Brazil has visionary (if yet to be implemented) legislation requiring landowners to preserve at least 20% of woodland on their properties. The benefits, especially if reforestation is required, will be considerable in terms of climate change mitigation.
The benefits in terms of biodiversity conservation, however, would be far less with a rigid 20% law than with one countenancing smaller but priority areas. Such flexibility characterises the trading schemes used in carbon markets in which not all polluters are held to the same standard. So some companies can buy the rights to pollute more than their quota from firms that have accumulated 'credits' by investment in cleaner or more efficient technology, for example.
Thus a properly managed forest conservation market which identifies and applies preferential benefits to priority areas - wetlands, Red Listed spp habitat, corridors, etc., could generate far greater ecosystem dividends. Similarly, Lovejoy's bigger-is-better conclusion would reap greater conservation gains by promoting consolidation of little reserves which incur huge edge effect losses into larger ones that suffer less. This concept is presumably being applied in some countries. Can anyone tell me where? Related ideas and comments will also be most welcome.
There are many schools of thought in relation to commodification of nature and putting teh price on biodiversity as well as mitigating mechanisms, see http://e360.yale.edu/feature/what_are_species_worth_putting_a_price_on_biodiversity/2322/
and
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/what_are_species_worth_putting_a_price_on_biodiversity/2322/
Thank you, Helen, for your recent suggestions:
> There are many schools of thought in relation to commodification of nature and putting the price on biodiversity as well as mitigating mechanisms, see http://e360.yale.edu/feature/what_are_species_worth_putting_a_price_on_biodiversity/2322/
I am grateful for this (duplicated) link. Richard Conniff's article makes an essential point - the need to preserve all life - effectively and he has selected good practical examples of how we don't just benefit from but our very existence can actually depend on species. In a self-centred, predominantly materialist society such a pragmatic, even utilitarian approach is definitely the strategy to use. Still, the final reference to æsthetics, the beauty and inspiration we derive from nature - much painting and un-popular music offer plenty of examples - was welcome and valid. Ethical considerations, though, are absent.
Also absent are examples of existing legislation in other countries which could strengthen the case that needs to be made in Brazil.
First, it is important to analyze the trading strategies because from various studies it is found that it is not well adopted. Under this situation, how we can expect that the trading strategies has contributed to biodiversity conservation.
Dear All,
The world's ecosystems have been grossly damaged by human activity. Among humans, a certain section believes in living in harmony with nature, living sustain-ably in close contact with nature, by keeping their wants at a minimum. They are a minority.
The second section believes in controlling and manipulating nature for personal profit. In the growing realisation that human activity is causing climate change and biodiversity degradation, the second section has come up with an innovative way of 'having their cake and eating it too". Carbon Trading. Here one can claim to be in the 'Save the Environment ' category and make money too. Whilst one buys and sells carbon-stock in a carbon market, one can claim that its all for " Saving the Earth".
In reality, I sin, and for a price, I transfer the sin to another who has accumulated religious merit through practicing austerities. The emphasis is on the 'for a price'. But does that change my ways? Do I stop from sinning again? Has it provoked repentance in any form? Will I sin again?
The root of the problem is the human addiction to material consumption. Like all addictions, man comes up with ingenious ways of sustaining his addiction. Carbon trading is one of them. The answers lie in the human mind, not trading or technology.
Regards
Thank you, Damodaran, for your comments:
> First, it is important to analyze the trading strategies because from various studies it is found that it is not well adopted.
I am unaware of any such studies involving the adoption of these strategies to biodiversity. Can you, or someone, cite an example, please?
> Under this situation, how we can expect that the trading strategies has contributed to biodiversity conservation.
This is unclear. If it is a question, here's an example: 100hA of isolated forest will provide limited conservation benefit. 90hA contiguous to an existing forest fragment will be of greater value. 80hA linking two or more forest areas could conceivably make the difference between extinction and survival for one or more vulnerable species.
Many thanks, Raveendra, for the strong thoughts. I don't think any reasonable person can doubt that "the world's ecosystems have been grossly damaged by human activity" and that only a woeful minority of us is making much effort to live sustainably.
But dismissing trading adjustments as 'having their cake and eating it too" appears quixotic. Certainly, trading schemes have displayed problems, not least in Europe. But reducing our carbon footprint is a HUGE challenge which we will not overcome with a Draconian measure overnight. The same reasoning characterised the phasing out of lead in petrol and CFC reduction under the Montreal protocol. We can argue about the leniency of timetables or other allowances but not about allowances themselves.
