If the title is at all misleading it is because it is a lead for this discussion. This is headline news that has so far been overlooked anyways, so I don't think it'll cause any confusion with nonexisting threads.

This is not a policy discussion. This is not a scientific discussion. Material of such nature can and will be tolerated according to its relevance.

Consider: The Burden of Proof

This Monday, the 700-page Stern Review on the economics of climate change was published. It contains, appropriate for its length, substantial and accessible detail regarding the consequences of climate change, feasible responses, and appropriate policy. It predicts the cost of global warming will be £3.68 trillion, that we will observe massive migration, drought, and flooding.

During my time on these forums I've observed, and participated in, a number of discussions regarding this necessary issue. I must admit that the depth of this science and the abundance of conflicting media prevents any local intellectual conclusion, let alone action or inspiration. I suspect, with regret, that the present mob discussing this report directly will turn up only more rotten fruit.

This issue, if as true as the aforementioned report will testify, is dire. If it is false, we should only rest when we are sure of that, but right now we are not sure of that.

The basis underlying conservation is the same as that which builds conservatism: Change is dangerous.

What is particular about conservation is that in our situation it proposes the reversal of change. The reason is that, with respect to the environment, we have acted before we have considered our action. We have changed our environmental impact. The last centuries' actions that may have been slow, gradual, and tested with respect to economic or social conservatism can be radically environmental; environmental consequences can be significantly delayed, and thus our environmental policy is untested.

When we demand environmental action, it is really that we are demanding environmental inaction. This is the safe, sustainable course. The other is well-detailed in Sir Stern's report.

Some materials of varying context:
The Land Ethic
Aral Sea Overview
Mountain Pine Beetle [1] [2] (Other causes may include fire control practices)
Dust Bowl Overview

//
On a number of occasions, individuals have called into question the legitimacy of science. Science is, of course, the great provoker of these climate change questions. Science is always eager to challenge much of what we understand, including existing science. It observes, it questions, it connects, it applies logic. It has done much to advance humanity. So, when science demands we number environmental conservatism (although it is not only science which demands this as a priority) among our necessities, it should not be shoved aside as some impudent lout, however frustrating the claim, but considered with the full depth of respect with which we are capable.

The only challenge to science is better science. The challenge to those skeptical of our environmental campaigns is to produce science—something subject to persistent scrutiny—that says our action—which is not passive and must be reaffirmed as quite the opposite—of burning coal and oil and gas and destroying forest will not affect our earth in a way adverse to human interest.