First off all, this thread is NOT about the global warming debate. In fact, I feel like the global warming debate and environmental protection are two separate but related issues. I am talking about the protection of biodiversity and maintenance of healthy natural ecosystems. Because while climate change is certainly debatable, our direct impact on wild plant and animal populations is something that is directly observable. One example that comes to mind is the destruction of forests and jungles. How much of a responsibility does the government have to protect these areas of wilderness? Is it really right for us to be chopping down trees and destroying life just so that we can have more space for our (imo) already overly populated race to expand? I personally am not sure what I support. Intuitively, I believe governments should protect the environment. It just seems natural to me. Human experience just wouldn't be the same without the wonders of the natural world. Or can we just leave the protection up to private charities and activist groups? Opinions please! P.S. Didn't know this until I wrote this post, but 2010 is the international year of biodiversity. More info.
I tend to think leaving things up to government is tantamount to neglect, a good example being world fish stocks. BBC NEWS | UK | Film warns of 'world without fish' The End of the Line :: Home Page Political flip-flops on bluefin? at The End of the Line Blog When profit is more important than the environment then the world is always going to have problems and once a fish stock collapses the only outcomes are costly human intervention or extinction. Scottish conservative Euro MP Struan Stevenson put it well when he said 'the EU fisheries management system "would bring tears to the eyes of a North Korean!"' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8415760.stm