This article talks about how the grassland and rivers in California could be in danger due to human resources. It starts by showing how grassland, forests, and rivers support wildlife and the $92 billion recreation economy. It can all change due to the threats of resource extraction and road development. This is important not only because it means that we will be wasting tons of money but also it will lead to a decrease in biodiversity since the animals would have to find a new habitat. The article brings up how we need headwaters of rivers and aquifers that will provide the water for humans and wildlife.
This article is related to environmental science because it shows the importance of public land use. It shows how humans destroy habitats for wildlife to help their needs. It is valuable to see the importance of public land use because if it’s not talked about as much as it should be, we could put these species in danger. Not only that but also we will lead the state to just waste money. The cities around us need to know why building roads and houses will not always be the best idea. California should see how we could help public land use and not destroy wildlife.
I think it’s important to note that protecting the environment can have net beneficial economic impacts as well. A lot of times, it can be depicted as an either-or choice, but policy is more nuanced than that. But sometimes there is a clash, and it’s really hard to assign a dollar value to biodiversity. What’s the best paradigm for that conflict going forward?
I agree with you that it is really crucial to discuss public land usage. However, there may be a way to both add roads for people to access, as well as provide nature with a way to maintain itself; for example, when we watched the video about how there was a bridge built over a freeway for wildlife. Do you think solutions like that should be further and more commonly implemented?