We've known about other problems for much longer. Birds of prey (including the bald eagle) due to DDT (had we used it just to get rid of malaria, we would've been fine...but we were using it everywhere). Then, for various reasons, a ton of amphibians (some of the causes we've tracked down, but not all).
There are a lot of canaries in this coal mine.
Unfortunately, the mine sometimes seems like it's run by Bob Murray.

Until a cause and effect relation is established by sound scientific research, the biologic observations cited in the article cannot be called "canaries in the environmental coal mine." Human speculation readily makes connections that are often later demonstrated to be false. When it comes to changing public policies or environmental regulation, we must rely on sound research, not speculation. Unfortunately, the EPA doesn't always do so.

The only constant in nature is change. Every observed change cannot be automatically be blamed on mankind, as the article implies. Nature changes on its own.

By the way, compact fluorescent bulbs are a greater environmental hazard than incandescent bulbs because of the mercury they contain. They should never be disposed of in a landfill, and yet nearly all of them are. What's really needed is pollution-free generation of electricity, like nuclear power, to power our mercury-free light bulbs. Now that's an environmental solution!

Sensible Scientist: Humans like their spook stories about the end of the world coming. It has something to do with indiduals beings unable to visualize their own deaths. Their immense egos cause them to attribute everything to themselves, actualizing guilt. So fear and guilt, strum those strings and everyone will be chanting um and ah. Fortunately, quietly behind the scene, great minds are at work shaping new ways for humans to live on this tiny ball of mud floating in a quiet corner of an immense universe lovingly watch by the great Spirit. Check our TED.com to watch new innovations.

"Sensible Scientist"
Yes, nature changes.
Usually very very slowly.
Yes, animals go extinct without human intervention. And evolution creates new animals to take their place.
However, consider how many animals are going extinct now. The rate is much, much higher than the natural rate. And humans are responsible for the vast majority of the extinctions.
The question is, can nature adapt fast enough to the changes that we're inflicting on the planet?
And how will these changes affect human health and peace of mind? Will they end up costing us more, in the long run, than they're worth?

Marjorie, we've cut emissions, fluorocarbons, cleaned up rivers, released dams, made recycling mandatory, rebuilt downtown areas that are walk-friendly, and the list goes on and on. Now we've changed our lightbulbs.

Here you are, wringing your hands, wondering whether you should go with paper vs plastic and pontificating to us to do the same.

Until scientists can actually predict my local 7 day weather forecast, maybe we should consider just how ill-informed they actually are and how little they actually understand.

Colony collapse disorder has been pretty conclusively established to be the result of a virus.

By the way, honeybees aren't even supposed to *be* in North America. They're an invasive species, introduced by Europeans. The idea that even the slightest change to a location's environment will throw the whole ecology into catastrophic imbalance is belied by the mere presence of honeybees on this continent.

I'm not sure how you can categorize nuclear energy as "pollution free." I agree it is an energy source that should be explored, but it is definitely not without its own risks and problems, including damage to the environment through nuclear waste.

Nature's changes aren't so slow. Ice core data show that a full-blown ice age can begin or end in as few as 10 years. Think of the effects on animals, and you'll see that not all sudden changes or extinctions are man-made. Like Lionheart said, we tend to be egocentric.

Nuclear power emits nothing but water vapor while producing electricity.

Peer-reviewed analysis of the proposed spent fuel storage facility at Yucca Mountain support its safety. I don't know where you get your information about spent fuel damaging the environment, but it's not from the subject-matter experts who have studied it intensively.

"To Sensible Scientist" -- If you process nuclear waste enough, it's possible to render it barely more dangerous than natural uranium ore in fairly short order.

I agree we ALL need to do everything in our power to do as little damage to our environment as possible, but this article was just more sappy liberal logic.

The statement I find so vague and useless is the statement that... "Something needs to change. Precisely what needs to change has not yet been revealed, but something needs to change"!

That's like a general telling his troups, "I don't know who the enemy is yet or where they are, but go out and start fighting and I will tell you who it is".

It's like the Dilbert comic where the manager comes in and tells his software development team, "Just start programming, I'll get you the requirements later".

This is similar to Obama's campaign of "CHANGE". He won't say what needs to change, just "Something". He won't say how he will change it, we just need to trust him and vote for CHANGE.

I think we all need to do everything we can personally do to protect the environment and quit trying to prove mother-nature is murmuring about someone else or the other political party and trying to MANDATE that people live the way we think they should.

Re: "Sensible Scientist": Good posts.

To our conservative brothers and sisters who insist there is aren't any problems, ie., environment, economy, climate, foreign policy, etc., RELAX.
Do nothing (as conservatives are famous for).

There are people hard at work at this very moment trying to correct these problems for you, your children and your children's children.

Thank you for this editorial, it is very well written. I am persuaded.