Posts tagged ‘“Education 4 Conservation”’

Idaho – the worst place in the world for wolves

Hunter posing with wolf caught in leghold trap

Is Idaho the worst place in the world for a wolf to live right now?   Evidence suggests it is following the state killing nearly 400 wolves out of a population of less than 1000 in the 2011-2012 hunting season and then becoming the focus of a media storm after a wolf was caught in a leghold trap and then illegally shot at and injured by passers-by.  The trapper, known as Pinching is a US Forest Service employee, and photos of him smiling triumphantly and posing with the injured and then the dead wolf were subsequently posted on  The photographs show a wolf with its hind leg in the trap and the snow around the wolf stained with its blood in a large red circle. The poor animal looks completely dejected, exhausted and, from its stance and demeanour, you can see it has suffered greatly, and is in pain. The images were quickly removed but not before they went viral after a shocked and horrified audience voiced their protest at such gruesome scenes, and the accompanying comments on the trapper forum that evidently showed the wolf had been tortured over a three day period.

You might ask why such animal cruelty is still going on in a civilised nation in the 21st century, but Idaho has very weak animal cruelty legislation according to the Humane Society.  Their website states that: “Idaho’s animal cruelty laws are some of the weakest in the country, as one of only three states with no felony level penalties for egregious animal cruelty”.  Furthermore, its policy-makers, including Governor, CL “Butch” Otter, have made no secret about waging a war on wolves, and with trapping and snaring being legal, and trappers given carte blanche to get away literally with murder of charismatic wild species, it is easy to see why Idaho, despite its vast wilderness and excellent habitat, may be the worst place to be for the wolf.

The comments from other trappers on the forum also indicated that this is not an isolated incident and they are also at complete odds with the Mission Statement on the website which talks at length about their goal of ethical trapping.  The site states: “It’s imperative that we show the public who we are and the good we are doing for wildlife.”  Did I miss something here?  How can torturing a wolf, and revelling in the fact ever be equated with “doing good for wildlife”?

Perhaps more worrying is that someone apparently from the trapping community then issued a death threat against a Montana woman on an anti-trapping forum speaking out against the brutality that has been meted out to this particular wolf.  This is thuggery at its most vile, and demonstrates a level of psychopathy that ought to be of serious concern to Idaho government officials.  It is widely documented that animal abusers are often abusers of family members too.

What allows this war against wolves to continue, and which also provides the legal framework for the continuing violence against wolves and other wild species, is the power that minority groups have to shape policy and legislation.  According to Safari Club International there are 259,000 hunters and anglers in Idaho; a state that has a population of 1.42 million living in 83,557 square miles.  Hunters and outfitters complain bitterly and vociferously that elk numbers are declining, and many claim this is due to wolf predation. However, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the state’s authority on ungulates, doesn’t agree that the sky is falling on elk numbers.  “We’re having trouble in some areas, but overall things are looking pretty good,” big game manager Jon Rachael recently told the Idaho Fish and Game Commission.  Female elk numbers meet or exceed objectives in 21 of 29 elk management zones and are below objectives in eight zones. Bull elk meet or exceed objectives in 20 zones and are below objectives in nine zones.

Idaho is breaking its pledge to manage wolves like other game species

During the March 21st public hearing at Idaho Department of Fish and Game, commission chairman Tony McDermott repeated the claim that Idaho is adhering to its public commitment to manage wolves like cougar and bears. But, compare how these species are managed and judge for yourself if this is true.

Cougar and bear cannot be sport trapped or snared in Idaho. Wolves can.  Cougar and bear are managed for abundant populations. There are approximately 3,000 cougar and 20,000 black bears in Idaho, whilst wolf numbers are approximately 548 adult wolves remaining in Idaho after the state allowed hunters and trappers to kill almost 400 wolves in this season alone.

Idaho has reduced its wolf population by nearly half since wolves were exempted by a congressional rider on a budget bill, and yet it has just approved a hunting plan that will allow more wolves to be killed in the next season. There is no quota that sets a maximum number of wolves allowed to be killed.

Instead of managing for a healthy population of wolves, Idaho is only interested in maintaining less than 200 wolves in the entire state. If bears or cougar populations fell to that low level, there would be an immediate halt to hunting and actions taken to restore their numbers. And while the Idaho state government doesn’t seem to value wolves, the state is essential to a healthy wolf population in the West.  The state is the prime habitat for the core western Gray wolf population and crucial for the recovery of wolves to the Pacific Northwest and expanded range in the Rockies.

The arguments put forward for managing wolves at such low levels are that wolves kill livestock and compete with humans for elk. These arguments however don’t merit the discriminatory manner in which wolves are managed. Wolves kill fewer livestock than disease, bad weather, birthing problems, noxious weeds, rustlers and other native predators. Wolf losses are the lowest they have been since 2004 with less than 200 cattle and sheep depredations confirmed statewide.

At the meeting, wolf advocates outnumbered those against wolf conservation by 3 to1, and yet the voices of the wolf advocates were totally disregarded and dismissed, with a further meeting being held the following morning to push through the motion to continue hunting and trapping wolves and increase the limits. One of the commissioners even went as far as calling the wolf advocates “crazy environmentalists”, which I find quite unbelievable and shocking in this day and age. In that room there were scientists and professionals speaking out for the conservation of wolves. To call them crazy environmentalists only serves to highlight the arrogance that exists in those who hold power in the state, and who now seem to want to pursue only their own interests rather than the interests of all Idaho’s citizens.

 The Idaho war against wolves not only ignores the science behind wildlife conservation, but clearly also blatantly ignores the majority public opinion.

A Human Solution for a Human Problem

The real problem, just like anywhere else there is human/wildlife conflict, is a human one.  It is the human perceptions of wolves, but the real conflict is between human groups with different and greatly polarised perspectives.

In Europe, there are the same problems, but it would seem that wildlife management is way ahead of Idaho when it comes to “grown-up” thinking about co-existing with wolves and other large mammals.  In Bulgaria, a country that has also had a history of widespread hatred of wolves, perspectives have started to change with the development of a wolf management plan.  The process surrounding the planning has brought together all the different groups and actors including foresters, farmers, livestock growers, hunters, rangers, policy-makers, conservationists and wildlife managers.  Bear in mind, that this is also a country with a large ratio of hunters in the population.

In Bulgaria, wolves have never been extirpated  Although Bulgaria is a mountainous country, with highly developed extensive livestock breeding, its farmers have always shared the mountain pastures with large carnivores, and there has never been any really extreme opposition to wolves and bears. Older shepherds remember the times when they had large flocks of sheep and always said: “There was enough for us and for wolves.”

Poisoning and trapping of wolves occurred many decades ago, but in the late 1970s, when wolf numbers had decreased to around 200 individuals in Bulgaria, the species was included in the National Red Data Book as “endangered”. In 1991,Bulgaria was one of the member countries which ratified the Bern Convention, which prohibits most of the previous methods of hunting for all game species, among which was the use of poisons and traps. These “hunting” methods became illegal!

Today, the wolf population in Bulgaria is estimated at around 1000 individuals, in a country territory with only 111 000 sq. km of territory (less than half the size of Idaho which complains that even a few hundred wolves are too many).   Recently, the BALKANI Wildlife Society initiated a process for the development of a Wolf Management Plan and invited all interested groups to work together over a period of time to discuss the future management of the species so that it is preserved for the future generations in Bulgaria and the Balkans.  Officials, foresters, hunters, farmers, scientists, conservationists worked closely together over many months to develop the plan and agree the main issues for the future conservation and management of the species. The whole process operated on the basis of reaching a consensus, which meant compromises had to be made from all sides and an understanding reached.  As a result, all parties did finally reach an agreement that Bulgaria would implement a three month period of protection for the wolves during the months when wolves reproduce and the young pups are very dependant on their mother (April, May, June). This is a major leap forward in a country where hunters and farmers previously had a history of hating and fearing wolves, and where there was? a significant bounty offered for wolves killed that is equivalent to two weeks wages.

Bulgaria is not the first nor the only country to adopt such a mature and effective approach towards the conservation of its large wild mammalian species – Croatia, France, Italy to name a few others, are also adopting a more ecological approach to conservation.

So, what lessons can Idahoans learn from their counterparts throughoutEurope?  It takes foresight and courage for policymakers to really make a difference in protecting their wild heritage. Idahohas never engaged its stakeholders in a meaningful conflict resolution process.  At the moment Idaho’s governor and state officials appear to the rest of the world to be failing miserably in this respect.  There needs to be some sensible dialogue taking place and not the mud-slinging and fear-mongering and revenge killing of wolves that is the current default position.

Governor “Butch” Otter of Idaho, the world is watching, and you are being judged on how you treat your wild species.  ‘’The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the ways its animals are treated ~ Mahatma Gandhi‘ (1869-1948)!

