Saturday, March 29, 2008

Life Extinction

Bigger Threat Than Global Warming: Mass Species Extinction

11 months after this Independent article, is anything better?

So here we have the New Generation of British Environmentalist Celebrity, Chris Packham trying to spread the discussion to the Youth of Today.

Extinction is still Not Okay. Chris Packham's little provocation is only useful in drawing attention to the fact that Conservationists around the world have very limited resources, and the Planet has got a lot of species dying out.

Meanwhile, lots of money is still spent on wars.

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Saving Guyana Tropical Rainforest and ALL its species

The Economy is a subsidiary of the Environment, and NOT the other way around.

The best way of saving any species is to save it where it normally lives, namely in its natural habitat. This is because you save all the things that live with it, and all the things that are interdependent with it, including its food chain.

That is why it is so important to save the few wild places left on this tiny planet called earth.

So news of a way of saving the Guyanese tropical rainforest comes this week and is the first hopeful example of Global Enviromental Economics.

You can also hear about this in the interview with Hylton Murray-Philipson on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme (at about 11.5 minutes into the clip).

Here is a transcript...

BBC's Greg Wood: Canopy Capital has bought 371000 hectares (that is about the size of the island of Majorca). Now, this is about recognizing that Rainforest doesn't just store carbon, which is tradeable, but that they can also provide other services, if you like. For example, they are a catalyst for rainfall in other areas of the world - a commodity which potentially has value for farmers cultivating crops. Canopy Capital claims the deal puts a financial value on rainforest for the first time, and its director, Hylton Murray-Phillipson is here. Good morning. How do you put a value, a tradeable value on the rainforest and those benefits that you outline?

Hylton Murray-Phillipson: That is extremely difficult to do. I could say, invite me back in 12 months time and I will tell you. What I am absolutely convinced of is that the world cannot go along the model that we established since the 19th Century, treating the environment as an externality to economic growth. That was fine when the population was 1.5 billion in 1900, now we are 6.5 billion heading towards 9 billion in the middle of this century. Every single thing in this planet depends on those ecosystem services. The Economy is a subsidiary of the Environment, and NOT the other way around. Whether you want soya in Brazil, rainfall in Lima, or whether you even want crops in the American Midwest, you have to place a value on the rainfall generation of the forest.

I would like to IMMEDIATELY correct the misimpression created by your introduction that we have bought land in Guyana. We have definitively NOT done that. What we have entered into is a partnership to bring value to the ecosystem services of that forest. The forest remains the property of the people of Guyana and specifically the Irokwama reserve.

Greg Wood: But you still expect to make a return, a profit, out of it, and to many people, while your aims will be laudable, perhaps not the right way to go about preserving the environment and the benefits that you set out.

HMP: Well I think that would be a great pity. I think that the only way we are going to turn around the trend of destruction of tropical rainforest is to harness the power of money and markets in conservation. We HAVE to engage the profit motive. It is very important, I would like to make clear, that we DO manage to turn these assets into a profitable enterprise; that 80% of the upside benefit will go to the local communities and local stakeholders.

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Laugh In Laugh Out

Last In Last Out
Laugh In Laugh Out

He who laughs First laughs Last.
(First In Laugh Out First Out?)

He who laughs not at all?
Is not getting his share of Laughter.

So that's why socially cohesive populations permit themselves only timid giggles and restrained chuckles?

Monday, March 17, 2008

Naive liberalism is ignorant or immoral

All freedoms, like the rolling of dice, give different outcomes that are either successes or failures.

Liberals are quick to champion the right to a freedom,
Many are quick to claim credit for the successes.

But what of the failures and adverse outcomes?
Even the few who are noble enough to accept the responsibility rarely have the ability or power to make amends.

For once something is broken, it often is impossible to repair.

Prevention is better than cure.

Naive liberalism that does not provide for the outcomes of the liberties championed, is a disservice to society. Naive liberalism is politically useful to individuals whom wish to profit from others' miseries.

Sunday, March 16, 2008

Extinction is not okay

Extinction is a part of Evolution.

Ordinary people now say it. Ordinary people who once had the passion to care for all the living species on this planet.


Extinction is only as much a part of Evolution, as Death is a part of your Life. relative time.

So why are ordinary people now talking the walk of the Dead?

And is it good to let them stop caring?


So solve it.

Why did it hurt?
They cared once.
They cared so much that it hurt.
It hurt too much for them to care any more.
Someone talked them into facing ~death~,
But talked them out of Living.
Instead they walk like zombies in the global consumerist economy.
Talking the Death of the Planet,
Looking how to fit into the whirl of money,
And clutching the mantra of The Economist,
Entirely distracted by Climate Change.
The species?
They have forgotten that they should
at least
leave the Earth
as they found it,
so that a future child
can stare in wonder
At species in the Wild.