Few people realize that biosecurity funding put in place after 2001 was at the expense of protecting our borders from another major threat to our society: invasive species.
Protecting unique native ecosystems against homogenization by invasive species is a campaign by xenophobes to demonize the "other." It is about recognizing both that biodiversity has value apart from the human perspective, and value to humans too.
It's official: Any environmental regulations -- or any regulations favoring long term conservation or economic stability for all at the expense of maximized short term profits for a few individuals -- are "job-killing", and therefore an evil liberal plot.
Native predators, some of which humans like to eat, might be helping to eat us out of an invasive species jam. Does that mean that we should modify harvest limits?
It would be great to live in a world in which we make decisions as consumers (and as governments) based on a rational cost-benefit analysis, rather than knee-jerk ideology.
The devastation we are seeing now from mountain pine beetle in northwest forests could be a result of the combination of bad fire policy and climate change.
The field of biological control is currently dominated by a focus on nontarget impacts by biocontrol agents. When will biocontrol scientists start caring about effectiveness too?