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!
No comments:
Post a Comment