This year's G8 summit in Germany was unusual in that, a month later, people are still talking about whether or not it achieved anything. But one breakthrough at the summit is undeniable: the new statistic of extinction rates appeared on the agenda.
For the first time, the leaders of the world's most powerful nations took notice of a constituency that they have largely ignored -- the wild animals, fish, and plants that make up all the millions of living species on the planet besides humans.
Scientists predict that at least a third and as much as two-thirds of the world's species could be on their way to extinction by the end of this century, mostly because people are destroying tropical forests and other habitats, over-fishing the oceans and changing the global climate.
The world's wealthiest countries endorsed the idea of an international study to examine the economic benefits of conserving wildlife. While this is a good first step, but there is much left to do.
Wild species of bats, birds, and amphibians add several billion dollars each year to the world's agricultural economy by controlling pests and pollinating major crops -- a free service that they get little credit for providing. Coral reefs, 27 percent of which have already disappeared, sustain marine resources that add US$375 billion to the global economy each year.
Likewise, more than a quarter of all medicinal drugs, representing billions of dollars in sales and reduced healthcare costs, possess active ingredients derived from wild species. And when natural forest habitat is cleared, the hardened soils left behind allow pooled water to breed mosquitoes that have increased the number of worldwide deaths from malaria.
Economists already understand that for more than a billion of the world's poorest people, income does not come from any bank or government program, but from the intricate tapestry of forests, oceans, and wildlife that surrounds them. Yet many of the poorest people live on degraded landscapes, deforested and eroded soils and over-fished coastlines where conservation is vital to lifting them out of poverty.
As a result, conservation is as much a human rights issue as an environmental one. The new study endorsed by the G8 heads of state will certainly direct welcome new attention to this fact. But, given that many scientists believe that we have only a couple of decades left to protect the world's remaining natural habitats, it is imperative that concrete and urgent steps to protect wildlife be taken now.
In addition to bringing global warming under control by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we must build a much larger and more sophisticated global conservation reserve system that encompasses the most wildlife-rich land and marine areas.
Existing reserves in areas with the highest concentrations of species, which lie mostly in developing countries, need to be extended and linked through corridors. This will enable wildlife to move into new environments, escape habitat destruction and adapt to climate changes.
At the same time, people living in or near such reserves must be given the assistance they need to farm, fish, and earn a livelihood in ways that do not destroy the very ecosystems on which they and wildlife depend.
We already know how to do this. It just costs more than we have been willing to spend. The wealthy G8 nations -- which alone can afford to invest in such an ambitious worldwide project -- together spend several hundred million dollars a year on global conservation activities. Conservation experts say that the annual investment will eventually need to be close to US$6 billion -- roughly what the world spends every year on potato chips.
Eventually, a worldwide carbon trading system could generate much of the money needed to finance a global conservation network. This would offer the double benefit of capturing greenhouse gas pollution and saving the world's wildlife from oblivion. Until then, the world's richest countries are the only ones that can begin pulling together the seed money to get the effort started.
Next year's G8 meeting in Japan must go beyond studying the problem to making a significant down payment on solving it.
Rich or poor, industrial or rural, we are all connected to the world's diversity of life. The oceans, forests, grasslands and all the places called home by the millions of other species sharing our planet are a part of our lives too. It is time we recognized that and demanded that our leaders work to create a sustainable future for ourselves and a legacy that our children will admire.
Philippe Cousteau is president of Earth Echo International. Philip Clapp is president of the National Environmental Trust in Washington. Copyright: Project Syndicate
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS