The Campaign for Nature are advocating placing 30% of the planet's oceans and land masses (does this, given the proportions, mean more ocean than land?) under environmental protections (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/08/protecting-30-planet-could-bolster-economy-study-says). They estimate that this might cost $140bn each year but think that it can be done without harming the world's economy (they actually suggest that the measure could create monitory benefits as well as saving ecosystems). The trouble is that the world's governments would have to decide a) how to raise the $140bn and b) select the areas of the planet to receive protections. Would major financial contributors feel they had the 'right' to select the areas? Would they want the protected areas to be in their countries or imposed elsewhere? I can't see, given the back-tracking on the climate change agreements reached in Paris, that we are anywhere close to a place where a deal of this nature could be contemplated. Nice idea but it won't fly!
This blog may help people explore some of the 'hidden' issues involved in certain media treatments of environmental and scientific issues. Using personal digital images, it's also intended to emphasise seasonal (and other) changes in natural history of the Swansea (South Wales) area. The material should help participants in field-based modules and people generally interested in the natural world. The views are wholly those of the author.
Wednesday, 8 July 2020
Putting a Third of the Planet in Furlough?
The Campaign for Nature are advocating placing 30% of the planet's oceans and land masses (does this, given the proportions, mean more ocean than land?) under environmental protections (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/08/protecting-30-planet-could-bolster-economy-study-says). They estimate that this might cost $140bn each year but think that it can be done without harming the world's economy (they actually suggest that the measure could create monitory benefits as well as saving ecosystems). The trouble is that the world's governments would have to decide a) how to raise the $140bn and b) select the areas of the planet to receive protections. Would major financial contributors feel they had the 'right' to select the areas? Would they want the protected areas to be in their countries or imposed elsewhere? I can't see, given the back-tracking on the climate change agreements reached in Paris, that we are anywhere close to a place where a deal of this nature could be contemplated. Nice idea but it won't fly!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Too Greedy To Change Course?
George Monbiot suggests an 'all-seeing eye' (a god?), looking at the Earth, might be intrigued to spot 'A species that knows it...
-
Garden plants in France, The Netherlands, The UK and Sikkim (NE India).
-
Common toadflax ( Linaria vulgaris ) contains a moderately toxic glucoside.
-
The UK's Deputy Prime Minister has been advising Brits on how to 'better prepare for future pandemics, disasters and cyber attacks&...
No comments:
Post a Comment