Fine, get rid of those ridiculous subsidies! But is that really an argument against funding conservation activities via those bonds?
If I understand your essay, you are arguing for economic development of the islands (so that you can "unlock" their "immense potential"). This is not really the goal of conservation.
Perhaps you are hoping to capitalize on a bigger and better tourism industry? Again, that is not the primary goal of conservation.
If you want to argue that the free market and unfettered tourism, fishing and whatever else would benefit the ecology of the Galapagos better than a strategy of conservation, then fine, make that argument. But that is a different argument than complaining that the tourism companies are low quality, or, in a strange argument for "open borders", noting that, "enticed by employment opportunities, unskilled labor from the mainland immigrates ... leading to the contamination and rapid depletion of scarce water resources."
I don't think the article is arguing against these kinds of bonds? Just what they are being used for.
> If you want to argue that the free market and unfettered tourism, fishing and whatever else would benefit the ecology of the Galapagos better than a strategy of conservation, then fine, make that argument.
You can still have strict restrictions and conservation, but eg auction off the limited set of allowed activities to the highest bidder.
Eg if the island's ecosystem can deal with up to n people sustainably, then auction off n slots for eg 10 years at a time. That's what we are doing with cars in Singapore, and it works well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_Entitlement
I also didn't understand the connection here. I mean it seems relatively obvious that subsidized power on the islands is harmful for the purpose of conservation but many of the other points seem like bad policies but irrelevant to the issue of conservation.
Maybe limited immigration in this case is beneficial -- I support it in general but because it unlocks greater productivity while in this case there doesn't seem to be much extra productivity available. But don't turn around and subsidize living there if that's something you want to discourage. Subsidize moving off the islands.
This is a fascinating, persuasive short article on bad policy in the Galapagos, but is too short to cover the background about the history and politics around the islands which we would need to understand what’s going on here. This isn’t an ordinary case of shortsighted govt ineptitude. As commenters have pointed out, the national governments decisions don’t appear to make much sense. Let’s not be typical readers who read one short article and assume we understand what’s going on. I mean, the status quo is clearly bad, but without understanding how we got here I have no idea how it can be improved.
Interesting. I live in Ecuador, and have for the last 13+ years, but have never been to the Galapagos. I would like to, but the cost is quite high for a retiree on a fixed pension. However, it sounds like the culture on the islands is much like that on the continent, which is not surprising. I will note, however, that it is hard, in any country, to develop (and maintain!) a culture of stewardship, where people now are willing to sacrifice immediate gratification in favor of conserving for the future generations.
I'm confused, who pays for these subsidies and why? People from the mainland? What's their motivation? Even if I'm a corrupt politician why wouldn't I want to distribute spoils closer to home where more voters live?
Fine, get rid of those ridiculous subsidies! But is that really an argument against funding conservation activities via those bonds?
If I understand your essay, you are arguing for economic development of the islands (so that you can "unlock" their "immense potential"). This is not really the goal of conservation.
Perhaps you are hoping to capitalize on a bigger and better tourism industry? Again, that is not the primary goal of conservation.
If you want to argue that the free market and unfettered tourism, fishing and whatever else would benefit the ecology of the Galapagos better than a strategy of conservation, then fine, make that argument. But that is a different argument than complaining that the tourism companies are low quality, or, in a strange argument for "open borders", noting that, "enticed by employment opportunities, unskilled labor from the mainland immigrates ... leading to the contamination and rapid depletion of scarce water resources."
I don't think the article is arguing against these kinds of bonds? Just what they are being used for.
> If you want to argue that the free market and unfettered tourism, fishing and whatever else would benefit the ecology of the Galapagos better than a strategy of conservation, then fine, make that argument.
You can still have strict restrictions and conservation, but eg auction off the limited set of allowed activities to the highest bidder.
Eg if the island's ecosystem can deal with up to n people sustainably, then auction off n slots for eg 10 years at a time. That's what we are doing with cars in Singapore, and it works well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_Entitlement
I also didn't understand the connection here. I mean it seems relatively obvious that subsidized power on the islands is harmful for the purpose of conservation but many of the other points seem like bad policies but irrelevant to the issue of conservation.
Maybe limited immigration in this case is beneficial -- I support it in general but because it unlocks greater productivity while in this case there doesn't seem to be much extra productivity available. But don't turn around and subsidize living there if that's something you want to discourage. Subsidize moving off the islands.
So, it turns out that the road to hell is paved by bad economic choices and not understanding that people always respond to incentives.
This is a fascinating, persuasive short article on bad policy in the Galapagos, but is too short to cover the background about the history and politics around the islands which we would need to understand what’s going on here. This isn’t an ordinary case of shortsighted govt ineptitude. As commenters have pointed out, the national governments decisions don’t appear to make much sense. Let’s not be typical readers who read one short article and assume we understand what’s going on. I mean, the status quo is clearly bad, but without understanding how we got here I have no idea how it can be improved.
Wait, this post is in favor of allowing immigration - but also complains about the negative effects of increased density of unskilled workers.
Interesting. I live in Ecuador, and have for the last 13+ years, but have never been to the Galapagos. I would like to, but the cost is quite high for a retiree on a fixed pension. However, it sounds like the culture on the islands is much like that on the continent, which is not surprising. I will note, however, that it is hard, in any country, to develop (and maintain!) a culture of stewardship, where people now are willing to sacrifice immediate gratification in favor of conserving for the future generations.
I'm confused, who pays for these subsidies and why? People from the mainland? What's their motivation? Even if I'm a corrupt politician why wouldn't I want to distribute spoils closer to home where more voters live?