Memo 4 - Can We Really Afford to Conserve Biodiversity?

It shocked me to read that less that 8% of Earth's surface is classified as a protected area, receiving governmental aid. However, 6 billion dollars is spent yearly by various world organizations and countries to protect the environment. These numbers seem small, though it is also somewhat difficult to put them in perspective. The James article also states that current expenditures are usually nowhere near what is required to reach pre-established conservation goals. I wonder if our goals are too overreaching?

After taking a class on Soviet-era Russia, I know that Russian leaders would enact "five year plans" that set unrealistically high goals for production. The government knew that people would never be able to meet these goals, but they still served to incentivize workers. I wonder if this is how world leaders think about climate change abatement techniques and conservation? Does President Obama really think that we'll have 1 million electric cars on the road by 2015? Is this a realistic goal or is he just being optimistic? I wonder if conservation goals work the same way. Is it better to be realistic and say, "We know with our current resources we can conserve 200 hectares of this forest" or "We know we can conserve 200 hectares but lets set a conservation goal of 400." After debating this issue in my head, I would have to side with a more Soviet-style approach. As an athlete, I know that you can sometime surprise yourself by reaching goals that you never thought were possible.



Also after looking at James's pie charts, I wonder if we are conserving the right areas. We note that North America contributes 55% of world conservation funding, though it is only required to do 14%. Africa on the other hand, contributes 4% but should be contributing 15% percent. Obviously these funding discrepancies deal mainly with the fact that we have more money as a continent, than Africa does. We'll "pick up their slack" and donate more than we really need to in order to cover some of their conservation costs. Also to be considered is the fact that we all share the Earth, regardless of our current domain. Conserving resources in Africa will no doubt end up benefiting the residents of other continents someday.

The Nijam article points out the differences between "Northern" developed nations and "Southern" less developed nations. He then goes on to talk about what the purpose and value of the "South" is to the North. Is the South worth aiding? How can the underdeveloped South ultimately benefit the residents of the North? These less developed nations have formed coalitions in order to collectively bargain with larger more influential organizations (Group of 77, Trade Union of the Poor). How effective are these unions really? Would the individual countries be benefited more by simply joining organizations like NATO, EU and other large alliances, or are they unable or simply not welcomed into these organizations? These are all questions I have and look forward to discussing during class!