This article argues that biodiversity offsetting does not help conserve nature because each ecosystem is unique and cannot be created somewhere else. The author states that offsetting encourages development of wilderness areas. It does this by creating the illusion that one piece of land can be substituted by any one other, so development is okay on any scale as long as somewhere in the world developers protect the land. The article encourages readers not to support offsetting as a solution to land degradation and ecosystem destruction because each unique area has taken hundreds or thousands of years to reach their current level of diversity.
|
![Picture](/uploads/2/4/2/8/24284939/6431417.jpg)
Before reading this article, I thought biodiversity offsetting could be helpful, and while not ideal, at least ensured that some ecosystems could be saved. Now, I am much less supportive of it because I know that it can actually decrease biodiversity by opening up new areas to development. The interconnectivity of nature means that development of one area affects others, so I think biodiversity offsetting for industrial or housing projects, and especially more polluting ones such as mining, should be more limited. Offsetting could be helpful if development occurs in an area that is not surrounded by fragile ecosystems, and the offsetting protects ecosystems that are very important and very endangered, such as wetlands. While offsetting was created with good intentions, I think with more research environmentalists will realize it is not a good option for conservation and preservation.
Images from http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2013/August/insect-.soup, http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/dhtml_slides/10/biodiversityv2/img/04_biodiversity_464_v5.gif, and http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-udpqbXpBJEk/UBk5jGQ1_zI/AAAAAAAAB6s/09k9eEKe3nY/s400/factors+in+teh+success+of+biodiveristy+offsets.jpg