Bureaucrats, developer, Administrators
9,854
edits
Talk:Ecoregion: Difference between revisions
m
agree with House Elf on most points.
No edit summary |
m (agree with House Elf on most points.) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
: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. | |||
:::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. | |||