Are Eco-Colonialists Justified?

If we can protect all of the world’s ecologically important places by purchasing the land they're on, will it help save environments that are being ruined by developers, industry and neglect? There is a fascinating article this week on the proliferation of websites and charities that are taking this conservation approach to the extreme, buying up land at an alarming rate and turning the world’s rainforests into private lands.

Some of the groups that specialize this type of environmental charity include Cool Earth, World Land Trust, and the Nature Conservancy, which has been promoting the idea of land buys since1951. These conservation charities are mostly welcomed in rich countries, such as Britain and the US, because they maintain or increase the market price of land. But in poor countries they are often met with fear and hostility.

The Cool Earth charity is currently asking people to buy up Amazon rainforest land for $137 an acre, and in one year it claims to have bought 32,000 acres. The Brazilian government, however, is not so keen on the plan, calling the group’s founder, John Eliasch, an "eco-colonialist."

President Lula da Silva said that "Brazil was not for sale", and that "well-intentioned outsiders…are ignorant of the reality of the Amazon rainforest and should stick to trying to influence their own governments".

It’s a good point, and one that reminds me of the environmental movement in the early 1990s. At the time, national groups like Sierra Club and Nature Conservancy were all jockeying for position, and arguing that their approach was the best for saving planet earth. There was so much in-fighting that the environmental movement lost some steam and credibility, and the media was often at a loss to explain the issues in an objective way.

So if environmental groups stick to issues that are closer to home -- you know, "Think Globally, Act Locally" -- will the movement on the whole be more successful?