Analysis Of The Company We Keep By Douglas Chadwick

Since earth was created, there has been a natural phenomenon of species across the globe appearing and disappearing. However, in the past century, many species of animals have been disappearing at an alarming rate. Mainly, this rapidly occurring issue is caused by humans. Humans that contribute to the harmful actions that cause side effects such a pollution, deforestation, habitat loss and poaching. The natural rate of extinction pales in comparison to the extinction rate caused by all of these. According to the World Wildlife Fund, the current rate of extinction is 11,000 times greater than the natural extinction rate. Several different efforts have been made in order to stop or slow down the extinction of earth’s species. The Endangered Species Act is possibly the most successful example of these efforts. It’s main purpose is to get a commitment from the American people that they will work hand in hand to help save species that are at risk of becoming extinct and never returning. This act was put in place in 1973 and since then, no other law about the disappearance of wildlife has been quite as accomplished. Many different species that are protected under this law are either fully recovered or on their way to becoming safer. Laws like these are helping many different creatures left and right, however, at the alarming rate that they are disappearing, something else needs to be done. What people don’t seem to realize is that we depend on many of the animals that we are

Decisions regarding environmental problems require both knowledge and values. Placing value on specific issues can be sorted into four categories of justification: utilitarian, ecological, aesthetic and moral. California Blue focuses on the interplay of environmental issues and ethics emphasizing the conflict between industry and species preservation. Timber cutting in the Northwest United States is a mainstay of the economy. Although clear cutting is not as environmentally sensitive as selective harvesting and redwood cutting, some is essential to America's continued growth and prosperity. To ban timber operations and to throw people out of work, all to preserve an endangered blue butterfly, is to test the limits and logic of ecological priorities. The national policy of preserving endangered species serves the purpose of promoting biological diversity, which if not followed might threaten the ecosystem. This national policy of species preservation is a matter of social policy balanced with the competing interests of the local economy and human needs. Under the utilitarian approach one must balance the benefits of species preservation with the detriment of stopping human activity which threatens that species or the environment in which the

The Everglades National Park protects the largest wild life area east of the Mississippi River. The Everglades are the largest remaining sub-tropical wild life area in 48 states sitting on 1.5 million acres preserved at Florida’s tip off shore. The Everglades contain various ecosystems such as rivers, lakes ponds, marshes, etc. These wild life areas feature both fresh and saltwater areas, open prairies, pine rock lands, tropical hardwood forests, offshore coral reefs, and mangrove forests. This paper will summarize how humans contributed to the destruction of the Everglades and how man is working to save the Everglades. Since the Everglades is comprised of both fresh and saltwater areas the vast range of wildlife species in the Everglades include but not limited to reptiles, mammals, aquatic birds, etc. The vast spectrum of wildlife living in the Florida Everglades include but not limited to aquatic animals, mammals, reptiles, etc. Of this vast spectrum of wildlife living in the Florida Everglades there are 56+ species who are either endangered or are in jeopardy of being endangered. The Everglades are home to two National Parks, four National Wildlife Refuges, and one National Marine Sanctuary that bring almost 2 million visitors every year to experience this natural beauty located minutes from Miami Florida. The powerful environmental forces of sun, water, wind, and fire greatly affect the development and lifecycles of these

According to a Collective Evolution article published on March 4, 2013, “260 million acres...of US forests have been clear-cut to create land for producing feed for livestock” (Ketler 1). In addition to this, National Geographic has released an article about deforestation stating that one of the worst outcomes of deforestation is the destruction of habitats for animals. The article goes on to state that deforestation is also a major cause of climate change and global warming. What is even worse is that this deforestation will likely not stop, as the world population swells and the demand for meats as well. So, this tragedy must be stopped now, or this could materialize extremely negative, complex issues for the environment and the population of the

Since 1975 Grizzly Bears have been on the Endangered Species List. Besides the Endangered Species List, another solution was to relocate the bears to Yellowstone National Park. Yet, another solution that is taking place, is to increase funding to save the habitats of the bears.If the Grizzly Bear went extinct, the biomes and ecosystems would dwindle away and also be lost. If the Grizzly Bear went extinct the spreading of seeds for the plants it feeds on will cease, causing very little plants to grow. This would then affect the wildlife populations because there would be little to no vegetation for the animals to thrive on. Without the Bear the herd populations would increase and die off because of the scarce food around. The cause of the Bear’s death is the over hunting of the animal. Humanity can fix this by putting in additional laws that restrict and prohibit the hunting of these Bears, and not rely heavily on the Endangered Species List law. The solution that I offer is an alternative use of funding. Instead of putting money to technology and its opportunities, we turn that money and use it to help the preservation of these Bears. We could also, use the money to create more land for the animals to live on and thrive on. Humanity can counteract these events by supporting the laws in place and giving their full attention to this pressing matter. For what humanity takes away we must give back in order to continue a way of life: life where anything can

