How should the systems of nature protection and biodiversity of natural ecosystems be dispersed in order to increase the effectiveness of these systems and reduce the scale of degradation of the natural environment?
What do you think should be improved in nature conservation systems and biodiversity of natural ecosystems in addition to just increasing financial outlays on nature conservation policies conducted by government agencies and ministries of the environment?
A significant part of financial expenditures of nature conservation and biodiversity policy is devoted to the promotion of nature protection and natural environment protection issues. However, the effectiveness of this type of promotional campaigns is low, because without applying legal restrictions, enterprises do not change their technologies to be more ecological if they do not see in this business realized in a short time. Even the occasional UN climate summits in which government representatives from the majority of countries take part do not cause significant real changes in the policy of nature protection and biodiversity? Usually, the largest industrial economies in the world do not sign the obligations of rapid reduction of greenhouse gases and the issue of increasing spending on environmental innovation in the energy sector. Why, despite the growing scale of public awareness, there is no significant improvement in the implementation of nature conservation and biodiversity policy, there are no real measures that would result in a significant reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the slowing of the global warming process?
Please reply
I invite you to the discussion
Thank you very much
Best wishes
Contrary to the "letter" (although, I think, not to the "spirit") of Dmitry's formulation, the question is very simple and answer very short: any pro-nature policy, to be effective, must start with all conceivable efforts to reduce (as quickly and as radically as possible) human population, i.e. to develop a "2+1" (1 - or less - child per pair of parents) model of a family: with 8 or 10 billion (but even with 5 or 3 billion!) people on this Earth the effective protection of more or less natural environment and organisms in it is not "very complex" but quite simply and absolutely impossible! Of course I am aware that, unfortunately, everybody from leading politicians through businessmen to the overwhelming majority of ordinary people support rather the "pro-family" (where "family" means many children) policies, what makes the divagations on real nature protection no more than a kind of science-fiction (with emphasis on fiction)!
This question is very complex and a short answer is not possible. However, I would like to mention two words - improve control. Perhaps legal acts are in order, but lack of control is what is leading us to the global biodiversity collapse?!
The recent IPBES summit (29 april – 4th may 2019, Paris, France), in its “summary for policymakers” (https://www.ipbes.net/news/ipbes-global-assessment-summary-policymakers-pdf) provides very interesting leads for the implementation of effective policies for the protection of nature and biodiversity: Aiming to address the indirect effects of different policies (on land use, oceans, the exploitation of certain organisms, or on combating pollution and global warming, as well as on fighting against invasive species), while also taking the long-term into account when assessing the impacts of decisions. The causes of the destruction of natural areas and biodiversity are multiple (production and consumption processes, demographic dynamics, trade, technological innovations, local governance…). Policies, if well studied and calibrated, can be an important element for the preservation of nature and biodiversity; otherwise, they can be destructive. That's why your question is very interesting.
Contrary to the "letter" (although, I think, not to the "spirit") of Dmitry's formulation, the question is very simple and answer very short: any pro-nature policy, to be effective, must start with all conceivable efforts to reduce (as quickly and as radically as possible) human population, i.e. to develop a "2+1" (1 - or less - child per pair of parents) model of a family: with 8 or 10 billion (but even with 5 or 3 billion!) people on this Earth the effective protection of more or less natural environment and organisms in it is not "very complex" but quite simply and absolutely impossible! Of course I am aware that, unfortunately, everybody from leading politicians through businessmen to the overwhelming majority of ordinary people support rather the "pro-family" (where "family" means many children) policies, what makes the divagations on real nature protection no more than a kind of science-fiction (with emphasis on fiction)!
This 2019 FAO report entitled "State of the World’s biodiversity for Food and Agriculture" (http://www.fao.org/3/CA3129EN/CA3129EN.pdf) addresses several issues including global policy agendas
The rules and legislation of natural protecton of areas and species normally are good, but the enforcement is the problem in reality...
Find the way to combat the three main problems: selfishness, greed and apathy I wish I knew.
https://www.democracynow.org/2019/5/16/the_world_just_took_a_major The World Just Took a Major Step To Curb Plastic Pollution, But the U.S. Refused to Join Effort
Thank you for the great resources and links! In my experience with industry, implementation and regulation of policies are the major challenges and obstacles; money talks....If we can somehow strike a balance between healthy ecosystems and profits, we would be well on our way... Increased human populations and strain on resources are definitely a challenge.
I have already written on the successes and failures of the int. environmental protection laws, see
Working Paper International Environmental Law
Interesting. The problem is that humans tend to be reactive rather than proactive...
Dear Friends and Colleagues of RG,
Should the majority of environmental policy measures, nature protection, be allocated to the systemic protection of biodiversity of whole ecosystems or their recreation, rebuilding into areas degraded by industrial development?
Please reply
I invite you to the discussion
Thank you very much
Best wishes
Dariusz: Nice dream, but remaining within the realm of science-fiction (or, rather, only fiction, without significant scientific component...) as long as there are many billions of us, as long as we need enormous quantities of energy, food, houses, roads, &c. and thundering commercial advertissements hammer into people's heads that they need even much more of what in fact is perfectly superfluous, as long as we - in the unavoidable consequence - produce untractable amount of rubbish, &c., &c., &c.! All that demands space, and the Earth is not infinitely extendible... A proverb says "the Man follows the forest and is followed by desert" (unfortunately, neither Sahara nor Gobi, but concrete-and-plastic desert...). To sum up: the more people, the less nature! Unfortunately, within 30 or 50 years children will learn not only of tigers or condors but even of foxes, herons or snakes as we have learned of trilobites, dinosaurs or archaeopteryxes...
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology