Would sexier oceans get a bigger budget?
In 2006, the U.S. alone spent an estimated $13.3 billion on the sex and porn industry. Worldwide, it was estimated sex industry sales were $97 billion.
Meanwhile, as of 1999, the entire world was spending only about $6 billion on nature reserves globally. The Sea Around Us Project will soon release a study showing the global cost of marine protected areas (MPAs) to be an estimated $1 billion.
What's a marine protected area got to do? Do we need to make the oceans sexier to get money for them? Maybe some softcoral porn will do the trick.
Before:
After:
I hate to call into question the national or global fiscal priorities, but the global ecosystem provides us with an estimated $33 trillion worth of value annually and we're throwing $6 billion at it in return (and $1 billion to MPAs)?
Environment
Comments
it looks like a sexy, sexy burn victim
Posted by: user | November 26, 2007 7:20 AM
There is an unclosed 'b' or 'strong' tag in this entry. It is making everything below it bold face.
Posted by: Milan | November 26, 2007 7:22 AM
Unclosed bold is the new sexy.
Posted by: Ron Jeremy | November 26, 2007 7:27 AM
Bold is sexy. Timid is not.
I'll never think of coral....the same way again...
Posted by: Coturnix | November 26, 2007 9:19 AM
I am in complete agreement. How oh how do we make MPAs more seductive?? Even jellyfish are sexier than MPAs. Perhaps we need a Pamela equivalent for the marine conservation movement. Jennifer- it's a toss up between you and my screen saver..
Posted by: scs | November 26, 2007 11:04 AM
I propose an ocean tax on sex and porn. We could turn our vices into virtues. That could even be a campaign slogan. Now we just need a candidate willing to come out in support of environmentally conscious masturbation.
Posted by: Kevin | November 26, 2007 5:41 PM
I am surprised that no commenter mentioned the hard coral yet...
Posted by: Coturnix | November 26, 2007 6:20 PM
Wow...yeah, just wow.
Posted by: ARU | November 26, 2007 7:59 PM
I made an off the wall comment earlier, but I do recognize how misplaced our priorities are. Your financial comparisons are a sad commentary on the state of the world. Unfortunately, I don't see that changing anytime in the immediate future.
Posted by: Kevin | November 26, 2007 10:33 PM
And note: just because we are having fun in the comments does not mean we did not understand the real message of your post.
Posted by: Coturnix | November 27, 2007 9:28 AM
I think the comparison between expenditures on sex vs. marine protection is quite a stretch, myself. But Pamela Lee Coral is a nice reminder of our whack priorities...
Posted by: Jennifer L. Jacquet | November 27, 2007 12:07 PM