Why are large farms increasing? Partly because families are better able to handle the logistical and financial challenges of running big operations, thanks to labor-saving innovations that favor scale economies.
Viewing entries in
The Environment
16. Expand captive breeding programs to improve genetic diversity of endangered species and develop genetically viable populations for eventual habitat return...
Poor farmers often lack the resources to maintain or improve the productivity of their land. As the soil becomes depleted, they will move operations if they can – leaving a used-up landscape behind...
One out of five plant species are threatened with extinction. Almost a quarter of mammal species are endangered. The situation is just as bad or worse for reptiles (21% endangered), amphibians (30%), fish (21%), insects (22%) and mollusks (41%). Birds are doing slightly better (“just” 12% endangered). Habitat loss is the main culprit.
We cannot escape risk, because we cannot stop change. So what was a safe bet before becomes a risky bet, because the variables keep shifting.
Rewilding is typically conceived as an act of restoration: bringing back species (or their proxies) that used to inhabit an ecosystem. Like cheetahs and mammoths (well, elephants) in North America. It’s ok, because they used to be here.
Protecting biological communities in specific locales is a worthy goal. Saving endangered species and creating robust habitats for them to thrive is another worthy goal. These goals are not always in perfect harmony.
The Copenhagen Consensus Center does research on the costs and benefits of various policy approaches to global problems and provides information on which policy targets will do the most social good relative to their costs – acknowledging that factors other than cost/benefit ratios are also important.
Acknowledging that ecosystems are in constant flux doesn’t mean all change is good. But it does change our conception of what’s at stake. It’s not about preserving a biological moment in a specific locale. It’s about saving species.
When the parts of a system are constantly changing, at what point do you say that the system is no longer itself? That may be easy to answer when the system is a living organism, which is either alive or dead. But ecosystems aren’t single organisms, so the either/or approach doesn’t really apply.
“We’ve forever altered the Earth, and so now we cannot abandon it to a random fate. It is our duty to manage it.” - Emma Marris; Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World
I've been thinking about ocean acidification, the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans due to global warming. What to do? Last post considered the possibility of adding iron in the ocean to stimulate phytoplankton, which consume CO2 and ultimately reduce acidification. In theory. Risky. All sorts of unknown unknowns. Likely unintended consequences.
Oceans are my biggest worry. Covering 70% of the earth’s surface, oceans absorb a huge amount of CO2. A few chemical processes later and we have ocean acidification, scourge of coral reefs and who knows what else. We’re not sure what else, but such quick change will surely challenge the capacity of sea life to adapt. Evolution’s not used to working on such short time scales.
Growth in global GDP increases energy consumption in the near term but reduces GHG emissions over the longer term. Economic growth promotes urbanization, education of women, delay of childbearing, lower fertility rates, improved agricultural productivity, and technological innovation. ...
Global population growth is not slowing down fast enough.
In a recent post I wrote how Vietnam’s stronger land tenure rights have contributed to reforestation in the countryside by giving smallholders a greater stake in maintaining their woodlands, which have economic value. But context is all: Secure property rights is not a cure-all for environmental degradation.
The Copenhagen Consensus Center does research on the costs and benefits of various policy approaches to global problems and provides information on which policy targets will do the most social good relative to their costs – acknowledging that factors other than cost/benefit ratios are also important.
How can we increase reforestation on this poor benighted planet? A good start is to see what lessons we can draw from places where reforestation has already happened naturally rather than as an intended result of deforestation policy.
How do people become climate change skeptics? Was it through manipulation by the Forces of Evil and/or Stupidity (e.g., Corporations, Republicans, Religion)? Did exposure to skeptical messages by these Forces lead them down the path of Doubt and Ignorance? Or was it simple group identification – my friends are skeptics, ergo…? As it turns out, a lot of skeptics say they used to be more concerned about climate change...
Basic Rule of Thumb #1: if the person you are trying to persuade doesn’t like or trust you, continuing to insist that catastrophic climate change will definitely happen will get you nowhere...Basic Rule of Thumb #2: don’t assume all climate change skeptics are the same…Basic Rule of Thumb #3…