Row over claim that wealth saves animals

Eat less food. Use less energy. Stop mining resources.

These should be among the human race’s top priorities, according to conservationists. The authors of a new report, called the Living Planet Index, say global populations of vertebrate animals fell by 58% between 1970 and 2012 — and governments must curb our demands to prevent a more shocking decline.

The capitalist global economic system, they argue, has reduced poverty but caused ‘culturally entrenched aspirations for material consumption’ which are ‘beyond what can be supported by the carrying capacity of a single Earth’. They call for ‘a new economic system that enhances and supports the natural capital upon which it relies’.

But are they right? Since it emerged, some have pointed out a correlation between affluent countries and booming wildlife. The populations of many large mammals in Europe and North America are rising quickly. Even struggling species are suffering because their predators are breeding.

In Africa, by contrast, elephants, rhinos, giraffes, lions and many antelopes are dying quickly. And whereas forests in rich countries are expanding, creating more habitats, poor countries are chopping theirs down.

Free-market advocates say these statistics support a controversial alternative thesis: making people rich is the best route to conservation.

‘The rich, not the poor, are actively committed to conserving wildlife, forest, seashore and ocean,’ says Peter Huber, a senior fellow with a conservative American think tank called the Manhattan Institute. His argument is that poor people must compete for scarce resources in order to survive. In contrast, the rich can afford to care.

So whereas stone age hunter-gatherers destroyed large mammals rapidly, more advanced humans have been able to protect them. And just as the rich ended slavery and the legal subjugation of women in the civilised world, Huber argues, they are ending environmental destruction.

A bit rich?

Excellent point, say some. When people get richer, they can move to cities and enjoy improved living standards; farm sustainably, with improved yields; and secure fuel and minerals without damaging forests. A poor family with little to eat is unlikely to care about the fate of the grey-necked rockfowl in Cameroon. With wealth comes opportunity, which humans use for good.

Wishful thinking, respond the conservationists. That argument is a licence for selfishness, based on questionable evidence. Our interconnected planet has limited resources, and many of the problems in poor countries result from unscrupulous behaviour in rich ones. We can only save animals if we eat less meat, take more care of habitats and fight climate change.