The Controversial Issue Of Climate Change And Fauna
For many years the earth's animal populations have faced obstacles. For example, there have been a number of different species that have gone extinct or may be facing extinction. The push has always been to understand the cause of these setbacks. In recent years climate change has become a possible contributor to animal issues. Many protesters hold signs referencing the effects of climate change on animals. Because the possibility of climate change affecting animals has surfaced, many environmentalist, biologist, and scientists have become interested in this subject. Scientists and environmentalists agree that climate change has had an effect on animal species. However, individuals within these fields have differing opinions on whether or not these effects are truly negative. These scientists focus on animal relationships with their changing environment. They differ in their opinion on whether or not this relationship has become negative due to climate change. Both parties retain knowledge on this topic through studies and observations. Environmentalists also show interest in climate change affects on animals. Some seek to expose climate change for hurting animal species. Others look at climate changes as an opportunity for adaptation among animal populations. The main controversy among environmentalists, environmental scientists, and biologists is whether or not climate change is having a negative impact on animal species.
People believe that climate change is having negative effects on animals. Brad Plumer and Livia Albeck-Ripka share this belief. Plumer and Albeck-Ripka, reporters for the New York Times, collaborated to write “What Season Is It? Some Plants and Animals Are Baffled”, which presents their believes. Plumer and Albeck-Ripka claim that global warming is changing seasons and “not all species are adjusting to this warming at the same rate, and, as a result, some are falling out of step”. They explain that the animals who fail to adjust to the warming weather are being hurt. They break their claim into two main reasons. The first reason is the changing seasons cause “missed connections” and the second reason is warming causes “perilous meetings”. They support these reasons by providing a number of different examples and citing scientists with similar beliefs. They support reason one stating that “flycatchers, which appear to schedule their departure from Africa based on the length of day there, are not getting to Europe early enough for their spring meals”. The birds timing is off due to the change in seasons. This timing issue has caused many of these birds to face a food deficiency. When supporting this point they also quote an ecologist who asserts that timing “mismatch could have real consequences for populations”. They follow in supporting reason two, by explaining that “as temperatures have risen,. . . birds are now increasingly laying their eggs before. . . farmers get to their fields, which means their well-concealed nests are more likely to get destroyed by tractors and other machinery”. Global warming due to climate change has caused new encounters that pose a threat for some animals. Plumer, Albeck-Ripka, and some scientists believe climate warming due to climate change is having a negative impact on animals.
In contrast to those who think climate change has a negative impact on animals are those who believe climate change can be beneficial to animals. They include Individuals such as Amanda Paulson, and scientists such as Dr. Erik Beever. These stakeholders share the same beliefs and values, so they tend to argue their claims in similar ways. Paulson explains that some species may benefit from climate change. Paulson, writer for The Christian Science Monitor, expresses her beliefs in “For wildlife, climate change brings a mixed bag”. She claims that “certain species are benefitting” from the differences brought by climate change. She supports her claim by providing reasoning and citing the expert authority of Dr. Erik Beever and other scientists. Paulson reasons that “the number of species may actually rise” because temperatures are rising due to global warming and “warmer habitats tend to support richer biodiversity”. She follows by citing Dr. Beever, a scientist who studied changing mountain ecosystems. He mentions how Stickleback fish evolved efficiently in warm temperatures. The temperature allowed the fish to evolve faster than scientists had thought. The other main reason she uses is that “Some birds are shifting their migration patterns. . . as they adapt to shifting seasons”. She believes animals are not being negatively affected because they are able to successfully adapt to the changing environment. Paulson provides evidence by referencing Malin Pinsky, a biologist, who alleges that “We're seeing hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands, of species shifting”. Both Paulson and Pinsky share the view that animals are already shifting to the changes caused by climate change and thus they are unlikely to be negatively affected by these changes. Paulson and multiple scientists share the belief that animals will not be hurt by climate change because they can sufficiently adapt and may even benefit from certain changes.
Due to the complexity of this controversy there is a third party of stakeholders who shares views of both groups listed earlier. For example, Jack Guy agrees and disagrees with both Paulsons and Plumber, and Livia Albeck-Ripka. Guy is a journalist for CNN, who claims that while some animals “will die out as they are less adaptable and require specialized living conditions” others that are “more adaptable creatures will flourish”. He supports his claim with examples of animals who adapt like “dwarf gerbils and songbirds such as the white-browed sparrow-weaver”. He follows by adding to his claim, proposing that “even as certain species are favored by changing conditions, they could become more vulnerable to specific threats”. He supports this addition to his claim by alluding to researchers from The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, who note, “that insect-eating animals will thrive in the future, for example, but they will also be threatened by changes to habitats or the availability of insects”. Jack Guy shares the belief that some animals are capable of adapting to environmental changes with Amanda Paulson. However, he also agrees with Plumer and Livia Albeck-Ripka because he believes that some species are being hurt and even those that adapt may indirectly be negatively impacted.
People such as Albeck-Ripka and Plumer believe that climate change will create a number of issues for animals. They assert that animals can not keep up with the changing environment around them. Albeck-Ripka and Plumer focus on specific examples to support their views. Those who disagree include Paulson and scientists, such as Dr. Beever. They believe that while climate change does have an impact on animals it doesn't hurt them because animals can adapt to the changes they are facing. They also believe that some changes may help some species. Paulson focuses on citing scientific evidence to support her claim. Jack Guy and those with similar beliefs think there are both negative and positive impacts from climate change. He believes that while some animals will adapt, they will still face indirect issues caused by climate change. He also believes some animals will not be capable of adapting. Guy uses one main study to support his two sided claim. All parties do agree that climate change is having an impact on animals; conversely, they differ in whether these effects are negative or not.
