Related to the topic of land rents, last month the Obama administration proclaimed nearly a half-million acres of land in south-central New Mexico as a national monument. The area is called the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument and will managed by the Bureau of Land Management as part of the US system of national conservation lands.
Read about it here at the Whitehouse.gov
Here is an editorial on the topic in the Tampa Tribune that also appeared in today's Wilmington paper
Related to topics this week, today, the Obama administration will announce the creation of the world's largest marine sanctuary. The Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument will protect 782,000 square miles (for perspective, that's about 3 times the size of Texas) from all human activity.
Read about it here at the Washington Post
Note that all 3 stories cite economic value as a benefit of conservation!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The creation of the world’s largest marine reserve is exciting to think about. Setting aside that large of a space for preservation could be an indicator of things to come. The value of preservation is hard to measure (as this class points out so well) but still, we preserve, as a society and as individuals. The collective value shown by preserving a stretch of ocean three times the size of Texas from exploitation is enormous.
I agree that this is super exciting news for the advancement of preserving the Earth's natural beauty. Often times the natural beauty gets overlooked and it is preservation like this that help get the word out there about the good that we are doing to preserve our world. Thank you for sharing.
The expansion of unexploited land and ocean is a great thing. From helping out the local economies home to these national treasures, to ensuring parts of the ocean are not touched in order to preserve local habitat. These will come at a cost though. The article stated that the president will create an agency that will help combat illegal fishing and black markets, and 3 percent of the US tuna stock pile will be lost. This will cost tax payers money. So we must ensure the benefits of such conservation are outweighing costs, and are being implemented in such a way that is most efficient to the US economy as well as world economy.
While this is excellent news from a conservation standpoint, costs will surely come as a result. As Jeremy said, it would be incurred by the tax payers. Hopefully the benefits prove to be worth the additional taxes brought upon the citizens.
I am glad to see a movement towards preservation. Studying environmental science makes you aware of all the devastating things that happen to the environment as time goes on. Lately, it seems as if no good is happening and that the environment is doomed. It is good to see a positive outlook on the environment and hopefully these new preservation areas will prompt more preservation areas and people will realize the need to keep areas preserved and the important role their ecosystem plays in the health of the environment. It is important for the population to participate and even though it is unfortunate to have to pay money, I think that we have to do what is right and pitch in to keep these areas preserved because once these areas are gone they are not coming back.
Thinking from an environmentalists standpoint I think it is awesome that we will have so much land that will be preserved, this will actually help increase biodiversity significantly. Also reefs like those around the pacific islands are actually some of the most productive areas underwater. What I would like to have clarified is what "human activity" would be permitted in that area? For instance, I would love to be able to go snorkeling and scuba diving in that area of the world, would I be able to? I personally feel that encouraging these non-invasive activities would actually drive humans to be more protective of their world around them
I agree that there will be costs, and these areas may be hard to regulate completely against illegal fishing or taking especially in these kinds of large areas. I also think Emily is on to something, allowing people to have recreational access to these preserved areas is very important. People love to hike in scenic landscapes and view the exotic world underneath the surface of the ocean up close. These types of activities encourage support for conservation because people want to have access to these recreational opportunities. The first article about the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument talked about how recreational activities would be allowed and encouraged. But I am also interested to know, like Emily is, if protection from “all human activity” in the marine sanctuary means that no recreational activity will be allowed.
It is nice to see such a huge movement towards preservation. While the costs will be great, the benefits may outweigh the costs in future. This preservation could have quasi-option value. I am curious as well about the possibility that no recreational activity will be allowed. If there happens to be recreational activities then there will be an additional benefit of the preservation. I don't feel like there would be a problem to include certain recreational activities that does not negatively impact the preservation.
Post a Comment