The situation in Idaho is directly due to the inadequate delisting criteria approved by the federal US Fish and Wildlife Service.  Wildlife scientists around the world should protest any plan that allows all but 100 – 150 wolves to be killed in a state likeIdaho.  Unfortunately, the Service and the Obama administration failedIdaho’s wolves and are soon to approve a plan allowingWyomingto followIdaho’s lead in reducing wolf numbers to ecologically unsustainable levels.

Links to other articles about wolf trapping incident and the media storm it has created:

Wolf Conservation in the UK

This article was written for Wolf Print, an international magazine published by the UK Wolf Conservation Trust which is run largely by volunteers who work tirelessly to help wolves in the wild. Although the UK lost its last wild wolf in the 17th century, conservationists here are keen to see that wild wolves elsewhere don’t suffer the same fate and enjoy protection not only because of the vital role they play in the ecosystem but also for future generations to enjoy.

Defenders of Wildlife

Suzanne Stone provided additional information for this article and is the Northern Rockies Representative for the Defenders of Wildlife.  She has worked tirelessly for the conservation of wolves for  24 years including serving as a member of the USA – Canadian wolf reintroduction team for Idaho and Yellowstone. For the last 12 years, she has worked  closely with ranchers and farmers to help them co-exist with wolves by adopting non-lethal control methods and livestock protection through better animal husbandry. She grew up in Idaho and still resides there today.

Balkani Wildlife Society

Elena Tsingarska is a biologist and Project Leader for Balkani Wildlife Society in Bulgaria.  She has studied wolves in the country for many years and has been the driving force behind the recent successful Wolf Management Plan process.  She has also been one of the leaders in the team behind the building, development and equipping of the Large Carnivore Education Centre based in Vlahi in the foothills of the Pirin Mountains.  In the past ten years, the project has provided outreach education programmes to over 10,000 children throughout the region, as well providing workshops and seminar programmes for adult learners on the conservation of wolves, bears and other wild species in Bulgaria.

April 6, 2012 at 9:14 am 7 comments

Birds sing louder amidst the noise and structures of the urban jungle

By Sharada Balasubramanian

Sparrows, blackbirds and the great tit are all birds known to sing at a higher pitch (frequency) in urban environments. It was previously believed that these birds sang at higher frequencies in order to escape the lower frequencies noises of the urban environment. Now, researchers at the University of Copenhagen and the University of Aberystwyth have discovered that besides noise, the physical structure of cities also plays a role in altering the birds’ songs.

Urban birds sing differently and at a higher frequency than woodland birds in an effort to penetrate the wall of constant noise produced by traffic, machines and human activity. However, architecture also has a profound affect on their songs. The study findings have recently been published in the esteemed scientific journal PLoS One.

A new explanation

“Urban architecture is a crucial determinant of how urban birds sing”. Noise amidst the urban landscape is typically composed of lower frequencies. Thus, one might jump to the conclusion that it would be smart for birds to distinguish their song by singing louder in order to drown out the competing noise. However, the recent study demonstrates that the noise explanation is incomplete, according to Professor Torben Dabelsteen of the Section for Ecology and Evolution at the University of Copenhagen’s Department of Biology, one of the authors of the study.

The city’s role in the song

Some researchers have never really bought into the idea that urban noise alone caused birds in the city to sing at higher frequencies. Either directly, because birds tried to sing at a higher tone and away from noise or indirectly, by the birds singing louder to drown out anthropogenic noise.

“Now, with the help of controlled sound recordings, we have shown that the higher frequencies in urban birds’ songs are also transmitted across cities when there isn’t any noise from traffic. This shows that the physical structure of cities must play a considerable role in the heightened frequencies,” explains Torben Dabelsteen.

Structures and variations in the cityscape – houses, streets, open spaces and alleys – all serve to reflect and distort noise in differing ways, things that birds must take into account. Birds in the urban environment can easily spot one another, but must do what they can to reduce echoes from buildings and narrow streets in order to penetrate and communicate effectively.

High-pitched urban birds

Birds living beyond the urban landscape need not tweet away with full force. While the woodland’s trees and abundant foliage also distort sound through reflection, they also serve to obstruct clear lines of sight. Therefore, rural birds may utilize these distortions to help judge distances and locate one another.

“City-dwellers can look forward to the lively song of birds in the coming spring, and even though a side effect of the urban birds’ more powerful song is that they sing at a higher pitch, this is something that we are not typically able to hear,” explains Dabelsteen.

