The Premise Of Half Earth And How Well Conservation Is Working

                                  Devoting half of the earth to nature, as a prestigious scientist has proposed, is one of those great ideas that makes many people feel good. If a layperson proposed such an idea, no credibility would be attached. Ideas that are not achievable get attention when a person has the right credentials and pedigree, but attention is far different than action.
                                  The earth is in serious trouble. Biodiversity is crashing. The environment is being degraded and poisoned. Everyday more habitat is being lost by the crush of human expansion and activity. If half of the earth needs to be set aside to save biodiversity and humanity itself, how is such a thing possible when daily more and more is being lost? (To say nothing of nuclear proliferation, war, terror, destructive and murderous religious fanaticism, and more).
                                    In answer to the question how well is conservation working, there is little evidence to suggest very well. Even the scientist behind the half earth concept acknowledges conservation falls far short of what is necessary to save the natural world. What evidence is there that the conservation movement has slowed the extinction rate, other than a few studies from a number of years ago to support this premise? If there was greater accountability and effectiveness, far many more species would have been saved.
                                     It is very possible that conservation failures, conservation ineffectiveness, the failure to hold conservation and wildlife organizations accountable, have lulled people into a false sense of complacency, and prevented far more effective interventions and programs from ever taking hold. Perhaps the conservation movement is held to such a ridiculously low standard that even a minimal amount of success appears as an accomplishment.
                                     A rare rainforest and  highly endangered wildlife were destroyed, (just one example among many) under the very eyes of scientists, naturalists, conservation organizations, that were great with meetings, motions, scientific papers, conferences, lofty words. Unless, and until, conservation, wildlife, and animal welfare organizations are held accountable, until there is critical scrutiny as to their actual effectiveness, conservation failures will far exceed conservation successes.
                                      Overpopulation is not slowing in parts of the world with the greatest biodiversity. Is there one single conservation organization willing to take on this politically charged issue?  Habitat will continue to be lost under the sheer weight of humanity.
                                       If conservation and wildlife organizations continue to be self serving entities, how is it remotely possible for half earth to come anywhere close to being achieved?