Reference no: EM133977989
Question
Saving the Glaciers
The glaciers have been disappearing from Glacier National Park in Montana and adjoining Waterton National Park in Canada. In 1850, Glacier is said to have had 150 glaciers; in 2006, there were 27. In response to this trend, various organizations petitioned for the parks to be designated endangered by being placed on the danger list of the World Heritage Committee. As one report says,
Endangered status would require the World Heritage Committee to find ways to mitigate how climate change affects the park, [the law professor who wrote the petition] said. . . Better fuel efficiency for automobiles and stronger energy efficiency standards for buildings and appliances are among the ways to reduce greenhouse pollution that contributes to warming, the petition [said].
But some denounced the petition as unnecessary and unsupported by scientific data, while one group of scientists estimated that if climate trends continue, Glacier Park's glaciers will disappear completely by 2030.†
Suppose the glaciers' melting would have no appreciable effect on the environment except that they would no longer exist. Would conservationists still be justified in trying to save the glaciers? If so, how could they justify their efforts? If not, why not? Suppose the glaciers could be saved only if the government spends $10 billion on pollution controls-money that would have to be taken away from social programs. Would this cost be worth it? Why or why not? Justify your answers.