Provided by University of Copenhagen

March 3, 2012 at 2:10 pm 3 comments

Top wolf expert Dave Mech talks about his interactions with wolves

Wild Arctic Wolf

“Don’t run!”    Sage advice from top wolf expert, Dave Mech, if you find yourself face to face with a wolf in the wild.  And he’s right.  

The reason he is right is that in most situations when encountering a wolf in the wild there is really no need to run.  They don’t view humans as prey, and Mech knows his stuff.  He has certainly had a lot of wolf encounters in his five and a half decades of working in the field which he discusses in this podcast interview.

In the interview Mech also talks about his devastation at the gross inaccuracies of the film The Grey which he believes will undoubtedly negatively influence the way the public feels about wolves.

I have had the privilege of spending time with Dave Mech and biologist colleagues in the Northwest Territories where we had numerous wolf encounters with a beautiful female wolf  (pictured) and her packmates, and this experience confirms what Mech says.   In this photo, the wolf was literally a few feet away from me, and during the encounters we had with her not once did I feel afraid.  She was simply curious, and as we discovered, hungry too, which is likely to be what motivated her to come so close to our camp.  For me it was a wonderful experience and like Mech I find it devastating that the public who see The Grey will come away with a totally inaccurate perception of wolves.

The Grey has made it all the more difficult for wolf conservationists, but it’s also made us all the more determined to carry on fighting for their protection.

Click here to listen to the podcast of interview with David L Mech

February 27, 2012 at 11:35 pm 2 comments

Will ‘The Grey’ set wolf conservation back?

A grey wolf

If you read the press at the moment, there is mounting pressure on wolves, particularly in America, where they have had a chequered history from the time Europeans settled on the continent.  It seems that the wolf is once again becoming fair game to be killed in their hundreds by whatever means necessary, whether this is aerial gunning, trapping, snaring or being shot.  Add to this the hysteria that is steadily building about wolves transmitting a tapeworm-like parasite to humans and you can begin to see that, once again, wolves are bearing the brunt of human hatred, fear, mistrust and ignorance towards a large predator that, actually, deserves none of this negative attention.

Amidst all this tension comes the release of The Grey, a blockbuster film that portrays the wolf as a manhunter.  And, in my opinion quite rightly, wolf advocates and conservationists all over the world have expressed their utter dismay at a portrayal of the wolf that will undoubtedly set back conservation efforts by decades.

As a long-time wolf advocate and conservationist, I have joined the protests about this film and in doing so provoked quite a response, not only from the director himself, Joe Carnahan, but also from others who have said: “Get over it, it’s just a film.”  But is it just a film?  Will audiences who have little or no real knowledge of wolf behaviour come away from this film with inaccurate opinions about the wolf?  Judging by the comments on the various websites talking about this film, there are a disturbing number of posts that suggest that some people are taking the film’s scenes at face value.  In other words, there are people out there who believe the scenes that depict wolves as blood-thirsty, man-hunters.  There are others who believe that wolves deserve everything they get and are cheering this film on, and seeing it as some kind of retribution against the wolf!  And then there are the macho, Rambo types who believe that this film is aimed at, and I quote, “manly types” who want their movies “real” and not portraying fantasy like werewolf and vampire films do.

Frankly, I’ve found reading all these posts very depressing.  Not because they show ignorance and a complete lack of regard for wolves themselves, but because with such an overwhelming lack of insight into the real problems in conservation, what chance do we have of saving species like the wolf that are predators, and as such are seen as dangerous?

Popular culture and our attitudes towards large predators

Of course everyone knows about Little Red Riding Hood and the Three Little Pigs, and these fairy stories are often cited as encouraging our negative perceptions of wolves to prevail, instilling a sense of fear about deep dark forests and what ravenous beasts might be lurking there.  The wolf as a beast eager to eat innocent grandmothers and little girls is deeply embedded in the human psyche.  It’s hard to credit that such a simple story would have such an effect, but for centuries this image of the wolf has been fuelled by stories like this.  The story perpetuates because it speaks to us on different levels.  To a mother wanting to safeguard her young, it is the bogeyman to be avoided, so she tells her little ones not to go off into the woods alone.  To the farmer, the wolf is a threat to his livestock, and so the wolf as a predator surely must be the ravening beast described in the stories.  To the hunter, the wolf is competition for his own quarry, an adversary that must be beaten (and even if this means the destruction of the adversary).  The point is, many of the stories we tell ourselves are used to justify our actions and behaviours.  So the wolf, rather than being just a wolf that is a large predator, it becomes something “other”, and the more evil and rapacious we make it, the easier we can salve our consciences at its destruction.

