The Myth of the Win-Win in Environmental Conservation

For decades, we’ve been told that environmental protection can be a “win-win”—that we can preserve ecosystems, sustain growth, and keep all stakeholders happy without conflict. In boardrooms, policy platforms, and press releases, this story persists. But on the ground, where I’ve worked as both a scientist and a conservation advocate, the reality looks very different.

Win-wins are rare. What we call balance is often a political performance—one that disguises tradeoffs, weakens protections, and protects power. If we’re serious about environmental justice, we need to stop pretending everyone can win. Because in most cases, someone is already losing.

Tongass National Forest: Logging the Irreplaceable

Alaska’s Tongass National Forest—home to centuries-old trees and salmon-bearing streams—is once again under threat. Despite protections under the Roadless Rule, timber industry lawsuits are pushing to reopen old-growth logging.

These forests are more than carbon sinks—they’re critical to Indigenous lifeways and biodiversity. The claim that logging can be “managed” for economic benefit ignores the irreversible loss of habitat, cultural sites, and ecological resilience. What’s being framed as compromise is, in reality, ecological liquidation.

Klamath Basin: Restoration With One Hand Tied

The removal of dams on the Klamath River has been celebrated as a historic win for salmon restoration and Indigenous justice. But upstream, agriculture continues to dominate water use, polluting Upper Klamath Lake and limiting flows downstream.

Tribal communities regain access to some ancestral fishing grounds—but full ecological recovery remains blocked by over-allocated water rights and policy gridlock. It’s not a win-win. It’s a patchwork fix that avoids harder questions about water use and agricultural power.

Klamath River (photo by E. Cora)

Colorado River: Collaboration Without Consequence

In the Colorado River Basin, drought and overuse have pushed the system to its limit. For decades, water-sharing agreements have been held up as models of collaboration. But with Lake Mead and Lake Powell at historic lows, those deals are failing.

Agribusiness in the Imperial Valley continues to grow water-intensive crops for export, while ecosystems collapse and Indigenous communities remain sidelined. The system rewards political seniority and entrenched economic interests. Collaboration without consequence is not equity—it’s inertia.

Conservation Isn’t About Comfort

As a scientist, I follow evidence. As an activist, I’ve learned that evidence alone doesn’t shift power—truth does. And the truth is, real conservation means facing hard tradeoffs, not smoothing over them with palatable language.

We don’t need better messaging. We need bolder action. That starts with honesty.

Let’s Name the Tradeoffs

Protecting forests means rejecting short-term profit. Restoring rivers means redistributing water. Environmental policy that doesn’t make someone uncomfortable probably isn’t doing enough.

Let’s stop selling compromise as progress. Let’s start backing communities on the frontlines and crafting policies that act—not just promise.

Because the longer we chase win-wins, the more we normalize losing slowly.