My two cents to this discussion: I’ve seen much more frequently than I
would like expressions of the type “…lets protect the ecology…” or “…such
and such practice affects the ecology of…” Expressions such as these
appear not only in popular outlets (i.e., magazines, newspapers) but also,
unfortunately, in the peer-reviewed literature as well. This lack of
distinction between ecology and environmentalism is both a curse and a
blessing. A curse because the science is confounded with advocacy
movements and “green” motivations. So, for example, when an ecosystem
ecologist reports that a mono-specific crop has lower carbon sequestration
potential than the native vegetation it replaced, he/she might be criticized
as being anti-agriculture and worse, of being hypocritical because he/she
includes that particular crop in his/her diet. But it is also a blessing
(for the ecologist at the beginning, but also for ecology over the long-run)
because it allows basic ecological research to be funded more easily,
through its environmental implications (whether real or perceived). Being
the way things are, right now it is very difficult to find a maecenas
(public or private) that will fund ecological research if it does not have a
direct application/implication towards solving one of our myriad
environmental nightmares.
