33
edits
Talk:Ecoregion: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
m (fix typo) |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
: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.<br> | :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.<br> | ||
: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. | :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 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 zone]]s (zones with special [[tax]] and [[labor law]] exemptions like some [[textile]] heavy free zones in middle america (fevelas?) | :::I agree with house elf (142) 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 zone]]s (zones with special [[tax]] and [[labor law]] exemptions like some [[textile]] heavy free zones in middle america (fevelas?) | ||
:::Further solid [[waste]] and [[emission]]s (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. [[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 15:52 May 9, 2003 (EEST) | :::Further solid [[waste]] and [[emission]]s (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. [[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 15:52 May 9, 2003 (EEST) | ||