Memo 4

In regards to “Biodiversity Conservation and Poverty” I feel that is a serious issue. Almost like a catch 22, where there is no win win situation, rather more of a tradeoff.  The article basically gave two standpoints discussing that if you can achieve conservation while also eliminating poverty at the same time, or do you have to tackle each issue separately. My standpoint on this issue is I feel you have to do both. I believe its government’s job to analyze their own people’s situation and resources it has, and strategically develop a plan that will create economic growth and conserve biodiversity at the same time. As the article so clearly noted, this idea is very difficult. If I had to choose, I would decide based on the culture. I would do an extensive cost benefit analysis and see if the people truly are better off than the status quo, or is the majority of them worse off. Who really receives the benefits if it’s only government than I think it’s not a good idea to pursue economic growth in expense of the people’s well-being, unless the government allocates funds to their people. Even in the United States we face issues like this every day, but not in the perspective of poverty rather in the perspective of damaging our environment. With cap trades, and cap taxes the United States has to choose between economic growth and being environmentally friendly. It has gotten to the point where humans have evolved to a new being, where we were once hunter gathers, we have now became dependent on energy and technology, and most importantly money, which results to the destruction of many ecosystems.

In the article “Can we afford to conserve biodiversity” I believe James does have some strong points. James mentions how it cost in the billions of dollars to maintain forests, wetlands, and many other terrains. The article also mentions how they pay billions of dollars and the end result is not worth the money put in. James goes on to say that the opportunity cost of forgoing utilizing these protected lands are monumental in the sense that these developing countries are in dire need of money and resources, and by prohibiting the harvesting and the utilization of this land is only maintaining poverty rather than resolving it. This goes back to my previous comment on the previous article of is it feasible to eliminate poverty and sustain economic growth. It seems like the answer is no its not. However, that should stop anyone from trying. Again it all goes back to cost benefit analysis, the only question is who are the stakeholders? Who are going to be the ones affected? Policy makers have a real tough job to allocate the limited resources they have efficiently in the pursuit of accomplishing conservation while reducing poverty.