In recent years, environmental change has been having a bigger effect on healthcare than it ever did in the past. For example, the deforestation of rainforests has disease linkages such as the avian flu and the West Nile Virus. In addition, 1 billion people who depend on local food are at the risk of malnutrition from factors such as drought, loss of soil fertility and overfishing and this is all due to the loss of biodiversity. Because of biodiversity loss, ecosystems have lost their capacity to remove wastes from the environment. If the problem continues, there will be global waste accumulation and this will lead increased pollutants in the air, water and soil which would have negative consequences on the health of the human population. Biodiversity can also be the cure for many of the world’s health problems which range from herpes to cancer. 80% of new drugs are derived from natural products and the income from these developments can be substantial. Unfortunately, many of the species which might hold the key to solving the world’s health problems are at the risk of being extinct.
In recent years, politics and energy have gone hand to hand where governments are always trying to control the energy market by making new policies and restrictions. Most people realize the consequences of our energy usage, but the most governments are reluctant to take actions to prevent problems like global warming. This is because most countries believe environmentally friendly energy sources would be too expensive and would hurt the economy. Most of the western democracies have policies geared towards preventing pollution, but the governments of developing countries such as China and India are trying to gear their countries through rapid industrialization. These governments do not address the problems of pollution and do not realize the long term consequences of their economic reforms. All governments need to realize they must address the energy crises before biodiversity loss becomes irreversible.
Before the industrial revolution, most economies were agriculture based and agriculture is still an important economic sector. Although agriculture (crops, livestock, and fisheries) employs 1.5 billion people-half the world’s working population, we still face significant food shortages. To counter the food shortage, farmers must use either intensification or extensification to increase agriculture productivity. Intensification tends to have few varieties and deals with agrochemicals, energy and water to increase the agricultural yield. Unfortunately these methods have a negative impact on biodiversity and can erode the soil. The extensification approach deals with increasing the amount of agricultural land which is mainly converted for growing cash crops. This has a serious negative effect on biodiversity because some of the most biodiversity habitats are being destroyed in this process. For example, a large fraction of the South American rainforests has been cut down for livestock and cash crops.
In conclusion we must protect biodiversity if we wish to protect our planet. We must halt biodiversity loss if we still wish to stay healthy and keep our planet in the same manner. By reducing our energy dependence and switching to environmentally friendly methods, we can take a further step in reducing our environmental footprint. Finally we must learn new techniques to keep up food production the entire human population. In conclusion, if we can learn keep a balance between social, political and economical factors, we can halt and maybe even reverse the effects of biodiversity loss.
Bibliography
[Cited 2009 September 27]. Available from: http://www.meafordexpress.com/meafordexpress/article/114326