1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/18376/marine-mammal-conservation-with-just-4-ocean-privatization/

Marine Mammal Conservation With Just 4% Ocean Privatization

September 8, 2011 by

Science Daily recently reported on a study that finds “Preserving just 4 percent of the ocean could protect crucial habitat for the vast majority of marine mammal species, from sea otters to blue whales.”

The article, based on the research at Stanford University and the National Autonomous University of Mexico (as published in the The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences), shows that all 129 marine mammal species “can be represented in only 20 critical conservation locations [covering] 10 percent of the species’ geographic range.” Of the 20 critical conservation locations, the authors identify that “preserving just 9 of the 20 conservation sites would protect habitat for 84 percent of all marine mammal species on Earth”

Though the researchers do not suggest privatization as a means toward conservation, the reader should recognize the potential benefits. It also should be noted that the privatization of even 4% of our massive ocean yields an extremely large piece of territory–about the size of the United States and Mexico combined. Nevertheless, the study suggests that complete ocean privatization need not be the short-term goal of the libertarian ocean conservationist. The ownership allocation of just 4% of the ocean might indeed be enough to protect their interests.

{ 14 comments }

Giovanni P September 8, 2011 at 7:01 pm

But why would a privatization of a part of the ocean ensure those species are preserved?

JFF September 8, 2011 at 7:05 pm

Because you would buy the parcel of ocean with the express purpose of preserving those species.

J. Murray September 9, 2011 at 5:37 am

Or, better yet, for other purposes:

Tourism – for instance, buying the Monterey Bay would produce tremendous revenues for this. A huge trench with unique species, a large population of otters and other marine mammals, etc. The owner would have major incentives to keep the sea populations healthy to maintain tourism revenues and sales of species to aquariums around the world.

Sport fishing – allowing your stock to deplete would result in people no longer buying your service.

Farming – See sport fishing.

WillHarper September 10, 2011 at 7:18 pm

R u people out of your minds? Do you need more examples of “privatization” of public resources gone horribly wrong? Of course, in theory, the market would reward those who “manage” their resources with the goal of sustainability. But that rarely happens in practice. Regardless, the premise that 4 % of the ocean could be somehow isolated from system wide stresses, including increased acidity, is akin to implying the way to protect land mammals is by putting them in zoos. How about altering human behavior that threatens worldwide ecosystems. Nah! What was I thinking?

Dave Albin September 10, 2011 at 9:18 pm

“Of course, in theory, the market would reward those who ‘manage’ their resources with the goal of sustainability. But that rarely happens in practice.”

Sustainability is different to each person. To some people, this means keeping as-is currently. To others, this means removing all forms of human activity and letting resources return to a “natural” state (whatever that is). To even others, this means using the natural resources and creating new “resources”, or products, from them – and therefore, this would require that the inputs are maintained somehow.

Good luck altering human behavior. Only a system of strong private-property rights and a system of dealing with aggression against someone’s property will protect natural resources.

Vanmind September 12, 2011 at 2:08 am

Name one example gone horribly wrong. Wait, let me guess: you’d parrot the ignorance about Enron.

Have fun forcing people to alter their behavior. What’s that? Not force but rather education? I refuse to attend your enviro-seminar, so now what? Let me guess again: get to children early in their lives, to program them all proper & such.

WillHarper September 12, 2011 at 12:25 pm

Typically tired response from Vanmind. Wants me to educate him regarding privatization failures instead of expanding his own information base. Then follows up with the forced/education mantra while doubling down on the cynical, “that will never work”. Likely it will never work for you, but there are several strong social examples where education has positively influenced behavior. How you conflate education with force…well, that is your own private Idaho

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/mar/23/south-bay-expressway-builders-file-chapter-11/

That is just one example. Privatization is profitization and if a profit cannot be turned, these projects often fall back to taxpayer support.

I have personally invested many hours of time and effort to stop corrupted county officials from going forward with a ludicrous destination train idea in my area. Why do they want to do it? Because they are wine and dined by the railroad company that stands to make the most money from leasing of tracks, train and equipment. All one has to do is look at the fine print in the deal to see the contradictions and overly optimistic ridership numbers to see that it would never be profitable and would end up requiring major subsidies from local towns and cities. But those pushing this deal don’t care. This is just one local example. There are many others out there, perhaps in you own vicinity.

Franklin September 12, 2011 at 12:41 pm

“Privatization is profitization and if a profit cannot be turned, these projects often fall back to taxpayer support…….
Why do they want to do it? Because they are wine and dined by the railroad company that stands to make the most money from leasing of tracks, train and equipment…….”

This is not “privatization.” So your rebuttal is, ironically, an indictment of the “public” failure. Your response is a strawman, and a contradiction of your own confounded argument.

RTB September 8, 2011 at 8:31 pm

I wonder if the 4%, or 20 critical areas, aren’t some of the most fertile and abundant areas for everything from fishing to oil drilling. And usually, when guys like this talk about conservation they mean putting it off limits, not really renewable or sustainable in any kind of free market sense. So beware, even fewer goods and higher prices to come.

Gian September 9, 2011 at 3:25 am

Won’t a world government be required to allocate or manage property rights in oceans?

Mitch Kordonowy September 9, 2011 at 3:42 am

Well, no, in the sense that a world government isn’t required to manage property rights on land.
Do you mean, who will enforce the boundaries?

Jeffrey Tucker September 9, 2011 at 7:31 am

Wow, that means 96% of the ocean can be filled with TSP and all will be well.

Dave Albin September 9, 2011 at 9:52 am

I agree with ideas stated here, but keep in mind that this 4% number could easily be way off, either way (high or low). There is no way that enough sampling has been done, and the knowledge required to make a statement like this is almost certainly lacking. That’s why complete privatization is required.

HL September 9, 2011 at 11:09 pm

Makes sense. Maybe 5% of the US population is engaged in activities that produce net benefits to all. The contribution of the rest range from harmless second-hander, to suckling leech, to massive net negative wealth producer (e.g., the average government bureaucrat or publik skool educrat). Get rid of that 5% and you can go from NYC to Detroit overnight. Add to the 5%, and you can be Singapore or Hong Kong. Just like that.

I keep hammering the kids to be part of the 5% or at least serve the 5%. No heaven for bums.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: