President Trump has apparently ordered dramatic reductions in the areas of 2 national parks in Utah (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/04/trump-bears-ears-grand-staircase-escalante-monuments-shrink). The Bears ears monument has been reduced from 6000 square kilometres to around 900 and the Grand staircase from around 8100 to circa 4050. He, reportedly, has similar plans for other land-based and marine conservation areas in other parts of the USA. The move worries indigenous groups (who sometimes have religious artefacts in the areas) and conservationists, as the move is designed open up additional areas to fossil fuel extraction and ranching (both likely to have detrimental influences on climate change). The move is reportedly 'sold' using the argument that locals rather than people in Washington should determine what happens to the land. I personally feel that, in the long-term, locals are more likely to benefit from having impressive parks rather than commercially exploiting these areas. Unfortunately, people rarely think long (or even medium) term.
This blog may help people explore some of the 'hidden' issues involved in certain media treatments of environmental and scientific issues. Using personal digital images, it's also intended to emphasise seasonal (and other) changes in natural history of the Swansea (South Wales) area. The material should help participants in field-based modules and people generally interested in the natural world. The views are wholly those of the author.
Tuesday, 5 December 2017
Jaw-jaw on Utah?
President Trump has apparently ordered dramatic reductions in the areas of 2 national parks in Utah (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/04/trump-bears-ears-grand-staircase-escalante-monuments-shrink). The Bears ears monument has been reduced from 6000 square kilometres to around 900 and the Grand staircase from around 8100 to circa 4050. He, reportedly, has similar plans for other land-based and marine conservation areas in other parts of the USA. The move worries indigenous groups (who sometimes have religious artefacts in the areas) and conservationists, as the move is designed open up additional areas to fossil fuel extraction and ranching (both likely to have detrimental influences on climate change). The move is reportedly 'sold' using the argument that locals rather than people in Washington should determine what happens to the land. I personally feel that, in the long-term, locals are more likely to benefit from having impressive parks rather than commercially exploiting these areas. Unfortunately, people rarely think long (or even medium) term.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Food For Thought?
The link between global heating and food prices is clearly illustrated in a recent CarbonBrief ( https://www.carbonbrief.org/five-charts-ho...
-
Garden plants in France, The Netherlands, The UK and Sikkim (NE India).
-
Common toadflax ( Linaria vulgaris ) contains a moderately toxic glucoside.
-
The UK's Deputy Prime Minister has been advising Brits on how to 'better prepare for future pandemics, disasters and cyber attacks&...
No comments:
Post a Comment