Conservation Conundrums
Many folks are concerned about the health of the environment. However, there are many environmental impacts which do not seem to have clear-cut solutions, and trying to follow one or another course of action to ensure the least damage done seems divisive and difficult.
In terms of water usage, I've heard more than a few heated arguments over washable versus disposable items. Whether they are dishes or diapers, people seem to have definite opinions. But is either opinion better for the environment in the long run? On the one hand, washing and reusing items saves them from the landfill. On the other hand, it may appear that disposable items save water; although, this is not always true, depending on how much water was used in manufacturing; etc. The issues involved are more complex than they first appear, and yet people are quick to label each other as environmentally "unfriendly" should they pick an opposing plan of action.
Another environmental conundrum comes from the folks who would save animals by avoiding animal products such as leather. Most often nylon and other man-made materials are used as a substitute for leather; however, nylon manufacturing is considered by at least a few environmental scientists to be another contributor to greenhouse gases. This seems another area where environmentalists could generate endless hours of debate.
Finally, there is the question over land conservation, use and accessibility. Some environmentalists see accessibility laws and land use issues as major stumbling blocks to maintaining pristine wilderness. However, others feel they are better able to spare land from development by allowing some flexibility in land use and by increasing accessibility, so more of their citizens can enjoy these open spaces.
Perhaps these conundrums can only be resolved through cooperation and compromise, but win-win solutions seem hard to pin down.
In terms of water usage, I've heard more than a few heated arguments over washable versus disposable items. Whether they are dishes or diapers, people seem to have definite opinions. But is either opinion better for the environment in the long run? On the one hand, washing and reusing items saves them from the landfill. On the other hand, it may appear that disposable items save water; although, this is not always true, depending on how much water was used in manufacturing; etc. The issues involved are more complex than they first appear, and yet people are quick to label each other as environmentally "unfriendly" should they pick an opposing plan of action.
Another environmental conundrum comes from the folks who would save animals by avoiding animal products such as leather. Most often nylon and other man-made materials are used as a substitute for leather; however, nylon manufacturing is considered by at least a few environmental scientists to be another contributor to greenhouse gases. This seems another area where environmentalists could generate endless hours of debate.
Finally, there is the question over land conservation, use and accessibility. Some environmentalists see accessibility laws and land use issues as major stumbling blocks to maintaining pristine wilderness. However, others feel they are better able to spare land from development by allowing some flexibility in land use and by increasing accessibility, so more of their citizens can enjoy these open spaces.
Perhaps these conundrums can only be resolved through cooperation and compromise, but win-win solutions seem hard to pin down.