Losing decades of conservation effort

For the past two decades, the tide has been slowly turning for wolf conservation.  We now have more knowledge about the wolf than we’ve ever had, and populations have once again started to flourish in much of the wolf’s former habitats and ranges.  Research carried out in Yellowstone following the reintroduction of the wolf after an absence of seven decades shows conclusively the integral and important role it has in the ecosystem, and the effect it has on the whole trophic cascade of the park.   What has happened since the return of the wolf is that it has changed the behaviour of the elk which had overgrazed the park after it had been left to its own devices with no threat from predators.  With the browsing behaviour of the elk drastically changed, it has allowed aspen and willow groves to flourish once more, which in turn has returned available habitat for smaller species and which has also had a beneficial effect on soil ecology.  Moreover, a wolf kill feeds lots of other species, which impacts on the richness of the biodiversity in Yellowstone.

Many of us working in conservation have been encouraged in recent years by what we have seen as a real and tangible move away from the Red Riding Hood syndrome and more towards a degree of tolerance.  Of course, it would be very naive to think that all in the wolf conservation garden was rosy.  It isn’t.  But there have been some very dramatic strides in progress, and especially across Europe.  I can cite many cases of changes in attitudes towards wolves in countries like Croatia, Russia, Poland, Bulgaria, Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, and Norway.  The changes aren’t wholesale, but enough to show that there is hope for the future of the wolf once more in what is left of wild (relatively) landscapes.

So, yes, in my view, this film and others like it, do push conservation efforts back by decades.  And unlike the fairy stories in print, the imagery being brought to us in graphic, high definition on huge screens, give us visual (and dare I say visceral) imprints that many will find hard to shake off the next time they walk through a wolf inhabited forest or tundra.

Restoring the balance

Having worked in wolf conservation for over 20 years, I am well aware that portraying wolves in too positive a light can also be damaging to its conservation.  There are many wolf advocates who want wolves to be portrayed as large, cuddly dogs with friendly dispositions and loving and generous natures.  Somewhere between this depiction of the wolf and that of a blood-thirsty, ravening beast lies the truth.

The wolf is a wolf.  It is a predator, it is a large carnivore, it eats meat to survive, a wolf kill is not a pleasant sight.  Equally, wolves can be friendly, playful, loyal, and to many of us, very beautiful animals to observe in their natural habitats.   What we humans are very bad at doing is accepting other species for what they are and adopting a “live-and-let-live” approach.  Instead, we are myth-makers, and the types of myths we make depend on our deeply entrenched attitudes and beliefs in that particular era.

It will be a sad day if we end up sliding back to the times when eradication of the wolf was the only thing that mattered.  And films like The Grey do help to form public opinion, and they continue to fuel the ignorance, fear and hatred that for centuries has led to the destruction of the wolf across the whole of the northern hemisphere.

Joe Carnahan accused me of being ignorant because I have not seen the film.  The trailer tells me everything I need to know and I can read the reviews to form an opinion.  I have no desire to see a film that perpetuates the myths nor to put money in his pocket which will further support the damage he has done, and will continue to do as long as unenlightened people go and see this film.   His knee-jerk reaction to my Twitter activity has only served to confirm my opinion of him, and it isn’t a good one.

Some of the recent blogs and reviews about ‘The Grey’

Marc Silver in National Geographic – Would Wolves Act Like the Wolves of The Grey

Professor Marc Bekoff in Psychology Today – The Grey Has it All Wrong

Dr Paul Paquet in the Calgary Herald – Pack of Lies

Sonia Horon, Global Animal blog – The Grey: A Bad Fairy Tale About Wolves

And in an attempt to end a piece of film footage that is positive about the wolf, here is the much acclaimed advert by Olgivy and Mather:

Please also check some of our short videos from Russia on our YouTube Channel.  The people who filmed these wolves work and live alongside them in the deepest taiga forests of Russia.  If anyone understands the true nature of wolves, it’s these guys, and they will tell you a completely different story to that portrayed by Joe Carnahan and his colleagues:

February 6, 2012 at 10:02 pm 9 comments

E4C welcomes a new writer and editor

I am delighted to announce a new member of our small, but growing team.  Sharada Balasubramanian is an environmental educator, writer and a very special person who is highly passionate about the natural world and teaching children and adults about the wonders of nature.

