I spend a lot of time contemplating priorities; it's the economist in me, I suppose. If I had my way, a campaign to end natural-resource subsidies would be near the top of the list for the environmental movement: it's a win-win-win situation for the environment, taxpayers, and innovation. The problem is that it's an opposition campaign; it's opposed to subsidies instead of "for" something. In addition, subsidies are not something people get very excited about (although they should).
The same problem plagues global warming policy; it's essentially a campaign against CO2 emissions and fossil fuels. Yes, it can be framed more positively, but it rarely is. In fact, more often that not, "gloom and doom" scenarios are used to convince us of the need for global warming policy. Campaigns for energy independence are a little better, but still somewhat abstract in people's minds.
What environmentalism really needs is a bold campaign that offers something tangible and affirmative, which could bring the countries of the world together.
So here's my idea:
The One World Campaign: Connecting Nature Across Borders
The idea would be to promote a series of inter-connected wildlife corridors that run North to South on every continent, connecting all of the world's diverse ecosystems and promoting one truly global wildlife reserve. This could play a major role in mitigating species extinction and allowing species to migrate due to weather changes brought about by global warming. It would require input from the world's top ecologists and coordination among most of the countries in the world. It would also likely require some redistributive mechanisms from the rich to the poor countries since poor countries would need assistance in creating and maintaining these corridors.
Most importantly, it's something that everyone can relate to intuitively since it makes sense on a basic level: nature doesn't respect political boundaries. I think it is also imminently doable and would yield tremendous environmental and political benefits. It could be the springboard into a new era of international cooperation on environmental issues.
So what do you think?
Comments
View as Flat
Galli Galli Posted 11:46 pm
22 Oct 2006
You're right about the negative presentations attached to global warming and other environmental initiatives. Putting a positive spin on corridor creation and "starting" something instead of "stopping" something would be a step in the right direction. The problem is the complexity of the issue and the economic impact in the various countries of buying or setting aside tracts of land. There is also the lingerng prejudice against predators that make up the top of any foodchain, particularly large predators, that can compete for food, attack livestock and unfortunately, frighten people.
Check out grizzly.org (http://www.grizzlybear.org/corridor2.htm) for some good Rocky Mountain corridor info.
rd
Permalink
Kif Scheuer Posted 12:17 am
23 Oct 2006
This is from their mission statement
To develop and promote the ideas and strategies to advance continental-scale conservation in North America, particularly the need for large carnivores and a permeable landscape for their movement, and to offer a bold, scientifically-credible, practically achievable, and hopeful vision for the future of wild Nature and human civilization in North America.
Permalink
jjwfmme Posted 1:08 am
23 Oct 2006
As far as spinning environmental policy in a positive way, I think Jeremy Rifkin is onto something with his talk about fossil fuels being an "old, centralized, elite 20th-century technology" that is playing against the grain of a younger, greener, decentralized 21st century technology.
Permalink
makower Posted 1:55 am
23 Oct 2006
Joel Makower
Two Steps Forward blog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:33 am
23 Oct 2006
Electric cars that can burn rubber, smoking an Suv in acceleration and gas mileage.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
Tod Brilliant Posted 2:59 am
23 Oct 2006
Right now we have to work VERY swiftly to shrink and reverse our impact. We have to shrink/condense our cities, first and foremost (all this hubub about electric/hybrid vehicles as only reinforces the vehicle-first mentality of urban development - and in fact does more harm than good), making them up to ten times more energy efficient and opening up the types of wildlife corridors you propose. I recommended reading Richard Register's "EcoCities" for more on this critical, environmentally-friendly and economically invigorating notion. Register's plan dovetails nicely with your agenda, Jason.
" . . . because the world doesn't matter anymore if you don't have the strength to go ahead and choose something that's really true." - Julio Cortazar
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 3:29 am
23 Oct 2006
As for the messaging, well, who knows -- the more I know about that, the less I know, if you know what I mean.
www.grist.org
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 3:34 am
23 Oct 2006
J.S.
J.S. teaches economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 3:46 am
23 Oct 2006
Furthermore, most predators with small populations would be perfectly capable of moving around through various land use types, except urban/suburban ones, and putting connective corridors through these creates a public image problem: who the hell wants a pack of wolves to be behind their house? Crazy environmental types nowithstanding, most people would be against this.
I like the idea of unification, but it's hard to push a scientific idea of connective corridors, which works well for endangered populations of large predators into the political arena without getting burned or without a major consideration of what we are trying to do. We should focus on reintroduction first, and that would have to be coupled with a good PR camaign aimed at the farmers/ranchers.
Permalink
Tod Brilliant Posted 4:01 am
23 Oct 2006
Surely you recognize that the "pack of wild wolves" fear invoke harkens back to the types of fears that made us attempt to subdue the natural environment in the first place. This isn't realistic or constructive thinking. There are other solutions.
Again, shrinking the size of our cities opens up far larger corridors than simply cutting holes/paths through existing sprawl. We can and will depave as oil supplies dwindle. It's not a matter of whether we will shrink, but whether we do it in an organized fashion, one that doesn't turn our suburbs into abandoned "islands" and create chaotic exodii all across developed nations.
To think that our cities will continue in their present form and plan accordingly is to miss the volumes of writing on the walls. We are in an amazing position to implement the corridors that Jason speaks of - we need only take a look at the changing face of development and plan accordingly.
" . . . because the world doesn't matter anymore if you don't have the strength to go ahead and choose something that's really true." - Julio Cortazar
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 4:14 am
23 Oct 2006
Whiskerfish
Permalink
sunflower Posted 4:26 am
23 Oct 2006
Permalink
atreyger Posted 12:34 am
30 Oct 2006
I do have trouble believing that we will begin depaving any time soon. If it's already there, why would we rip it up using more energy in a world where the energy is becoming more expensive? And my point was that corridors are oversimlified by their proponents, because they view them as a one type fits all kind of a thing.
Permalink