Human action has altered the environment in irreversible ways. In order to conserve and protect natural ecosystems, regulations were enacted with a focus on sustaining a healthy environment. However, the Trump administration has weakened several environmental protections as it continues to promote the interests of unfettered industry which are at the forefront of these rollbacks. A newly proposed regulation seeks to dismiss any penalties to businesses, including oil and gas companies, that accidentally kill birds as a result of a firm’s practices . Alleviating these companies of their responsibility for the deaths of countless birds eradicates any obligation to function as an environmental steward. In the future, businesses will have little, if any, incentive to assess how their actions effect the well-being of other organisms and the environment. Ultimately, the interest of these corporations has been and, will now continue to be maximizing profit, emphasizing the need for environmental protections. Human ability to alter the environment affirms the gravity of maintaining it and places the responsibility of protection on policymakers. The health of the environment and ecosystem functioning is contingent upon biodiversity, which declines when human practices result in the death of species.
Over the past fifty years, human enterprise drove approximately one-third of the planet’s wild bird species in the United States and Canada to extinction. This accounts for the loss of 2.9 billion birds since 1970. Extinctions of this magnitude emphasize the loss of biodiversity in North America. Bird species aid in plant reproduction by pollinating flowers and dispersing seeds, and they also regulate insect populations who serve as their prey. Removing birds, which are a vital component of ecosystems, would lead to crop failures, food shortages, and unchecked insect populations. A large portion of the 300 species lost inhabited North America’s forests and grasslands, which experienced a loss of one billion and 717 million birds respectively . Both biomes are heavily exploited for agricultural and urban development, resulting in the destruction of habitats and the displacement of wildlife. Forfeiting the ability to punish companies whose practices result in the death of birds significantly weakens the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 which serves to protect birds from human action. As a species that dominates the planet, humans are obligated to act responsibly to ensure a sustainable future for all organisms. To act without care for other living beings and the future of the planet will lead to the destruction of the planet and biotic populations.
The lingering threat of monetary repercussions, such as fines, has urged industries to implement measures that support the wellbeing of birds. For example, telecommunications companies currently install red lights atop communication towers to prevent bird collisions, as the light serves as a warning to avoid the protruding obstacle in a bird’s flightpath. However, eliminating the threat of fines to companies makes the implementation of protections voluntary, with minimal incentive to install precautionary measures. Removing liability all but guarantees that corporations will employ the most cost-effective practices, which generally excludes any preventative safety methods. When left to their own devices, most large corporations have proven to be extremely reluctant to act in the best interest of the natural environment or other living creatures.
Under the Trump administration’s proposal, only practices meant to intentionally kill birds are prohibited and can result in punishment. These stipulations fail to include collateral bird deaths including those caused by practices which are deemed illegal, like using toxic pesticides that are known to be harmful. This is because the purpose of the pesticides is to eradicate vermin and insects that are considered bothersome and are not intended to kill birds. Therefore, no disciplinary actions are taken against the culprits because the death of the birds were accidental. This allows firms to ignore the broader environmental repercussions and secondary effects of their actions while only focusing on the short-sighted results. Disregarding the negative externalities associated with industrial practices, such as emitting pollutants or causing the death of living things, will result in the exacerbation of these issues in the future. When the perpetuation of harmful practices has compounded the repercussions, such as the endangerment of species or planetary warming, are often irreversible.
When assessing a firm’s conduct, environmental impact must be considered. Injurious consequences should be dealt with and remedied whether they were intended or accidental. If the actions of oil, gas, and construction companies are further deregulated and persist unchecked by government entities, countless species, including birds, will assuredly continue to be decimated by destructive human ventures.
Cristina Russo is a is a senior at Hunter College, graduating in the spring of 2020. She is a Roosevelt Scholar, Thomas Hunter Honors Scholar, and a JFEW Eleanor Roosevelt scholar. Cristina is pursuing a major in environmental studies with a policy and management concentration and a minor in public policy. She aspires to advocate for the implementation and advancement of sustainable infrastructure, especially in urban environments.
