Reply
Sat 16 Oct, 2004 05:47 am
"Who should steer the modern global ark?
American money and expertise is the difference between survival and extinction for many of the world's endangered plants and animals
Consumerism and conservation tend not to mix. Minerals, materials and the food we eat have to come from somewhere, and often that place is a pristine forest, ocean or wilderness. As the world's leader in per capita consumption, the US must shoulder much of the responsibility for the damage that causes to the natural world. But the US can make another claim. Put simply, it leads the world in protecting biodiversity.
True, its record is hardly perfect. The US is one of a handful of countries that have failed to ratify the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. And US negotiators have fought to prevent any reference to the precautionary principle - a better-safe-than-sorry approach to conservation - from creeping into international agreements on matters such as the use of genetically modified organisms. Most notably, the Bush administration has remained blinkered on the issue of climate change, potentially the biggest threat to biodiversity.
But set against these negatives there are many positive, often unpublicised, measures by agencies deep within the bowels of government. The US still tops the world in government spending on international conservation programmes, contributing about $200 million out of a global budget of perhaps a billion dollars per year, according to an analysis last year by a consortium of environmental groups including WWF, Conservation International and The Nature Conservancy.
The biggest share of this pot, some $125 to $150 million each year, comes through the US government's Agency for International Development (USAID). Over the past 20 years, USAID money has been crucial in setting up and managing parks and other conservation projects in Madagascar, a top biodiversity hotspot. Other government agencies help protect charismatic species such as rhinos and apes........."
Full NS article here:
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/uselection/article.jsp?id=ns99996482
Several of the founders of the USA advised us to avoid foreign entanglement, which we did by not joining the league of Nations, nor the Kyoto Accord. My personal opinion is the entanglements we did join have brought average USA citizens more grief than benefit with rare exceptions.
I don't know of anyone other than Gorden B. Hinckley or Jesus I would trust to steer the modern global ark. Neil
There are quite a few stupid treaties gaining acceptance in some quarters of the international community; Kyoto; the Law of the Sea, The International Criminal Court, and this one on "Biodiversity". New pressures are being mounted in Europe for "tax harmonization" through trade treaties. In effect they all amount to attempts by those who can't or won't compete or face their own responsibilities, to achieve parity through negotiation and intimidation.
Happily the USA has rejected them all.
Why should the US 'ratify' anything? There are already too many rats in congress.
What, in your view, is stupid about the conservation related ones (this is not, for instance, the thread for the world court - unless it has conservation related powers)?
Nothing at all is wrong with conservation as an objective or princuple.
Sadly many "conservationists" zealously pursue policies that themselves seriously harm ther very things they claim to be protecting. How does this happen? First conservation groups identify industries and economic forces that they identify as the enemies of their objectives. Then slowly opposing anything the enemy wishes to do replaces conservation as their real objective. This has happened in the U.S. with respect to the management of our forests. Conservationist "anti logging" groups have stedfastly opposed the harvesting of wood from our natural forests by any means or technique whatever. Mireover they have resisted the construction of access roads and any pro active management of the forest.
The result: our natural forests have grown to a very 'unnatural' state. Tree density is very high, forest floors are clogged with underbrush and immature trees that provide ready fuel for fires and homes for insect and parasite infestations that now are wiping out our forests at a truly alarming rate.
Dealing with our own idiots is hard enough. We have no need to surrender our sovereignty to like idiots in other countries for "the solution" of this or any other such problem. The zealotry of the international biodiversity crowd has already been shown in the Luddite refusal of many Europeans to accept genetic engineering of food crops in any form - when in fact it is merely an efficient way for science to accelerate the production of the hybrid plants mankind has been slowly cultivating for ages.
There is very little in any such treaty that truly requires international action, that can't as easily be achieved by exchange of scientific information and occasional cooperation based on mutual self interest. We don't need a treaty for that.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace