Strengthening Legislation on Endangered Species - Essay Example

Should the Endangered Species Act Be Strengthened? Introduction According to Miller and Spoolman (2008) people are destroying the earth that sustains life and many of other species at a faster rate than nature can redevelop it. Visible proof thrives with some of the most alarming signs being visible to the normal person. These include damage evident in the ocean, drinking water, in the soil, among animals, fish, and birds, plants and on the weather and climate. Obliteration is conspicuous in clear-cut forests in various parts of the globe, in oil spills floating on seas and oceans, in innumerable number of fish dying on estuarine waters and in the smoggy environments in various industrial nations. Piles of mine waste material and various types of toxic wastes are regarded simply as a mess. Infrastructure continues to cover more and more forests, fields, plains and other wild lands. As many plants and animals grapple with these effects, man is oblivious of the causes and effects of these unbecoming acts. The Endangered Species Act is certainly in problems and it needs to be strengthened. Development of Endangered Species Act Perhaps there is nothing invaluable and more important to protect than the rich assortment of animal and plant life in the world; they form part of the earth which attracts people of all caliber besides being part of the heritage shared among members of a particular culture. The Endangered Species Act that was devised in 1973 makes a powerful protection ambiguous statement of state policy on species protection; it aims at providing ways, resources and measures that ensure that ecosystems harboring endangered species are protected. However, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) only appears to be effective in writing; the ESA has shown to be of less significance since it plan to make a brave collective moral and lawful assurance concerning endangered species has been quite a hard task to achieve (Burgess, 2003). The House worked on fourteen dissimilar reports with the Senate alone working on three of them. The objective of the different accounts was to come up with an Act that is strong and effective against actions that are aimed at harming species with a high risk of getting extinct (Stanford Environmental Law Society, 2002). In the United States, the ESA was made into law by President Nixon; it is considered one of the country’s most vital environmental laws and a global representation. The account behind operations of ESA is theatrical, action-packed and exasperating. Since the Act was made into law, private developers and central planners have had to examine their tactics and actions cautiously and make amendments to protect listed species. The law’s command to slow and even discontinue development has made it unpopular with landowners and real estate businesses. Some people feel it terrorizes their occupations and others are of the opinion that ESA reduces earnings as it requires expenses to safeguard one species in order to reap another. Alternatively, environmentalists argue that the ESA is just a self-perpetuating crisis response system. A number of environmentalists assert that it is limited as it fails to stop species endangerment; to this lot, it would have been more preferable to improve customs and activities in order to avoid or prevent species endangerment beforehand. Businessmen and environmentalists have often challenged the ESA for a number of times in federal courts although the judicial system has incessantly defended it. The closure of the 20th century that saw a myriad of reactions to law and its exclusions was quite a hard time for ESA supporters. Anti-ESA crowds have often clashed with pro-environmentalists on whether the ESA should continue being applied or not. The statute is in trouble and species continue to become extinct despite ESA’s existence. The disagreement, however, becomes logical only in the situation of the statute’s authentic stipulations and its early history (Burgess, 2003). Environmental risks in the current world The current world is marked by extensive damage to the environment (Goble, Scott, & Davis, 2006). Albeit many people are used to the situation and consider the damage invisible, the reality is that the reality is apparent to an ordinary eye. It is there in the natural fisheries that have sank into oblivion. It is apparent in croplands that have been worn-out by dangerous chemicals used to boost crop growth and obliterate pests that it now requires a very high expense to generate the plant yields that once grew with merely human sweat. It is clear in the unrelenting occurrence of human cancers and the attack of new pandemics such as Swine Flu, AIDS and other viruses. Even the rising human infertility rates may be a good sign of the immense destruction on our environment. Some polluting agents such as DDT are left behind in the food web and through a process called bioaccumulation; they increase in concentration as they progress up the food chain. As a result, human beings hardly notice the threat posed by their activities until severe damage or destruction ensues. A myriad of other indicators substantiate this damage. Life’s diversity has reduced in rivers, streams, bays, oceans and seas that are poisoned by contaminants (Goble, Scott, & Davis, 2006). Weather patterns have changed due to huge amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases produced by manmade technological advancements and consumption. Furthermore, the buildup of greenhouse gases is exacerbated by the incessant cutting down of trees which use up carbon dioxide and generate life-supporting oxygen. Severe flooding has become an extensive occurrence because of a decrease in natural wetlands which are natural flood-check areas. The expenditure of injure to life has shot up since people continue building up and inhabiting floodplains. Occurrence of skin infections is on the rise because the reduced ozone in the higher atmosphere allows more ultraviolet light to reach the earth. Most people are aware of at least some pieces of evidence but they ignore postulating that nothing can be done about it. There are a number of places in this world that have been turned into either uninhabitable or almost uninhabitable places (Goble, Scott, & Davis, 2006). Most of the visible environmental pollution is horrible and depressing, yet people regard it as inevitable. These destroyed areas may be possible to regenerate but with the current human activity, things might even get worse than they actually are right now. Almost every environmental predicament is tied to growth of human demand which is augmenting exponentially with increase in human demographics. There are big losses of rain forest cover to generate residence for increasing human population mostly in tropical and equatorial nations. One of the most terrorizing environmental changes is the thrashing of variety or diversity of life (Burgess, 2003). The diminishing biodiversity can be attributed to increasing demand for more land to support human beings and environmental pollution. Some species are killed during environmental destruction. Species that are lucky to survive move to other safe and inhabitable areas but some of them stop reproducing when an environment can no longer sustain a population. People comfort themselves with the acquaintance that a lost species will always flourish in another area. Even in situations where this statement is a fact, people forget that biodiversity should contribute to the quality of life in their home area and not other areas. Moreover, areas that biodiversity can find a home are slowly diminishing due to human activities and soon there might be nowhere to run to. The world is headed into a state whereby the only surviving members of a certain species will exist only in zoos and botanical labs. ESA should be strengthened Many argue that transformation is the trendy approach for the natural world. This is indeed a fact. Nevertheless, when the transformation is caustic, it involves the geological time scale which is calculated in generations, to solve the crisis. But the human time scale is calculated in decades and damage of the earth is happening at a pace that far outshines the planet’s aptitude to convalesce in the human time scale. The idea of a law such as the Endangered Species Act fading away without approval and frequently with too little funding is actually incomprehensible. Stokstad (2005) insists there is actually a group of social, economical and political issues shambling the Endangered Species Act. The United States require a policy on biodiversity; currently, there are only pieces of the policy sprinkled through the acts that have created and maintained many federal organizations. The ESA is habitually regarded as US biodiversity policy. However, it tackles only a tiny aspect of biodiversity: species on the verge of extermination. Conservation experts agree that the globe is experiencing the sixth huge extinction occurrence in history. All previous incidents resulted into extermination of an outsized number of species. Ironically, when reasons behind extinction in past occurrences are not vivid, in the ongoing event the reason is well known: actions of mankind. The public, independently and via their elected leaders, should realize that the problem can no longer be delayed for more urgent fiscal issues. Repeatedly, the environment loses to the alleged requirement for occupations and development. However, human wellbeing is reliant on a healthy environment. The genuine subject is not jobs versus the environment but to a certain extent jobs versus the future, wellbeing and survival of humans. Even though human beings have the capacity to stay alive beyond the extermination of many species, such a world would be horrible to imagine let alone the issue of living in it (Stokstad, 2005). In the end, however, human beings have no capacity to replenish all the natural life sustenance services that the earth is on the verge of losing and therefore man’s survival is also at stake. Within the human scale, all the destruction that has been done to the biosphere is definitely incorrigible. It would require tens of millions of years for example, to renew the fossil fuels that have been extorted. Additionally, the lethal chemicals already introduced into the surroundings will stay long after they stop being employed. Each species that has become extinct previously filled an ecological slot and therefore each extinct species creates a useful void in the web of life. The standard life span of a species or of human beings remains unknown but according to estimates, history accounts for just tens of thousands of years but fossil evidence accounts for two millions years. Therefore, if human beings began protecting the biosphere at this moment, there would be hope for future generations (Stokstad, 2005). The earth needs natural resources in an untouched state and not manmade resources to recover. With all these facts in mind, The Endangered Species Act is