AUSTRALIAN & AMAZON FOREST FIRES
NATURAL RESOURCES - A NEW APPROACH
Okay so we live in a capitalist world where everything has a price (whether we like it or not). So on this basis why should countries that have large amounts of natural resources which the whole planet benefits from: such as forests, ice caps, endangered animals, flora/fauna, etc... effectively sacrifice revenue by maintaining them on our behalf?
So for instance and using a simple example. Countries with oil/gas/coal/mineral reserves charge us for having the benefit of these.
Whilst the benefit from the Amazonian forest for instance may not be as noticeable/tangible, the impact of such being removed from our planet will certainly affect us and as we are already seeing with climate change the costs of which run into billions for countries affected.
I propose a new way. Why should the global community (based upon a proportion of GDP say, i.e. richest countries pay) not pay for this benefit? I mean why don't we agree to simply pay amazonian countries and others a rent for them maintaining their natural resources? Effectively making it more beneficial to maintain their resources (theirs purely due to geography as we all share this rock we call Earth) than to destroy them? This could be administered by the UN? Thoughts? #climatechange