The following editorial appeared in the Chicago Tribune:
“The Yasuni plan would be a first for global environmental policy: recognition that the international community has a financial responsibility to help developing nations preserve nature. ... Of course, from another perspective, the Yasuni initiative might look like environmental blackmail: Pay us or the forest gets it.” — Bryan Walsh, Time
One-fifth of the world’s proven reserves of oil lie in South America, much of it underneath or near the vast Amazon basin. At the rim of that basin, in remotest eastern Ecuador, perhaps a billion barrels of recoverable crude lurk below Yasuni National Park. Here the Amazon, the Andes Mountains and the equator combine to create a lush climate ideal for plants and wildlife. Few if any locations on Earth are as pristine and biodiverse: The continent of North America has fewer tree species than you’ll find in a patch of Yasuni the size of three football fields.
Ecuador, though, is a poor country. Pumping the oil would bring it considerable wealth. But exploration, extraction and shipment of the crude also would inject industrial roads, heavy machinery and, most menacing of all, humans to untouched rain forests that for eons have parlayed their isolation into self-protection.
Ecuador’s president, Rafael Correa, offers a trade: If those in the developed world who understand the importance of rain forests give Ecuador enough money, he pledges that his nation will leave Yasuni essentially as is. Oil drilling begone.
Correa’s plan, the Yasuni ITT Initiative, seeks some $3.6 billion over 13 years. That’s about half the estimated value of the oil. If the rest of the world complies, the United Nations Development Programme would devote it to renewable energy projects, rain forest preservation and assistance to settlements in and near the park. So far, a few governments and individuals have met an initial, Dec. 31 deadline for promising more than $100 million.
Viewed uncharitably, this is extortion: Ecuador demands protection money no less brazenly than Outfit mobsters and other violent gangs have demanded protection money on the streets of Chicago.
Or is Correa, viewed unemotionally, offering the rest of the world something of obvious value, and — like all of us who expect to be paid for the goods or services we provide — forthrightly asking for compensation in return? “We’re renouncing an immense sum of money (for the crude),” he told Time. “For us, the most financially lucrative option is to extract the gasoline.”
That’s blunt. It’s also accurate. Ecuador is a veteran oil exporter that knows how to exploit the Yasuni deposits. Yet the nation also bears vivid environmental scars from prior oil exportation. It’s in everyone’s interest to have Ecuador focus its future extraction on using new methods to better drain its existing oil fields. If the nation pursues that strategy, Yasuni ITT director Dr. Ivonne Baki told Forbes magazine last fall, “the additional environmental impact is relatively low, and profits can compete with those from new blocks that could thereby remain untouched — hence promoting the conservation of the most sensitive areas, such as Yasuni National Park.”
For Americans, the essence of Ecuador’s proposal should strike familiar chords: Metropolitan Chicago, for example, has Morton Arboretum in Lisle because a salt company magnate thought enough of its natural amenities to make it a sanctuary. The analogy is inexact, but Joy Morton put potential profit where his heart was: He might just as easily have sold the land for development.
This would be just the sort of financial commitment that, in normal times, governments like those of the U.S. and Europe might easily make. Environmentalists worldwide would applaud. Trouble is, one side effect of the enormous debts now confronting those governments is that it’s much harder to justify just this sort of expenditure — even of a relatively small amount such as $3.6 billion.
Saving the Yasuni, its animals and its flora, though, is a project ideal for private foundations or conservation groups to lead — and for many of us, as individuals, to join. The park is worth the trouble. And Ecuador has a point: All of us who benefit from the environmental cleansing performed by rain forests and other hard-working habitats — many of them in impoverished countries — should be willing to help protect them. To paraphrase President Correa: The way to advance conservation is to make sure that poor countries benefit from conservation.





