Via Science Magazine: Species Protection or Cost Effective Conservation?

[nam78_two]

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/02/protect-species-curb-warming-save-money-biden-s-big-conservation-goal-means-trade-offs?utm_campaign=news_daily_2021-02-02&et_rid=731404762&et_cid=3653090



Species-rich vernal pools, such as these in California, could be one target for greater protection under President Joe Biden’s bid to protect 30% of U.S. lands and waters by 2030. ANTHONY ARENDT/ALAMY STOCK PHOTO

Excerpts below:

Protect species? Curb warming? Save money? Biden’s big conservation goal means trade-offs
By Erik StokstadFeb. 2, 2021 , 5:00 PM

President Joe Biden last week unveiled an ambitious conservation goal, unprecedented for the United States: conserving 30% of the country’s lands and waters by 2030, which would require more than doubling the area of public and private holdings under heightened protections.

Conservation scientists welcomed the so-called 30-by-30 goal, announced in an executive order on climate released 27 January. “The ambition is fantastic,” says ecologist Joshua Tewksbury, interim executive director of the nonprofit Future Earth.

But Biden’s order also raises a thorny practical question: Which swaths of land and sea should be the top targets for enhanced protection or management?

Reaching the 30% goal could require extending protection to vast expanses of land and sea, depending on how officials define “protected.” Only about 12% of U.S. land is already in wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, national parks, and other reserves with strong protection, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Much is in Alaska; just 7.5% of the lower 48 states is highly protected. (An additional 18% of all U.S. land has weaker protection that allows certain uses, such as logging or mining.) At sea, the country is much closer to the goal: Some 26% of coastal waters is protected to some degree within sanctuaries, national marine monuments, or other entities.

Conservationists have long argued that the current protections are not adequate. Some note that just 11% of species of conservation concern are well-represented on highly protected land in the United States.

The rest is at the link. The maps are worth checking out. Either way it is a vast improvement as long as they follow through with the involvement of conservationists and conservation scientists. I would love it if ambitious conservation plans become the norm the world over .

[Duppers]

1. Bookmarking for later.

I must sleep.

[nam78_two]

2. Thanks!

[Duppers]

3. This is great! Increasing protected land by 30% !!

What an impressive goal!!

Pres. Biden must have had a long list before he walked into the Oval Office because his speed in correcting problems across the board has been amazing.

Earlier this morning I was reading about how frogs eggs are protected in vernal pools in the GSMNP (a friend lives there & posts the most amazing pictures on Instagram - OneLaneRoadPhotography).

Wanting to see the maps (yes, they were worth ck'ing out), I had to renew my membership in AAAS because I had run out of free articles. (The membership supports science & conservation, very good causes.) I liked the very ambitious "Species-saving scenario" map the most.


Thanks, nam78!

[nam78_two]

4. Isn't it?

Yeah I was curious about which species the legislation would cover. Probably a lot of relatively unknown species.
I should look at the linked articles. I am on their mailing list which is why I saw it. I too liked the species saving map but either way it is a far better debate than the usual ones.

Hi Duppers!