Last, many endangered animals are becoming more at risk because of the climate change. The habitats of several endangered animals have started to disappear, and their water has become scarce, too. Document B says that these animals include snow leopards, whose forest climate is shrinking, one-horned rhinos, whose vegetation is being diminished by regular droughts and floods, and orang-utans, who are being killed in forest fires in their forest homes. This killing of endangered animals is bringing these species closer to extinction all because of the rise in earth’s

The United States is full of amazing habitats for numerous animal species. There are many examples of species that have been eliminated from the American landscape for economic benefit of a few individuals. There are many examples of species hunted and in some cases eradicated, but I believe there is no example that has had as many species affected in a single area as the Florida everglades. The number of available bird species in the everglades made it an ideal location for the mass slaughter of birds for their feathers. Now, and in the future, if people wish to preserve natural spaces, we need to understand how we interact with the environment and how our actions can impact these delicate ecosystems.

Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), the crowned jewel of the nation’s 544 refuges is in danger of destruction (Lamar and Markey 12). ANWR has been in existence since 1960 and has slowly become one of the most controversial topics to hit Congress. ANWR is composed of 19 million acres on the northeast coast of Alaska. Although the government has been provided with this immense land they are fighting to gain more land. Why? ANWR is the second biggest oil field that is owned by the U.S. Now the government wants more land to construct oil reserves. The refuge is home to many endangered species such as migratory birds, polar bears, and wolves (Lynne and Roberts 1). Most of ANWR’s designated oil area is owned by indigenous Alaskan

Conservation: Yellowstone is extraordinarily large, with 290 waterfalls, 17 rivers and acreage spanning across portions of three states. According to Yellowstone Superintendent Dan Wenk, his park “is at the heart of the largest intact ecosystem in the temperate zone in the United States, if not the world” (interview). It’s called the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) and within its borders lay two national parks (Grand Teton and Yellowstone), four national wildlife refuges, and seven national forests. This important biological reserve is the largest protected area in the lower 48 states and provides critical habitat for some of the world’s most iconic wildlife. Unfortunately, many plant and animal species today face endangerment, mainly because their natural habitats are being destroyed. National parks work to conserve wildlife by safeguarding these habitats that provide a safe space for wildlife to breed and survive.

In the piece “Selling out on nature” (McCauley, 2006), Douglas J. McCauley describes how conservation efforts are fueled by the economic advantages it possesses and are carried out solely for the purpose of benefiting our economic markets. McCauley states that ecosystem services are “economic benefits provided by natural ecosystems” (27), arguing that the only incentive for mankind to save nature depends on how profitable nature can be. He emphasizes that our attention should not be put forth in commodifying nature but rather, inculcating respect and love for it so that we can preserve it for many years to come. I oppose McCauley’s argument because it’s impractical and unachievable. Humanity will

According to Richard Stroup, a free-market advocate, there is need to reform the Endangered Species Act to ensure that endangered species are our friends and not foes. Private ownership is the number one problem for the Endangered Species Act(Nelson, 2006). Of all the endangered species, especially in the US, are dependent on habitats that are privately owned. In order to avert the problem of loss of diversity, then, the focus should be on developing strategies that effectively work on privately owned land. Both the mainstream environmentalists and free-market advocates argue that the current status results in persistent incentives that produce objectionable results

Extinction is nothing new to animal and plant species around the earth. Over the course of time on the earth there have been five mass extinctions, with many predicting that a sixth has already begun due to human fault. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was designed to save both animal and plant life from these great feat. The ESA has seen only a 2% recovery rate since it enactment (Why is U.S. Recovery Rate (2%) for Endangered Species So Low?). Many critics and politicians have been calling for a reformation of the act for years. The ESA is in need of a change in the following areas funding distribution, time it takes to list a species on the endangered species list, and habitats on private land.

Bill Freedmen, author of “Endangered Species—Human Causes Of Extinction and Endangerment” notes, “scientists approximate that present extinction rates are 1,000 to 10,000 times higher than the average natural extinction rate.” These distressing numbers should be acted upon to save the endangered species and avoid the catastrophic change to this planet if these species were to become extinct. In order to produce change, people need to recognize that habitat loss, climate change, and poaching are all factors in why our animal species are going extinct.

"my", "I'll" conveys a sense that the poet is alone as all his men are

Right from the end of the 19th Century and the beginning of the 20th Century, there has been a fierce debate concerning how economic growth or development affects the environment or ecological setup of a country. The debate has its basis on whether it would be recommendable for a nation to concentrate on growing its economy while at the same time hurting or harming its ecological system. Naturalists like Pinchot Gifford, John Muir, Love Canal and Cuyahoga County always argued in favor of environmental preservation as opposed to concentrating all efforts towards developing the economy (Olmes 154; Miller 150-51). This paper will, therefore, discuss the struggle between economics and ecology specifically looking at particular events across the Twentieth Century. It will also attempt to explain the factors involved in the pursuit for change on the way people and the administration perceived the environmental conservation as opposed to economic growth.