Introduction
Many of humanity’s current recreational and manufacturing-related activities lead to devastating environmental consequences despite promoting local benefits to people. The three negative environmental impacts associated with human activities include the loss of biological diversity as a result of hunting, human-initiated forest fires, and plastic pollution. Each of these concerns has feasible solutions, including relevant policies, uncomplicated actions that an individual can implement, and other approaches.
Impact 1: Biodiversity Loss from Hunting
Description
The diversity of the planet’s wildlife is among the crucial resources to conserve, and it is essential for non-domesticated species to proliferate and develop at their own pace, with minimal external invasion. Nevertheless, mankind’s long-term engagement in the so-called “unsustainable harvesting,” including hunting for animals and pouching, has already caused the extinction of dozens of species, including Thylacinus cynocephalus, Pinguinus impennis, and others (Di Minin et al., 2021, p. 238). Reducing unsafe hunting and the illegal trade of wildlife is, therefore, crucial.
Actions
The first action that can minimize humanity’s impact on biodiversity refers to regulatory policies to make hunting legal under very specific circumstances. Depending on the territory’s wildlife resources, different states set hunting policies to limit hunting seasons in duration, shooting hours, and the maximum number of animals allowed to be killed by one person. For instance, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (n.d.) implements detailed hunting policies peculiar to migratory bird species prior to each hunting season. Such policies are feasible as they set rules based on particular species’ actual situations, impose penalties for exceeding hunting limits, and minimize harm to migratory species without making hunting totally outlawed.
The second and the third options exemplify actions that I can engage in to reduce the problem’s impact. Strategy two refers to the refusal to consume non-farm-raised animals’ meat and reporting suspicious animal product trade to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. To implement it, checking the sources of meat to be consumed and reporting hunters that violate the personal consumption rule and seek to sell game or animal products are necessary. Its feasibility is linked to helping the wildlife authorities investigate potential threats to the region’s species and proceed with punishment allocation. Strategy three involves advocating against recreational or sports hunting as an ethical practice. This could be implemented by using social media to disseminate and repost anti-hunting arguments, thus encouraging my social circle to develop a corresponding viewpoint. This approach’s feasibility relates to spreading awareness of the negative impacts of hunting and inviting more people to join the anti-hunting community.
Impact 2: Forest Fires
Description
Forest fires linked to human activities are extremely destructive and can result from purposeful arson or the inability to follow safety measures when building campfires. According to fire ecology research, over 80% of wildfires in the U.S. result from people’s actions rather than natural processes (Joosse, 2020). Such wildfires have been shown to spread at a quicker pace compared to natural, lightning-caused disasters (Joosse, 2020). Reducing the incidence of fires as much as possible is an essential task for humanity.
Actions
The first action is the National Fire Danger Rating policy focused on singling out three levels of wildfire risk. Risks are determined according to diverse factors, for instance, weather conditions, firefighting resources in the area, and relative air humidity (Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture [FS USDA], n.d.). Regarding implementation, based on the level of threat, one of the three fire restriction modes is applied. For example, stage one restrictions include fire use prohibitions in areas other than recreation sites and specific woodcutting and smoking rules (FS USDA, n.d.). In stage two, fire use prohibitions are intensified to ban any fire use on any forest land in the area, and stage three involves the closure of forest territories (FS USDA, n.d.). The policy’s feasibility stems from the effective minimization of risk factors for fires, such as campfire use, smoking near any flammable substances, the use of equipment without spark arrestors, and other contributors to wildfires.
The action that I can implement is to use social media channels to spread wildfire prevention reminders and tips during the high-risk season. In terms of implementation, spreading safety/preparedness messages using my Facebook page would involve accessing the already existing materials on wildfire prevention and sharing them with Facebook friends. For instance, reposting the ten tips formulated by the U.S. Department of the Interior (2022) would be effective. This action is feasible since common citizens might be unaware of basic safety precautions when visiting forests, such as vehicle safety tips, choosing the right location for a campfire, and so on.
The third action involves volunteering to minimize wildfires’ impacts on the environment and people. Implementing it requires researching and contacting organizations that connect volunteers to the Red Cross or animal welfare organizations, for instance, the National Interagency Fire Center (n.d.). This strategy is feasible as volunteers’ participation increases the allocation of resources to mitigate the consequences of wildfires related to animal deaths and harm to local citizens.
Impact 3: Plastic Pollution
Description
In the age of consumerism, plastic pollution remains an essential environmental issue for the U.S. and the world. Disposable plastics’ accumulation in the environment interferes with diverse natural processes, causing marine species to die from ingesting plastic waste and the transfer of pollutants from rivers to oceans (MacLeod et al., 2021). Thus, current plastic use and waste removal practices threaten marine life while also causing environmental pollution.
Actions
The first action is an incentive-based policy that limits the use of non-recyclable plastic bags. Regarding implementation examples, the 2010 plastic bag use policy in the District of Columbia bans non-recyclable plastic bags and uses the bag fee for retail stores that offer any other disposable bags (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2021). The strategy’s feasibility stems from two examples; the policy basically bans non-recyclable bag production, which should result in the decreased overall use of plastic. Additionally, it makes the use of recyclable non-plastic bags a financially attractive option for retail businesses, which could shift packaging practices to more eco-friendly solutions.
The next two strategies include reducing one’s use of plastic and using the Marine Debris Program (MDP) in cleanup events. The implementation of action two, which is something that I already do, involves refraining from using disposable plastic tableware as part of outdoor activities and giving preference to washable non-disposable plates and cutlery. Some examples of its feasibility are the opportunities to reduce plastic waste generation and popularize waste reduction by example. Implementing action three involves using the MDP Tracker Application to document plastic litter data during community cleanups (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, n.d.). This action’s feasibility stems from two examples of positive outcomes. Aside from promoting plastic debris removal, the strategy supports local debris data collection, which will be instrumental for waste removal resource allocation at the national level.
Conclusion
In summary, the three impacts on the environment can be approached from different angles to be resolved. Reducing the negative impacts of hunting can require restrictive policies, social media advocacy, and reporting violations of personal use provisions. The forest fire issue has three solutions, such as fire restriction policies, sharing wildfire prevention materials, and volunteering. The plastic pollution problem is decreased by using plastic bag policies, changes to one’s consumption patterns, and joining the existing litter removal programs.
References
Di Minin, E., Clements, H. S., Correia, R. A., Cortés-Capano, G., Fink, C., Haukka, A., Hausmann, A., Kulkarni, L., & Bradshaw, C. J. (2021). Consequences of recreational hunting for biodiversity conservation and livelihoods. One Earth, 4(2), 238-253. Web.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. (n.d.). Migratory bird hunting regulations: 2022-2023 Florida migratory bird hunting season dates and bag limits. Web.
Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Fire restrictions. Web.
Joosse, T. (2020). Human-sparked wildfires are more destructive than those caused by nature.Science. Web.
MacLeod, M., Arp, H. P. H., Tekman, M. B., & Jahnke, A. (2021). The global threat from plastic pollution. Science, 373(6550), 61-65. Web.
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2021). State plastic bag legislation. Web.
National Interagency Fire Center. (n.d.). Volunteer. NIFC. Web.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency. (n.d.). How to help. NOAA. Web.
U.S. Department of the Interior. (2022). 10 tips to prevent wildfires. Web.