jennyholzerwannabe:

the-awkward-turt:

tractor-inside-joke-fucker:

redneckcomulist:

hope-for-the-planet:

“Between 1992–2003, $14.4 billion was spent in total in the 109 countries studied…That investment resulted in a 29 percent-per-country average decrease in the rate of biodiversity decline…”

This is one of the first large-scale studies to show that investment in conservation really does work. The study also examined how conservation dollars could be spent most effectively in different locations to slow biodiversity loss. 

Sounds like we need to spend more.

This was over the course of 11 years. That 14.4 billion was spent over the gradual course of over a decade. This amounts to about 1.3 billion per year for what it accomplished, a pittance to most nations and truly a tiny amount if there’s multiple nations (like the 109 countries) covering it together. Never let anyone tell you dying ecosystems and climate disasters are inevitable or “too expensive” to prevent.

But there’s a significant silver lining here: If spending a “pittance” can buy us a 29% decrease in biodiversity loss, think how much loss could be prevented if countries seriously invested in this kind of thing!

This is one of the first big studies to show that investing in conservation translates to real, measurable, tangible improvements over the long term and in multiple countries. We aren’t just throwing money at something that isn’t working. That’s still really excellent news! And a big reason to invest more in conservation efforts!

“An accompanying commentary in Nature notes that halting the decline in global biodiversity would be “remarkably cheap,” amounting to less than 0.01 percent of global gross domestic product.”