Even in the toddler years of our environmentalism 2.0 movement, it has already become clear that no one technology or concept is going to be our saving grace. Each week, we learn of new approaches to our planetary predicaments, but which ones should we embrace? The Nature Conservancy recently posted a collection of six short essays from experts at the organization, each giving their perspective on how we should protect some of the most vital ecosystems we have.

The first essay, by William Ginn, presents an under-represented side of biofuel production. I particularly enjoyed his piece; the fact-based presentation really helped to drive the point home. “Our challenge is to ensure that we don’t create another, equally devastating “solution” in our quest to solve the climate and energy problems.” I find this simple concept is something that we should always keep in mind at this crucial time (see my “How to save the world with pollution” post for a similar concept). The next essay, focusing on marine conservation, is not as good. The piece reads far too much like a press release than an actual contemplative essay. The third essay, by their Chief Scientist Peter Kareiva, is much more captivating. His discussion on expanding past just plain ecosystem conservation is one that I would love to see extended upon into a full-length publishable magazine article. Saving nature is a substantial human undertaking, but if we won’t protect our own health and well-being, the whole planet will continue to suffer. No element stands alone; it’s all connected. How do some keep losing sight of that?

Three down, three to go: essay four by the President and CEO is the most all-encompassing of the six pieces featured in this collection. It’s become clear that Bush is more interested in destroying land than preserving it, unfortunately. Steven makes note of a number of ingenious resource management plans, but does not provide any info on how to make the shift to these resourceful policies. Similar to Peter’s essay, this composition would be a great read in expanded form. The final two essays both end off with a bit too large of a promo for the Nature Conservancy, but they do make intelligent points in their own right. Brian Richter’s essay on dams is enlightened, but also troubling. Dams are often built to solve the problem of getting fresh water to those who need it, especially in developing countries. One question not addressed is simply why focus on dams? Yes, they do have many great qualities, but just like nuclear power, the drawbacks are there as well. Brian is correct is saying that new dams need to be developed to help protect the natural migrations of fish and millennial-held water flow patterns, but he doesn’t suggest anything past that basic concept. The final essay, covering deforestation’s influence on climate change, is a great way to wrap up this digest of ideas. A key aspect not thoroughly hi-lighted in Al Gore’s film, our destruction of forests (for a plethora of projects) has been out of hand for generations. The simple science that plants (especially trees) create the oxygen we need to breath would remind any layman that more trees are better for the Earth.

All in all, this is a great little cluster of eco-ideas. I could have done without the many mentions of The Nature Conservancy’s current projects, but the pieces are worth reading. Considering these are featured on the organization’s own site, I’m not sure why they felt the need to continue to push their own works. Despite this, I enjoyed reading this set and would suggest you do so as well. Even better, you can e-mail your own conservation ideas, so let them know what you think this planet needs!