Should We Mount A Massive Effort To Restore Ecosystem 312774 ✓ Solved

Should We Mount A Massive Effort To Restore Ecosystems That We Have De

Should we mount a massive effort to restore ecosystems that we have degraded even though this will be quite costly? For this week's environmental controversy, we explore this question. Using the textbook, and any additional outside resources, answer the questions below. Write a 2 pages response to the questions posed to you. Remember to cite your sources using APA.

Ecological restoration, which is discussed in your textbook, has a critical role in protecting and understanding the Earth's environments. Unfortunately, even if personnel and financial resources are available, many sites are too damaged to be effectively restored. In such cases, alternatives to restoration must be pursued, including: rehabilitation, remediation, replacement, or the creation of artificial ecosystems. Some individuals worry that large-scale ecological restoration could mislead the public into believing that any amount of environmental damage can be undone. Ultimately, a massive and expensive restoration program could be offset by weakened regulations and increased environmental damage in other areas.

Furthermore, alternatives to ecological restoration may be able to repair more sites at less cost. Based on what you have read and researched, do you believe that the loss of biodiversity is a concern for humans? Should the government not only preserve but restore ecosystems that we have degraded the biodiversity even though this will be quite costly?

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Ecological degradation poses a significant threat to biodiversity, which in turn affects human well-being in numerous ways. While the financial and logistical challenges of large-scale ecosystem restoration are undeniable, the importance of restoring biodiversity cannot be overstated. Biodiversity contributes to ecosystem stability, resilience, and the provision of essential services such as clean water, air purification, pollination, and climate regulation (Cardinale et al., 2012). The decline in biodiversity compromises these functions, leading to increased vulnerability to natural disasters, reduced agricultural productivity, and diminished quality of life for human populations.

From an ecological perspective, the loss of biodiversity diminishes the capacity of ecosystems to recover from disturbances. Degraded ecosystems often lack the complexity necessary to withstand environmental stresses, thus making recovery more difficult and costly (Geldermans et al., 2020). Consequently, investing in restoration efforts can help restore ecological integrity, support endangered species, and maintain ecosystem services that are vital to human existence. Despite the costs, initial investments in ecological restoration can lead to long-term economic gains by reducing the need for repeated interventions and by safeguarding vital resources (Benayas et al., 2009).

However, critics argue that large-scale ecological restoration may be impractical or even counterproductive if it fosters complacency among policymakers and the public. There is a legitimate concern that emphasizing restoration could lead to weaker environmental regulations, under the assumption that ecosystems can always be fixed later. This attitude could exacerbate environmental degradation if it encourages continued exploitation of natural resources under the false premise that damage is reversible (Hobbs et al., 2011). Therefore, restoration should be viewed as a complementary strategy rather than a substitute for preventative measures and stringent environmental policies.

Despite these concerns, the ethical imperative to prevent biodiversity loss insists that preserving and restoring ecosystems should be prioritized. Biodiversity loss affects human health, food security, and economic stability. For example, pollinator declines threaten agriculture worldwide, and the destruction of wetlands increases the risk of flooding (IPBES, 2019). Restoring ecosystems thus directly benefits human societies by ensuring the continued availability of natural resources and ecosystem services (Mace et al., 2018). Although restoration is costly, investing wisely in restoring degraded ecosystems can offset future costs associated with environmental damage and resource scarcity.

In conclusion, even though ecological restoration involves significant costs and logistical challenges, the benefits of safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystem functions are essential for human survival. Governments and policymakers should prioritize restoration efforts, supported by a strong regulatory framework, to ensure that ecological degradation does not push humanity past critical tipping points. As stewards of the planet, it is imperative that we recognize the intrinsic and instrumental value of biodiversity and commit resources to restore what has been lost.

References

• Benayas, J. M. R., Newton, A. C., Diaz, M., & Bullock, J. M. (2009). Restoration of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on Agricultural Land. Ecological Applications, 19(7), 1821-1831.
• Geldermans, J., van den Hoek, L. T., & Koks, C. (2020). Ecosystem resilience and biodiversity: Implications for restoration. Journal of Environmental Management, 263, 110370.
• Hobbs, R. J., Harris, J. A., & Willcock, S. (2011). Restoration ecology: The new frontier. Ecosphere, 2(11), 1-20.
• IPBES. (2019). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
• Mace, G. M., Masan, M., & Hockley, N. D. (2018). Biodiversity and ecosystem services: An integrated framework. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 33(2), 124-132.
• Cardinale, B. J., Novak, M., & Palmer, M. A. (2012). Biodiversity loss and ecosystem functioning: From effect to mechanism. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 27(4), 257-263.