Ultimately the answers do indeed lie in the human mind. But educating minds takes time. If before then our minds can come up with ways, including trading and technology, that move us in the right direction, mitigating our damage and postponing a day of reckoning, so much the better. Tackling the consequences of a short-sighted, self-centred and either profligate or prolific society will require at least as much realism as idealism.
Raveendra Nath Yasarapu is EXACTLY correct. Carbon credits and trading is a complete and utter sham. It's the latest form of "taking" from the environment as if it is limitless. Carbon credits and trading is an attempt by " privileged capitalists" to once more rape mother nature and hide behind the coat tails of doing good...There is a Great spoof on this concept called cheat neutral where a man who cheats on his wife can pay a man who doesn't to cancel out his cheating. The absurdity should be self evident, unless of course, you are the cheater....So ask the wife of the cheater or ask mother nature if they like this bogus deal??? Hopefully your smart enough to understand without making an imbecile of yourself.... Most highly educated only see the dollar signs in their future... and there in lies the problems...
The key issues is of additionality - whether carbon offsets increased the level of biological conservation (acres conserved) beyond what would have happened anyway. My limited direct experience suggests yes, it put more cash on the table for more acres to be conserved.
However, there are still questions as to whether the carbon offset is truly additional. Leakage is a huge issue, that is where an impact is shifted to another land area, for example land converted or degradation by logging elsewhere. I have yet to see a project where conservation occurred and the intended impact also accounted for. This would require increasing timber or food production, perhaps conserving 90% of the forest and converted 10% to high yield plantation forestry or high-yeild ag.
"Additionality" is a false human construct after the fact of destroying the forest. Once a forest is clear cut it is no longer sustainable on any level, not ecologically, economically or socially. It is the result of a drunken binge of liquidation that will take geological time to recover, not human scale. A plantation is no more a forest than a golf course is a prairie, one is self sustaining and replicating and the other requires continual 'inputs'. Our children will curse our greed and stupidity..... as we destroy the very foundations of life support of this once garden planet... The sooner humans go extinct, the better it will be for the planet as we have taken a terminal path based in domination and control, instead of the one sustainable path indigenous cultured practiced based on reverence, respect and inter-generational responsibility. Something our modern cultures have totally abandoned perpetuated by so called, 'higher education'. Degrees are mostly about 'ritualized obedience' not seeing new ways of synthesis or holistic understanding, in my humble opinion.
It is good to learn, Andrew, of your conclusion that carbon offsets may have increased areas conserved. But the concern about leakage is certainly a complicating factor.
Still, my reference to carbon trading was unfortunate and has proved distracting as well as complicating. The case for flexibility strictly in terms of benefiting biodiversity appears less controversial. Earlier I suggested that 100hA of isolated forest would afford less conservation benefit than 90hA contiguous to an existing forest while 80hA linking two or more forest areas might make a major difference. Those 'discounts' are arbitrary and arguable. But can we agree that adjustment at some level is justifiable?
While the attempt at Carbon Trading is an intervention of some sort, it woefully falls short, and the motives are clearly suspect. The need of the hour is to stop(abstain, go cold turkey) our addiction to material consumption and ravaging the environment. Instead of tackling the problem at the root, a section has come up with a ingenuous way to still indulge in the addiction and make money too.
If by this, the aim is to raise awareness among the polluters and put pressure on them about the degradation of the environment, there are better ways of doing it, than indulge in it and then, " I drink like a fish, You can drive me home". If there is always someone to drive you 'home', will it ever have an impact on your drinking? It will always be 'Status Quo' or worse, but never solve your drinking problem!
The important thing right now is behavioral rectification/modification and mend our mean guzzling ways. Not having the guts to do this, we 'hope' for ways to stop the damage to the environment and still continue our guzzling- A clear case of addictive behavior.
IMHO, man lives sustainably when he focusses on the NEEDS of those around him. When man DESIRES things for himself, unsustainability reigns. The greatest need of the hour is to stop the damage of the environment by those who are bent on having their desires fulfilled. Carbon trading panders to the whims of the desirous by not going 'cold turkey' at once by offering a new way to carry on indulging.
Antonio: If you think this is draconian, isn't it high time industrialized societies learn how to be sustainable from close-to-nature societies rather than continue the damage?
The beautiful part of this ponzi scheme is that you can actually pretend to save the environment while laughing all the way to the bank. The work of a true genius!
"We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts, we make the world."- The Buddha
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Artificial Intelligence