It need not be said that in the environmental sense we are doing significant damage to the world in which we all live. What do we do about it? Without question, changes have to be made and policies enacted to mitigate the effect we humans have on the environment. It is to what extent or degree do these changes need to meet that needs to be addressed. Some extremists argue that laws need to be enacted limiting the amount of children couples can have to reduce ecological footprints, while extremists on the other end of the spectrum say that environmental damage is grossly exaggerated and we should not change our ways. I argue the answer is somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.

At first when one hears the opening statement of extremist opinions it shocks the average person. "Limit how many children I can have. We'll be no better than the Chinese!" Environmental extremists whom support this opinion claim that if every couple has only one child then in one generation we could reduce the population of the planet by half, and as such reduce the taxation on environmental resources by half. Most would not assimilate to this belief but can agree that there is some basis for the rational, as is the case with stance of the Environmental Extremists counterparts.

"We shouldn't impede our way of life because we just aren't sure we are really causing significant damage to our resources." When hearing this the average person would probably just walk away shaking their head in disbelief, but when one inquires about the rational, as with the prior case, most people would agree there is some basis for the thought. "Environmentalists told me during the gas scare of the 1970's that the worlds petroleum supply would dry up within a few years. That was how many decades ago and I'm still using fossil fuels to get to work every day." People whom hold both these point of views are not evil, bad, or even misguided. They are just people trying to make sense of the world we live in and come to a resolution with it, and that resolution lies somewhere in the middle of these schools of thought.

At this point your probably saying to yourself, "ok, so the middle of these two point of views, that's a very broad middle Mr. Evans." Yes, the middle of these two points of view is huge if looking at it in entirety. This is why specific environmental issues need to be isolated from the rest and addressed independently, and then we find that the middle is not as difficult to find as it originally seemed! Take for instance marine, "bottom paint." Bottom paint is a special paint used on the bottom of boats that deters marine plants or barnacles from growing on the part of a boat which rests in water, or "hull." Barnacles grow into and breach the hull and if not promptly removed, letting seawater into places no one wants it to be. Environmentalists for years have screamed about the damaging effects the chemicals in this paint have on marine environments, and boat owners have argued back that without bottom paint their vessels water tight integrity would be compromised within only a few short years. The "middle ground" in this case was established by reducing the toxicity of bottom paint. The reduction of toxicity reduced its effects on marine ecosystems and caused the boat owners to have to scrape barnacles off the bottom of their boat with more regularity, but it did help to ensure they would not walk down the pier one day and find there boat resting on the bottom of the ocean. This is the middle ground. Not everyone will be absolutely thrilled with the results, but everyone will find the results acceptable. "So if this is true then what is an exception?"

An exception is a situation were there is one small subset of the environmental problem in question that cannot be computed with the general public. Pleasure boaters are not the only ones whom use bottom paint. Far beneath the ocean surface, submarines are coated three hundred and sixty degrees with "bottom" paint for obvious reasons. Submarines are exposed to hundreds of pounds per square inch of sea pressure. A pinhole leak might cause a weekend fisherman some gray hairs and to apply a quick patch. The tiniest pinhole leak can cause the crew of the submarine never to see the light of day again. So should we jeopardize the lives of the sub's crew to enforce these new environmental regulations? Keeping in mind the amount of bottom paint used by submarines makes up less than a tenth of a percent of all bottom paint used in the United States, I will let you decide.

Opinions on the environment range from huge extreme to huge extreme, but there is a solution, "the middle ground." Finding middle ground will not ever be an easy task by any means, but when we break individual issues away from all of the environmental issues face today, we find that it is infact achievable, and our best hope of changing our impact on the environment. However, when debating this middle ground we must keep in mind that almost always, as with any other rule, there are exceptions that must be addressed.

With rational people come rational solutions.