Inflated perceptions of scientific uncertainty may delegitimize evidence in the decision-making realm. This type of misplaced conservation undermines trust in science and the ability to use the best available data for policy development.
Health Issues
Environmental pollution can have a direct impact on human health. Whether through gradual degradation, such as groundwater contamination from industrial pollutants that may affect tens of thousands of people living miles away, or rapid events like oil spills and transport carrier accidents that threaten the lives and property of many more, human health is at risk when natural environments are damaged.
Moreover, conservation and human health are interconnected. Emerging infectious diseases associated with wildlife can exacerbate public apprehension about wild animals, erode human support for conservation, and diminish the value of natural resources to humans.
If handled poorly, the movement that aims to improve the health of multiple species could backfire for conservation by raising public concerns about zoonotic disease and increasing human aversion to nature and wildlife. That can make it harder to achieve conservation goals. However, if appropriately implemented, new narratives around consumption, food, energy, urban design systems overhauls, and conservation that engage local communities can help solve health and conservation problems.
Environmental Damages
Whether it is an oil spill, toxic waste, or water contamination, the environmental damage that occurs due to these events can be devastating for families. Fortunately, the experienced attorneys specializing in environmental litigation in Birmingham, AL, can help those exposed to hazardous substances.
Environmental laws and policies can result in uneven distributions of benefits and damages for different population groups. It may occur if the policy delivers uneven quantities of an environmental good or if the benefits from an incremental environmental change differ across populations.
During the 1970s, the federal government implemented several environmental laws. In 1980, the government passed two significant pieces of legislation: the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. These laws aimed to promote conservation and address environmental issues effectively. In the decade that followed, debate and controversy surrounded these laws. Some environmentalists criticized their pace, while regulated industries argued they were overreaching.
Powerful Lobbyists
Across the country, thousands of groups, from big corporations and trade associations to public interest nonprofits, hire lobbyists to shape laws and legislation on their behalf. In addition, many states and cities have local lobbies focusing on city-specific issues.
As a result, powerful interest groups can often overwhelm smaller advocacy organizations, mainly when they can afford the salaries of experienced lobbyists. This disparity raises equity issues about whose voices are heard in policymaking.
For example, the agribusiness industry is known to wield enormous influence in state legislatures and has stifled common-sense measures to ensure cleaner water for the public.
Legal Action
With big-money investors and corporate bigwigs in the driver’s seat, environmental regulations can be overturned with little pressure. Environmental litigation attorneys represent clients in cases involving federal and state environmental statutes and regulations, including the Clean Air, Clean Water, and Endangered Species Acts.
They also defended clients in challenges to permits and environmental claims in the courts, such as oil spill damages; claimed compensation under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and common law for damage caused by petroleum releases; and sought liability for environmental harm to aesthetic property values. They help clients avoid environmental litigation but can support them when facing it head-on. One of the most effective ways to do this is through improved processes for using evidence to reduce polarization and misinformation.
