Although I avoid politics I would urge everyone to check out the Editor's Letter in this month's GREEN ISSUE of Vanity Fair. Called 'On Borrowed Land' by Graydon Carter, it encapsulates much of what bothers me about the current US administration's environmental policy. I've always believed science (like the church) should be kept separate from government, and I have personal experience of the powers-that-be in more than one country, wanting to manipulate scientific data to suit their needs. I can also see the difficulties for politicians needing votes and cash to get elected. Not exactly an ideal system, but what is the alternative?
In the UK it is always fishing quotas that grab the headlines. The argument against scientifically recommended restrictions is that fishermens' livelihoods will be affected if the quota is too low. How will the fishermen feed their families on what the scientists allow them to catch?
This is a valid point, but has never made any sense to me. Preserving a sustainable fish stock is the only way to have a long lasting fishing industry.
No fish, means no fishing, means no feeding of families.
If you don't believe me just research the collapse of the cod stocks off the coast of Newfoundland in the 1990s. Nearly twenty years on and it still hasn't recovered, and there is no guarantee that it ever will.
Theodore Roosevelt summed up my feelings about the environment.
"The conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem. Unless we solve that problem it will avail us little to solve all others."
Address to the Deep Waterway Convention, Memphis, TN, October 4, 1907