Sharada Balasubramanian

Sharada has been supporting the work of E4C for over a year, and has been getting to know and understand what we are trying to achieve through our environmental education work.  She has helped to keep the momentum going, and I am very pleased to be able to welcome her to our Editorial Panel for EnvELOP and as a contributor to the E4C blog.

Here is some background information about Sharada, and I’m sure you will join me in looking forward to reading her posts, and the material she will be helping to develop for EnvELOP.
Sharada Balasubramanian lives in Coimbatore, India and has been a journalist for the last 9 years. Her passion is rooted to environmental journalism with a focus on conservation education through writing. Though she has published various articles on travel, business, social entrepreneurs and change-makers, her aim is to raise an awareness to educate about the environment through creative non-fiction writing for children and informed reporting by interacting with scientists who are working on conservation issues and highlighting the importance and need for such conservation measures. Last year, she published a book titled ‘Backyard Birding’ in an attempt to reconnect urban humans to nature. She strongly believes that nature is to be preserved and treasured, to be enjoyed and protected and she chose writing to express her love and concern for nature. She is attempting to reach out to schools to educate them and teach them bird watching and educating them on environmental conservation. Sharada also teaches writing for college students and has given talks on self-confidence, motivation, communication skills, to name some. When she is not writing, she likes to go bird watching, travel and explore the country and the world. She has a blog called You can also look at her website to read her stories on

January 22, 2012 at 9:36 pm Leave a comment

Taking Time for the Little Things

Take time to notice the little things

I often read Richard Louv’s highly inspirational blogs and various posts.  He is the author of Last Child in the Woods, the man who coined the phrase “nature deficit disorder”, and is a keen advocate for getting our children into the outdoors to experience nature, and more importantly to make the connections that we are rapidly losing as the pace of modern living continues to accelerate an alarming rate.

One of his recent blogs, The Little Things, struck a particular chord with me, and I wanted to share it with you.  In his post, he invites his audience to be mindful of the little things, the things in our daily lives that we constantly overlook.  The familiar smells, sights and sounds in the minutiae of life.  He asks his readers to pay attention to the familiar things when the house is empty  (“in the silence, look for the little things”), and when the family returns again, to do the same.  “These little things are everything”.

You can read the full blog here :

Similarly, when you are out in nature, even if this is in your back garden or yard, or the local park, take time to be mindful here too, to be aware of “the little things,” the things you take for granted, the things you overlook as you rush through your busy life.  Slow down, take the time to stop and listen.  And in your imagination create a little mind map of your experience.  You will be pleasantly surprised at what you notice.  Perhaps memories will be evoked.  Perhaps you will be inspired to be creative.  Maybe you will notice some sounds that are no longer there; a particular bird song that is missing, for example.

And in being mindful of the little things, the bigger things can gain their proper perspective and context, and life becomes much richer.

– – – – – – – – – – – –

Education 4 Conservation has a series of workshop programmes designed to focus participants on the “little things” through awareness of sound.  The first of the workshops, Soundwalk Warwickshire, will be delivered in spring 2012.  

December 30, 2011 at 8:41 pm Leave a comment

Putting a value on natural capital

The monetary value of natural capital is nearly always overlooked. Here, Conservation International director, Pavan Sukhdev, talks about what this means for communities, for countries, and for business.

Should we place economic value on natural resources that have an inherent value? Will this make any difference to the way an exploding human population uses (and often abuses) the Earth’s finite resources?

This TED presentation certainly gives plenty of food for thought, and perhaps it is long overdue that we do attach more of an economic value on natural goods if only to make consumers realise the true cost. But more importantly, in an economically-driven and highly politicised world, perhaps we should also be more mindful of the inherent value of what we consume, whether this is food resources (animal and vegetable), timber, oil, natural gas, medicines, and so on.

Far too many people, particularly in developed nations, have no concept at all of the true cost of the food they eat, the fuel they use, and the goods they consume. The raw ingredients that go into producing processed foods (i.e. palm oil), and into producing electronic goods (precious metals and minerals), all have a far higher cost to the environment than the price of the goods on the supermarket shelf. Is the answer raising the economic value of these goods at the check-out? In reality, that’s probably not going to happen. But as Pavan explains, getting corporations to be transparent about the costs of producing consumer goods may go some way towards addressing this very complex issue.

Ecology -v- economy is a very complicated subject, with no easy solutions, but a better awareness of some of the issues is what is needed, and I think this presentation goes some way towards this.

December 30, 2011 at 11:22 am Leave a comment

Older Posts

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 31 other followers

Twitter posts


Share this blog

Share |