Project: Paying the Bill for Invasive Species
Since the beginning of time species have moved and migrated over the planet. But in today's global village people move flora and fauna at unprecedented rates across the planet. Sometimes this is done for a specific purpose. Other times the spread is accidental.
Species migration can have disastrous consequences for their new host ecosystems. As well as huge financial costs as governments try to eradicate them.
I'm interested in the concept of harm. Because that concept has a dominating role in the legal and political debate over invasive species.
Mark Sagoff, in Native vs. Non-Native
A recent study from the Institute of European Environmental Policy, noted that every year Europe spends 20 billion euros for damages and control costs of invasive species. No small amount of money. Yet some argue that we should let invasive species be. That we should not spend all this money to wipe them out. They say the natural environment can manage without our interference.
In an interview with our US-based VJ Pierre Kattar, Prof. Mark Sagoff from the University of Maryland questions the necessity to eradicate invasive species. Adam Westbrook points his lens at Britain’s highly invasive species: Japanese Knotweed. Greg Brosnan hunts for genetically modified corn in the birthplace of corn: Mexico's Oaxaca. And our guest columnist Piero Genovesi, chair of the ISSG, shares his view on the harmfulness of invasive species.
Stephanie McMillan's cartoon touches upon the threat invasive species pose on wildlife in Florida. Luke Watson and Rainer Ehrt offer a perspective on 21st century laboratory-inspired agriculture. While Steve Greenberg dives under water to highlight his view on invasive species.
Do you have a story to add to the debate? Do you have a different perspective? Help us show there is more than one truth.Back to the project