Letters to the Editor: Wildlife conservation is pointless without taking on the fossil fuel industry
To the editor: The impacts of climate change do not recognize park boundaries, reserves or conservancies. Even in the world’s “protected” spaces, animals continue to die off at alarming rates. Severe weather, drought, wildfires and ocean acidification do not respect the areas humans deem worth saving. (“Hundreds of elephants, zebras and other animals die amid drought in Kenya,” Nov. 4)
Countries can conserve or re-wild natural habitats all they want, but if inadequate measures are taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, landscapes will be unsuitable for life. I hope world leaders will finally address these issues at the COP27 international climate conference now underway in Egypt.
When we say climate change is responsible for the loss of hundreds of zebras, wildebeests and elephants, what we really mean is the responsibility lies with the ongoing failure to finance and implement substantive climate mitigation and adaptation policies. More pointedly, conservation is ultimately futile if it does not take on the fossil fuel industry and invest in renewables.
Without rapid, sweeping change, the impacts of climate change will continue to destroy habitats and jeopardize wildlife worldwide.
Julia Norman, San Pedro
To the editor: Do I understand this correctly? Several years and multiple dry rainy seasons, and authorities in Kenya are pondering whether to engage in immediate provision of water and salt licks in affected areas?
And the bodies pile higher. I am absolutely disgusted.
Perhaps the wealthy prominent citizens of Hollywood who have called to remove Billy the elephant from the Los Angeles Zoo might be persuaded to take a look at Kenya and consider throwing their chump change in the direction of those elephants and zebras instead.
Lisa Edmondson, Los Angeles