value they might possess is afforded to them only from the human interpretation of that value, and that that value may change or cease to exist entirely following its reassessment. Species and ecosystems of course cannot speak for themselves, relegating all responsibility for the stewardship of the Earth to those who can.

Who Is Responsible for Saving the Environment?

It’s estimated that 83% of the Earth’s surface has been impacted by human activities (Hobbs, 2009). There are organizations set in place like the World Health Organization, United Nations, and International Humanitarian Law that governs countries on the international level. But there is no consensus on who is to ensure individuals and companies are held accountable for the standards set in place for safe environmental practices. Who decides those standards? Since this is a global issue, is there authority for governments to hold other governments accountable?

Some individuals have taken it upon themselves as activists and consumers to make more “eco-friendly” decisions. Other labels like “green” and “organic” are emphasized on products and directed towards consumers trying to make environmentally conscious buys. This mentality has created a multi-trillion-dollar business in a fifteen-year span, growing from $639 billion in 1995 to $3.07 trillion in 2010 (Delmas, 2011). “Greenwashing” has also become a deceptive tactic for some companies to appeal to consumers looking to make environmentally conscious decisions when making a purchase. Some companies have been sued for false advertising, such as Honda for claiming one of their new models was more fuel efficient than they truly were (Delmas, 2011). There are some legal actions that can be taken in cases like this, but most cases cannot be dealt with accordingly due to the lack of tools available to use against these practices. In the United States, companies are not legally required to disclose their environmental practices.

Another major problem is deciding which nations’ problems to prioritize, and who is responsible for addressing them, with little international precedent for how to make these decisions. A common democratic approach to decision-making requires that all perspectives must be heard, and their various consequences debated. However, there is persistent debate surrounding restoration ecology—specifically on whether its goal should be to prioritize biodiversity protection or sustainable poverty alleviation (Miller, 2011). There is also the ongoing issue of justice for human populations which have or will experience the harshest effects of environmental degradation. Climate change, for example, is likely to cause large inequalities as a result of its different effects on different parts of the world and their relative state of economic development. Island nations in the Pacific, as well as nations across Africa, are responsible for a tiny fraction of greenhouse gases but will experience devastating impacts from increasing sea levels and more frequent drought (Roberts, 2001).

In the case of climate change, for example, Western countries like the United States and European countries have already undergone an industrial revolution. However, once poor, developing countries like India and China are undergoing one currently (). Industrialization is one of the, if not the single most credited catalyst for climate change by environmentalists. So now, a debate follows on if countries currently going through industrialization should take more or less responsibility than those who already have.

Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain, for instance, are two Indian environmentalists who claim that developing countries are not responsible in any way for climate change (Agarwal). As they argue, “India and China today account for more than one-third of the world’s population. The question to be asked is whether we are consuming one-third of the world’s resources or contributing one-third of the much dirt in the atmosphere or the oceans. If not then surely these countries should be lauded for keeping the world in balance because of their parsimonious consumption” (Agarwal, 2019).