Mike you’re right that it likely is lower than E O Wilson predicted, however rather than asking for species’ names, you might ask if the error is significant.

A New Scientist article (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028136.300-calculations-may-have-overestimated-extinction-rates.html) describing the study that reported the error ended with those same skeptical scientists saying the difference is essentially negligible. :

“The pair’s analysis explains why. Using the reverse SAR method, biologists have assumed that a species is lost with the destruction of an area of habitat equivalent to the area needed to first encounter it. But in reality, the species is lost only with destruction of the habitat area that includes every individual of the species, which is always larger. Consequently, the SAR method loses species too fast.

The duo developed a model relating extinction rate instead to the entire area occupied by a species. Using the forest data, and extensive data sets on birds, they found that the SAR gave extinction rates that were between 83 and 165 per cent higher than those their method produced (Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature09985).

Similarly detailed information does not exist for most of the world’s species, making it difficult to apply Hubbell and He’s model more generally. “As a rule of thumb, we might correct traditional extinction rates by dividing them by factor of 2 to 2.5,” says He.

Jean-Christophe Vié, deputy head of species survival at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, agrees better baseline data on species is badly needed. He says IUCN doesn’t use the SAR method. But, he points out, “a twofold miscalculation doesn’t make much difference to an extinction rate now 100 to 1000 times the natural background”.

Hubbell and He agree: “Mass extinction might already be upon us.”

Maybe he could lead by example and help to further the cause!.

The Ecocide Campaign is one that I am going to take to my local Community. Sharing the “lovelettertotheearth.com” with our School and Child Care Center will be our first step.
It is interesting to note that the “Awareness” of Saving Planet Earth from destruction, are the “Earth Laws” that are going to protect its lifeforce.

Why hasn’t this been done in the 1950′s 60′s ??
It is time*

“Transition” another type of “awareness” that needs to be created with economics & the way we live in community will need to follow the “Earth Laws”.

Everyday I look to the children for the answers* they are our shining light*
I give you my all in spreading the Awareness of the “Earth Laws”.

In peace, love, light & nature

Melinda Niargo Gluyas
Child Care Educator/Artist

Dear Avaaz

I’m a long-term supporter and donor of yours. This is the first time I’ve contacted you to suggest a campaign. I believe it is the most important idea to have emerged so far for the preservation of future life on earth, and that’s quite a grand claim! You may know of it; it is Polly Higgins’ effort to define ecocide in law and make it a crime.

Every time I think about the intractable problems of climate warming, destruction of species and habitat, environmental degradation, poverty and famine, genetic modification, fracking, tar sands and all the rest of the horror, it all comes down to one thing: profit.

All these things are being carried out in the name of the profit motive because it is legal to do so, indeed it is the board’s duty to its shareholders under current financial regulations to do whatever it can to make profits. Business law is based on property rights, permitting the owner of a property to do whatever he likes with it, even if it involves destroying ecosystems, as long as he does not affect the legal rights of other people.

Though, as we know, big business has the financial muscle to override these rights, as happened for example with the Ogoni protesters in the Niger Delta and the execution of Ken Saro Wiwa by the Nigerian government at the instigation of Shell Oil.

Polly Higgins’ idea is to make business responsible for its actions not under property law but under trust law. This would make business responsible not only to their shareholders but also to future inhabitants of the Earth.

If it can be proved that a business activity is detrimental to the future inhabitants of the Earth, under trust law the business could be prosecuted. This is a stronger law than property law, against which environmental protection legislation has proved weak.

To make ecocide a crime under international law would be a very powerful regulation on business. It would act against the heedless rush towards environmental collapse which business is currently engaged in, not only because property law allows it to do so but because current financial regulations require it.

I believe that most people engaged in these destructive activities feel guilty, but justify themselves on the grounds of the profit imperative. ‘We’ve got to make a profit otherwise we’re out of business.’ As George Osborne the British Chancellor has famously, and stupidly, said: ‘We won’t save the planet by putting Britain out of business.’ No, but as a small child will easily understand, if you haven’t got a planet you haven’t got a business.

Polly Higgins’ initiative makes the planet more important than business, and that means – if it becomes law – that there will at least be a planet for us to do business on. If not, there won’t be. The super-rich will have built themselves survival bubbles but for the rest of us it will be curtains.

Dirk Campbell
United Kingdom
dc@dirkcampbell.co.uk

Sent via webform at avaaz.org/en/contact