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

Read this article about the wild camel population in Australia.

What should Australia do to control, use or get rid of all of the wild camels?

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/10/15/australia.feral.camels/index.html

Take a look through these two recent articles about some of the benefits and concerns over genetically modified crops.

Have either of these articles changed your opinion about whether genetically modified (GM) crops are a good or bad thing, overall?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10859264
This article is about how GM crops are breeding and infiltrating wild colonies of plants and the problems associated with this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11496710
This article is about how GM crops have had a positive impact on the amount of money farmers have earned in the past year.