neither efficient nor adequate to protect endangered species. It needs to be improved so as to assure consistent implementation of policies on public and personal land and promote private protection of a fundamental national resource. Most of all, it requires assured yearly financial support that is not subject to political maneuvers. However, these modifications would only care for endangered species. Species cannot be safeguarded from becoming rare unless they are managed within their habitats and this requires employing an additional area of practice: management of the ecosystem. Lobbying for creation of an act against ecosystem damage will only continue splitting the subject matter. There is need for an all-inclusive biodiversity policy that draws all the pieces together under one protection policy umbrella (Stokstad, 2005). Before improving the prospects of biodiversity, however, prevailing social and economic customs must transform. Biodiversity may be a great crisis, but not as much compared to people’s ways of life. Along with the change in faith systems, there must be new practices that watch and protect the earth and all its inhabitants. While there is a universal agreement that is detrimental to lose species, there is also a tough fear of the changes that may be essential to end the losses. Between 1995 and 1998, congresses were held that threatened authoritarian intrusion by natural resources policies under influence of the business community (Goble, Scott, & Davis, 2006). Ironically, these policies had been ratified since business and industry were destroying natural systems. These assemblies were held by influential people who believe that employment and economic growth are the means to incessant wealth. The reaction of such people to diminishing supplies of timber, oil, coal and minerals is to explore more petroleum, excavate mineral deposits and cut down trees, regardless of the losses involved. This strategy solves today’s problems at the expense of future prospects. Though depletion of biodiversity is a global issue, it is discomforting to have a superpower like the US still behind on this subject. It is pinpointing of the ESA fight that the United States is the only superpower that has not endorsed the global Convention on Biological Diversity. Human exploitation of the earth is the heart of the trouble and it is multifaceted by human unawareness and opposition to the facts. However, there are hopeful signs; scientists and environmentalists are being joined by a mounting number of members of nation, state and local governments in identifying the problems. Though the problem-solving process has commenced, more steps need to be taken in stopping depletion of earth’s species (Burgess, 2003). However, there is no single answer to the massive assortment of problems contributing to biodiversity crisis. There is no superlative answer to this predicament either; because there are a myriad of biological facts that are unavailable. All the same, solutions have to be formulated and implemented. It will take unrelenting teamwork, harmonization, communication, and mutual aid to resolve the problems. Several stakeholders representing state, community and federal public land supervisors, private owners of land and public interest groups must work as a team using an adaptive managing approach to commence change. The human species has overwhelming innovative power and therefore is capable of developing a modified, environmental-friendly way of life (Burgess, 2003). It seems like there is no choice for such a lifestyle otherwise the future generation will be a polluted, unhealthy world that is empty of biodiversity. Progression is the driver of life and its essence is continued existence. The world should understand that if other life species are destroyed now, the future world will not sustain human life. Changing this drama on the Endangered Species Act is not going to be an easy task; not with all the recent erroneous endorsement attempts, the lack of improvement towards a more all-inclusive biodiversity policy and the ongoing current of indecisiveness. Conclusion The current world has adopted disastrous pollution trends and has numerous threats to biodiversity with human activities topping the list. The Endangered Species Act which is meant to curb extinction of endangered species seems ineffective and hence needs to be strengthened. The account of the Endangered Species Act is terrible in that the system has demonstrated its inability to address a vital national and global problem. In many ways, the US environmental policy appears to be the root cause of all these problems since it conflicts with the Endangered Species Policy. To respond to this challenge, a national biodiversity policy to save from harm all life systems should be adopted. Moreover, the US should also improve ESA’s capacity to protect troubled species, concede to the rights of private property possessors and promote public and private environmental protection. References Burgess, B. B. (2003). Fate of the wild: The Endangered Species Act and the future of biodiversity. University of Georgia Press. Goble, D., Scott, J. M., & Davis, F. W. (2006). The Endangered Species Act at thirty, Volume 1 (2nd ed.). Island Press. Miller, G. T., & Spoolman, S. (2008). Sustaining the earth (9th ed.). Cengage Learning. Stanford Environmental Law Society. (2002). The Endangered Species Act. Stanford University Press. Stokstad, E. (2005). What is wrong with the Endangered Species Act? Science, 309(5744), 2150- 2152. Read More