The term "mitigation" is often used for construction
projects. Often, if you disturb 1 acre of habitat, you would have to mitigate
1.4 acres of habitat. Is that fair, can we really restore other land to the
same level as pristine land we are taking?
Uuuhhhhmmmm.....my brain hurts :( but I gave it a shot:
Some pluses that I see with mitigation would be costs of
environmental damage being internalized by the developer. Without mitigation, the costs of
environmental damage is externalized and
the government (at least in the US) would be responsible for restoration;
mitigation helps avoid this. However,
this is also a way that may encourage further environmental degradation. If a highly diverse area is developed and the
requirement is to plant 1.4 acres of trees hundreds of miles away it will not
help the area around the construction site.
As far as fairness, it can be fair.
I do see a lot empty buildings on already developed land sitting
idle. Maybe restoration or retrofitting
older buildings is the answer to the development issue. Why build on pristine land when there is
plenty developed then abandoned to fall apart?
An interesting website that helps people make decisions about
where and how to develop land is the Natural Capital Project (NCP) where Stanford U,
Univ. of Minnesota, the Nature Conservancy, and the World Wildlife Fund joined
together. InVest 2.0 (NCP, n.d.) helps communities
to assess the value of an ecosystem, find alternatives, and invest in natural
capital. After all, the idea is to find
ways to work with nature, not against it.
Natural Capital Project. (n.d.). InVest: Integrated valuation of environmental services and tradeoffs. Retrieved from http://naturalcapitalproject.org/InVEST.html
Mitigation started of course with a Federal program that eventually had each state modify their own needs through regulation that must not conflict with federal mandates.
ReplyDeleteIn Florida that means mitigation banks can be created and sold to developers but must be within 50 miles of the project they are mitigating unless special needs are involved. In theory, a good thing. In fact, well take a look at the abuses not found on the first 8 pages of Google search here: http://www.sptimes.com/2006/webspecials06/wetlands/
and:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/wetlands/article1216124.ece
You make me laugh sometimes...8 pages shows a lot of determination. That's the only way to do research if you use Google, though. The St. Pete special report impressed me. It was sad, though, to see how the mitigation banks are misused in the Tampa Times. It reminds me of the "reclamation" efforts after MTR. Check out the map and see how many mountains have been destroyed so far in the name of economic development, our "transition" to renewable energy and energy independence.
Deletehttp://ilovemountains.org/reclamation-fail/