- I have a problem with the definition given by WWF, as it add to this one "with boundaries that approximate the original extent of natural communities prior to major land-use change". I think this approach tends to consider that these areas were static (which is only true on a very small time scale) and the preanthropic areas were the "right" ones (when thinking in terms of biodiversity conservation). Besides, on some continents, it is likely major land-use change occured quite a long time ago. I think they focus too much on what would have been expected to be found given local conditions, "if" human had had no impact whatsoever.
- This is not dreamland, this is consumerium. I question defining ecoregion more as a potentiality than a reality. Both are important, but if ecoregions are defined with that limitation in mind, trade issues, borders issues, will perhaps not be addressed very well.
- I think there must be strong visions of what this can do, so I support using ecoregions and whole-planet systems (atmosphere, climate) being as the basis of all ecology risk information, while country, trade, border questions must be how you deal with social risk. There's really no other way.
- I agree with house elf on the separation of area of denomination for social risk and ecology risk, though some further distinctions must be made to assess social risk eg. free zones (zones with special tax and labor law exemptions like.
- Further solid waste and emissions (aerosolised or liquid pollution) must be treated as different cases since emissions don't follow national or other borders, but are a global issue. I have no expertese in this area, so I'm hoping someone else will look into this waste and emission assesment issue.
- I think there must be strong visions of what this can do, so I support using ecoregions and whole-planet systems (atmosphere, climate) being as the basis of all ecology risk information, while country, trade, border questions must be how you deal with social risk. There's really no other way.