The US$700 billion biodiversity funding gap is a “bogus figure devised by US conservation corporations in collaboration with investment banks to promote private investment and market-based mechanisms”
The US$700 billion biodiversity funding gap is a “bogus figure devised by US conservation corporations in collaboration with investment banks to promote private investment and market-based mechanisms”
Chris, this is an eye-opening analysis of the $700 billion ‘biodiversity funding gap’ and the market-driven mindset behind it. It's essential to question whether this massive funding target actually addresses the underlying causes of biodiversity loss or if it merely props up financial structures that often sideline effective, community-based conservation efforts. I recently wrote a piece on sustainable funding for environmental initiatives that emphasizes solutions beyond corporate-driven finance.
The push to channel resources directly to Indigenous-led and small-scale projects, as you mentioned, feels much more aligned with genuine ecosystem preservation. Thank you for sharing this critical perspective—more voices like yours are needed to steer conservation away from commodification and toward genuine, grounded action.
The wishful thinking at COP16 was that since governments are intransigent on funding biodiversity issues, perhaps some money could be siphoned off the private sector’s financial manipulations of an offsets system, which requires financialisation of Nature by converting supposed natural areas into debt obligations, since only debt obligations are tradable in markets. Then, supposedly, a corporation can devastate yet another green-field in exchange for supposedly “protecting” another somewhere else in the world. But the first step toward protecting biodiversity should obviously be: Not One More Sacrifice Zone, anywhere! To achieve that requires constraining the human enterprise of converting the planet into a suitable “human nest” while pushing Nature out of the way. Another step would be ending the divide and conquer system of cutting up contiguous natural areas with roads and mines and other encroachments. As for letters to the Guardian, forget about it - even though they do not have oligarchs in control, they simply IGNORE all input from readers. Best you could do is a quickly-buried item in their “Comment is Free” area.
Speaking of biodiversity, part of my continental policies will be to implement restoration programs for degraded ecosystems and transition North America to a circular economy.
Let’s get the hubris under control, OK? You are NOT one of the “owners of America.” Humans need to keep their mitts off Nature and that includes so-called “restoration” projects. Nature has ways of restoration, which might not meet your desires for immediate results.
Look, Kathleen. I know what I’m proposing is against every bone in your body. I never assumed that everyone will be on board. Some will, some won’t.
If I can try to reason with you, this course may be the best shot at ending the climate crisis. You may think that I’ll simply forget it all once I’m there and keep feeding the beast that’s killing the world, or kissing the ring of oil magnates while putting up a green front, but let me assure you: I WON’T.
But if you still do not want anything to do with me, then I won’t stop you. It’s your right. Even I can’t cross that line.
OK, you don’t get it, I can understand. Unfortunately, to remedy this situation, I will have to play the trump card (no, not THAT Trump) and I don’t like to have to do this. The responsibility for the environment of Planet Gaia is my responsibility and I have not delegated any of that to anyone else, especially you, since you have disqualified yourself. I did not want this work particularly, but Walter dumped it in my lap when he left. So that’s how it stands for now.
What do you mean, immediate results? Those things take time, they can’t be rushed! But thanks anyways for reminding me that nature has ways of healing itself. I’ll squeeze that consideration in.
Chris, this is an eye-opening analysis of the $700 billion ‘biodiversity funding gap’ and the market-driven mindset behind it. It's essential to question whether this massive funding target actually addresses the underlying causes of biodiversity loss or if it merely props up financial structures that often sideline effective, community-based conservation efforts. I recently wrote a piece on sustainable funding for environmental initiatives that emphasizes solutions beyond corporate-driven finance.
The push to channel resources directly to Indigenous-led and small-scale projects, as you mentioned, feels much more aligned with genuine ecosystem preservation. Thank you for sharing this critical perspective—more voices like yours are needed to steer conservation away from commodification and toward genuine, grounded action.
The wishful thinking at COP16 was that since governments are intransigent on funding biodiversity issues, perhaps some money could be siphoned off the private sector’s financial manipulations of an offsets system, which requires financialisation of Nature by converting supposed natural areas into debt obligations, since only debt obligations are tradable in markets. Then, supposedly, a corporation can devastate yet another green-field in exchange for supposedly “protecting” another somewhere else in the world. But the first step toward protecting biodiversity should obviously be: Not One More Sacrifice Zone, anywhere! To achieve that requires constraining the human enterprise of converting the planet into a suitable “human nest” while pushing Nature out of the way. Another step would be ending the divide and conquer system of cutting up contiguous natural areas with roads and mines and other encroachments. As for letters to the Guardian, forget about it - even though they do not have oligarchs in control, they simply IGNORE all input from readers. Best you could do is a quickly-buried item in their “Comment is Free” area.
Speaking of biodiversity, part of my continental policies will be to implement restoration programs for degraded ecosystems and transition North America to a circular economy.
Let’s get the hubris under control, OK? You are NOT one of the “owners of America.” Humans need to keep their mitts off Nature and that includes so-called “restoration” projects. Nature has ways of restoration, which might not meet your desires for immediate results.
Look, Kathleen. I know what I’m proposing is against every bone in your body. I never assumed that everyone will be on board. Some will, some won’t.
If I can try to reason with you, this course may be the best shot at ending the climate crisis. You may think that I’ll simply forget it all once I’m there and keep feeding the beast that’s killing the world, or kissing the ring of oil magnates while putting up a green front, but let me assure you: I WON’T.
But if you still do not want anything to do with me, then I won’t stop you. It’s your right. Even I can’t cross that line.
OK, you don’t get it, I can understand. Unfortunately, to remedy this situation, I will have to play the trump card (no, not THAT Trump) and I don’t like to have to do this. The responsibility for the environment of Planet Gaia is my responsibility and I have not delegated any of that to anyone else, especially you, since you have disqualified yourself. I did not want this work particularly, but Walter dumped it in my lap when he left. So that’s how it stands for now.
What do you mean, immediate results? Those things take time, they can’t be rushed! But thanks anyways for reminding me that nature has ways of healing itself. I’ll squeeze that consideration in.