Coastal Protection and Conflict Resolution

Coastal Protection and Conflict Resolution At this juncture in the history of our species, it has become essential to consider the very like and increasingly urgent consequences of our mistreatment of the environment. Within the engineering and science sectors, there is a shared and unmistakable tone of foreboding with regard to our current ecological outlook. The scenarios that are breached in various discussions of global warming, or global climate change suggest that without a dramatic alteration in the path of our lifestyles and consumption habits, humanity will face a rather bleak environmental future. This is especially true where coastal protection is concerned, with vulnerabilities to both marine life and to human life being compounded by the threats both of pollutants and increasingly intense storm systems. Though the interest of both engineers and scientists is on the prevention of further degradation to our coasts, there is frequent disagreement on how best to approach the issue. This highlights the differing interests, ideals and imperatives of these two parties and it points to my primary interest in the engagement of this proposal. Namely, in the interests of both resolving one of the world's most pressing challenges and of advancing my prospects of admission to the school of Conflict Analysis and Resolution, I propose to offer a framework within which these parties can come to a mutual resolution that furthers their respective interests which ultimately producing an outcome that benefits our coasts. This proposal is underscored by a core understanding of the clear ecological, geological and environmental changes or shifts which are demonstrative of man's massive footprint upon the Earth. Man's industrial abuse of the environment prefigures this discussion on the topic of global warming. The damage to the environment of our industrialization, our consumption and our outright destruction of ecological systems is obscured by the immediacy of the human attention span. The conflict resolution intended by this proposal would bring together the interested parties in forum for discussion (rather than for the competition of interests) on the subject at hand. By creating a moderated forum for parties to pronounce their views on the issue, their vested interests and the ideas about how to achieve resolution, we may ultimately foster a mutual appreciation amongst engineers and scientists on a subject which concerns all individuals equally. This mutual appreciation should then foster a sense of compromise, with all participants recognizing that the most can be gained where all parties are given the opportunity to participate. Foremost to this approach is the understanding that even where there exists conflict and a stalemate between opposing viewpoints, there still may be present a value in both (or multiple) viewpoints as well as in the membership of the parties authoring such perspectives. Where scientists and engineers are concerned, this is especially so. It is imperative for the future of our species and its relationship to the planet that those with bodies of knowledge implied by such professions collaborate rather than obstruct one another's contributions. This provides the basis for a proposal that I believe is properly optimistic in the face of daunting challenges, both with respect to human conflict management and to the larger issues facing our environment and our coasts. Indeed, I also believe that such a proposal can only be effectively implemented in the creditable context of our institution's Conflict Analysis and Resolution School. I will look forward to becoming an active and valuable member of an already vaunted tradition.