I will join you in your optimism and agree we are making progress. The number of national private conservation projects has also increased over the last ten years. Like many of your initiatives it has been frustratingly slow. We are still pitching to blank stares and shaking heads in the real estate investment realm as they struggle to recognize that it is vital to privately conserve agricultural lands, wetlands, biodiverse forests, and cultural resource rich lands because once they are gone, they are gone.
"There are no sacred and un-sacred places. There are only sacred places and desecrated places."
- Wendell Berry
The loss of private land to development is still at a rate of 6000 acres a day in this country. But every linking private parcel that creates a precious wildlife corridor, or every historical ranching legacy preserved is one step forward to maintaining the economic, social and ecological value/fortune of nature for next generations.
I do see hope on the horizon. There is something different about the incoming classes of students at our regional educational institutions and their appetite to learn about protecting the planet.
As an educator, I often find myself having to apologize to this next generation for failing in my generations effort to leave them a better world. I was told by my parents that I was the last generation to witness open space and I mumbled about impossibilities. We, the boomer generation, were cautioned, then warned, and finally alerted to our misguided lifestyles. To late?
Better late than never. Our apologies should not be done to have the last word, nor ask for forgiveness only to mask our infidelity in our relationship to the planet. There is no time left for hand wringing, pity parties and finger pointing but to use our remaining time to align with and invest in this - reGeneration.
I appreciate your optimisim about the debate on nature-based carbon credits; it's a good way to see a silver lining to that grey cloud. I wonder if you can help provide another optimisitc framing to that debate: what about the critique of the shrinking market for carbon credits given the Paris Accord framework?
In other words, doesn't Paris significantly shrink the market for carbon credits, because the Paris agreement is entirely focused on a nation's domestic emissions and bringing domestic emissions to zero? For developed countries by 2050 all domestic emissions should be zero or offset with domestic offsets, and so who is the long-term buyer of carbon credits in developing countries outside of often small manufacturing bases in these economies? Doesn't this significantly shrink the size of the market for carbon credits where most of the nature is, i.e. in developing countries?
I will join you in your optimism and agree we are making progress. The number of national private conservation projects has also increased over the last ten years. Like many of your initiatives it has been frustratingly slow. We are still pitching to blank stares and shaking heads in the real estate investment realm as they struggle to recognize that it is vital to privately conserve agricultural lands, wetlands, biodiverse forests, and cultural resource rich lands because once they are gone, they are gone.
"There are no sacred and un-sacred places. There are only sacred places and desecrated places."
- Wendell Berry
The loss of private land to development is still at a rate of 6000 acres a day in this country. But every linking private parcel that creates a precious wildlife corridor, or every historical ranching legacy preserved is one step forward to maintaining the economic, social and ecological value/fortune of nature for next generations.
I do see hope on the horizon. There is something different about the incoming classes of students at our regional educational institutions and their appetite to learn about protecting the planet.
As an educator, I often find myself having to apologize to this next generation for failing in my generations effort to leave them a better world. I was told by my parents that I was the last generation to witness open space and I mumbled about impossibilities. We, the boomer generation, were cautioned, then warned, and finally alerted to our misguided lifestyles. To late?
Better late than never. Our apologies should not be done to have the last word, nor ask for forgiveness only to mask our infidelity in our relationship to the planet. There is no time left for hand wringing, pity parties and finger pointing but to use our remaining time to align with and invest in this - reGeneration.
I appreciate your optimisim about the debate on nature-based carbon credits; it's a good way to see a silver lining to that grey cloud. I wonder if you can help provide another optimisitc framing to that debate: what about the critique of the shrinking market for carbon credits given the Paris Accord framework?
In other words, doesn't Paris significantly shrink the market for carbon credits, because the Paris agreement is entirely focused on a nation's domestic emissions and bringing domestic emissions to zero? For developed countries by 2050 all domestic emissions should be zero or offset with domestic offsets, and so who is the long-term buyer of carbon credits in developing countries outside of often small manufacturing bases in these economies? Doesn't this significantly shrink the size of the market for carbon credits where most of the nature is, i.e. in developing countries?