Comments (12)
Add commentThis is a touchy subject. Do
This is a touchy subject. Do we trust that the Ecuadoran govt will honor that agreement? We dont get ownership for our money, just an agreement that they wont drill. Will future ecuadoran leaders honor that or will this issue come up again? In the global scheme, its pennies. I would much rather see my tax dollar spent to save rainforest like this than to blow up Iraq for oil. Is it right for us in the developed world to insist that the developing world remain in poverty to protect the environment unlike that which we trashed centuries ago? If they cant develop their resources, or create industry, we are consigning them to poverty. They cannot afford to enter the market place at our level, so they do what they can, exploit their resources. I think ultimately this is a good plan, but I am a little hesitant as it could easily become a regular payment scheme. Maybe someone will pay us to not develop ANWR?
Absolutely
Absolutely.
Rain Forests are the single most cost effective way to combat climate change.
Should the "world" pay? Who
Should the "world" pay? Who cares, but not a cent fron the U.S.
Rednecks like Madison, are
Rednecks like Madison, are against the idea of our country spending money on such an extraordinary and beneficial effort as this,
but they have no problem with our Government spending tax dollars subsidizing two of the most destructive industries ever, the oil and timber industry.
Tap Iran
Ahmadinejad just made a stop there on his Latin American tour. I'm sure he'd love to have his own rainforest. What a crock. Global extortion.
Perfora, cariño, perfora!
The next cancer cure...
...might be contained in one of the unique plants down there. Or even a cure for whatever afflicts madison.
Agree with KP - if the Ecuadorians want money for protecting the land, then they should sell that land, along with the subsurface rights, to whoever comes up with the funding. Kind of a Nature Conservancy deal.
But Ecuador has a stake in protecting this land too. Reminds me of the hostage scene in Blazing Saddles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upvZdVK913I
A Time magazine blogger (the
A Time magazine blogger (the same Bryan Walsh from above) reported Thursday that the Sierra Club, America’s oldest and most august environmental organization, accepted millions of dollars in donations from one of the nation’s biggest natural gas-drilling companies for a program lambasting coal-fired power plants as environmental evildoers.
The total take for John Muir’s conservation group? A whopping $26 million over four years from Chesapeake Energy and its subsidiaries.
Oops, now who's fighting against fracking being done by natural gas companies? You guessed it - conservation groups.
Why should we trust any of these environmental groups? Ever wonder what their real agenda is - power, that's all?
But of even greater importance is the fact that President Correa is a Marxist and a clone of Chavez. Double no trust.
If this silliness is going through the UN, America will be contributing huge sums of money since we contribute $6.3B+ annually (number is from 2009).
mmm....good question
This is an interesting question, and both kpawsuh and latitude make good points.
It's unfortunate that the oil companies don't have a better record in terms of responsible drilling, (just look at Nigeria) or they might be able to do it with a minimal foot print and minimal risk. But history tells us that even when countries DO have strict rules, oil companies will cut all the corners they can (like not replacing pipeline in AK when they should, or just dumping sludge and letting spills go un-cleaned in countries with lesser standards) to increase their profits, because spills and fines are cheaper than doing a good job. The other issue I thought of was what the level of corruption in the government in Equador might be - - - neither developing oil or making payments to preserve a rainforest will be helpful if none of the money gets to the Equadorian people.
So Calypso: can you elaborate
So Calypso: can you elaborate on the environmentalist agenda? Power is a pretty broad term. Be more specific. If you actually have an argument, this shouldn't be any trouble for you.
@p, two words - global
@p, two words - global warming...
That doesn't elaborate at
That doesn't elaborate at all. You're invoking a phenomenon where global temperatures are, on average, rising. A very real phenomenon.
And if curbing the consequences of climate change is the environmentalist agenda, you'd have to be a pretty evil/ignorant person to want to oppose it.
Calypso, those "two words" don't explain a thing
It's not as though the only choices are to let the resource companies do whatever the Shell they want or to live under Stalinism.
You do realize that even conservatives need breathable air and drinkable water, don't you?
Two words??
Bwahahahahahaa!!!!