An Interesting proposal...

25/10/2010

Check this idea out:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/02/conderivatives/

"Under their plan, the government would determine the cost of protecting a species if it becomes endangered. That money would be set aside to fund contracts with payouts pegged to species health. The contracts would be sold to landowners and developers whose actions directly affect the animals, though the contracts could be freely re-sold.

Should animal numbers fall beneath a predetermined threshold, contracts would be voided, and money devoted to anticipated recovery programs. If the species thrives, investors would be rewarded, with profits growing in direct proportion to species health."

In other words, instead of having the government pay to protect endangered species, individual groups or organization could try to save them on their own. If they succeeded and the organism was saved, the government would then pay the group of people.

Can you think of any advantages or disadvantages to trying this idea out?

Read More http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/02/conderivatives/#ixzz13OPnjA7p

James

25/10/2010 07:37:18 am

I think it is really bad to "shoot shovel and shut up". If animals are about to die or are poorly treated they should be sent to a vet or sold to a trust worthy farm. I think that the government should use the extra money that they have to buy a vet and collect animals who are dying to be sent there.

Meg

26/10/2010 06:11:44 am

Advantage: This would be a good thing to try because it means that people may become more interested in doing it because they get a chance to earn money from it.

In other words: Not many people try to save animals at the moment because there's not much in return for them. By adding money into the equation, people may become more interested.

Joe

26/10/2010 07:40:39 am

Meg - I am afraid that i will have to disagree as it is my understanding that the companies are saving the animals for charity, and are only paid back the amount they spend. If my understanding is incorrect, i am sure that the risk of being unsuccessful at saving the animals and loosing a lot of money are far greater than saving the animal and getting a little extra money from the government. so it would be bad because it may mean that there are fewer companies trying to save animals, simply because the risk of losing money is too high. - if that makes sense

however, if companies still do try to save animals than it is good because the government saves money for other important uses if the animal is not saved and the company will try harder to save the animal so that they do not throw away money.

Chelsi Flax Solomon

27/10/2010 05:00:48 am

If the animal species isn't' really important to the environment then I don't really see the need to save them. If they are important such as cheetahs or salmon then their is obviously a reason to save them because they actually do something for the food chain and they benefit alot of animals.

Samora Lewis

27/10/2010 10:22:31 am

I think it is a good idea to try to save the endangered species. I don't agree with you Chelsi because we may not see it but all the animal species benefit each other and effect their surroundings. I agree with James they should be using the money for other things like vets and getting the animals to places to be protected.

KiAn

28/10/2010 02:09:41 am

Advantages: People like making money so I think this would be a good way to save animals because people may see this as an investment and they're also helping save animals.

Disadvantages: People might start raiding other people's property in search of the animals. This will be ugly.

sean

28/10/2010 06:55:39 am

I think that more people will try to save the animals because they will be able to get money. And if the people fail to save the animals the money will co to saving the animals any way so it's good for the animals. And all the charitable people will still try to save the animals because their trying to safe the animals, and the greedy people will also try because they want to get the money and they wouldn't have tried to save the animals without the offer of money. So their will be more people trying to save the animals and even if they don't save them the money will still go to saving them.

sean

28/10/2010 06:59:23 am

you know what I mean.

And in the 2nd sentience co was supposed to be go.

LeE-LOu

28/10/2010 08:32:13 am

I think this would give a great advantage, because it would mean the people working to try and save the animals are not working for the money they are working to try and help the animals out, and then get the reward money after. This would mean the workers would be more enthusiastic, so they might try harder to protect the animals, and if a group of people who dont do a good job the government wont have to pay them.

amber bennett link

28/10/2010 09:34:00 am

I am going to disagree, chelsi animal species are important to our environment.
i agree with lee lou, they are not working for money but to learn and save something that could be worth wild. We need to know more amount this species before it goes because it can be something that can change the world, ok, maybe not the world but something to do with it.

Samantha A

28/10/2010 11:14:42 pm

I agree with amber because they are just trying to save the endagered animals. They don`t care if they have to spend too much money they are just doing cause they want to not because they have too.

David

29/10/2010 07:49:23 am

I agree with meg that this would be an advantage with lots of people being involved in this the list of endangered species could become a lot less than what it is today, and there are lots of people that would really like that money so a lot of people will participate.

Robert

30/10/2010 12:20:43 am

I think that there is a huge chance this wont work. if the government arent supervising the ppl doing the work, they might do it half hearted. mabye ppl wont have enough time to do something like that. i personally think that it could go each way. however, it could also be like a treasure hunt iof the government pay alot, then ppl woud fight not only for the animals, but for themselves. ummmm, joe ill have to disagree that "it would be bad" because, eve if it is at risk, i cant say which way of doing things is better, there are too many "uncontrolled variables"
:D

Comments are closed.