Viết tích hợp TOEFL

📖 Đoạn văn

The concept of 'rewilding'—the large-scale restoration of ecosystems to their pre-human state—has gained traction among conservationists. Proponents argue that rewilding offers a cost-effective and ethical approach to biodiversity conservation. Three key arguments support this view. First, rewilding reduces the need for continuous human intervention, such as feeding animals or managing habitats, because natural processes like predation and fire are allowed to resume. This lowers long-term management costs. Second, rewilding can restore keystone species, such as wolves or beavers, which have cascading positive effects on entire ecosystems, increasing biodiversity. For instance, the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park controlled deer populations, allowing vegetation to recover and benefiting numerous other species. Third, rewilding creates opportunities for carbon sequestration. By restoring forests, wetlands, and grasslands, rewilding enhances natural carbon sinks, helping to mitigate climate change. Thus, rewilding is presented as a win-win solution for conservation and climate action.

🎧 Bài giảng

While the idea of rewilding is appealing, the lecture challenges its practicality and effectiveness on several grounds. First, the assumption that rewilding reduces human intervention is flawed. In reality, rewilding often requires intensive initial and ongoing management, such as reintroducing species, monitoring their health, and even controlling populations when they become unbalanced. Without such oversight, ecosystems may not recover as expected, and costs can escalate. Second, the Yellowstone example is misleading. The recovery of vegetation was not solely due to wolves; it also involved human actions like culling deer and regulating hunting. Moreover, in many areas, the absence of apex predators and the presence of human-modified landscapes mean that simply reintroducing species does not guarantee ecosystem restoration. Third, the carbon sequestration benefits are overstated. Rewilding on a large scale would compete with agricultural land, potentially displacing food production and leading to deforestation elsewhere, which could offset any carbon gains. Furthermore, young forests regrown after rewilding absorb carbon more slowly than mature ecosystems, and the initial disturbance from reintroduction can release stored carbon. Therefore, rewilding is not the simple solution it appears to be.