Comprehensive coverage

MK Meir Shetrit: "You can live without a cottage but not without biological diversity"

According to Shtrit, the chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, "there are many beautiful ideas whose implementation is far from reality. There is logic and a role for every animal that exists in nature, even though we don't always understand it" 

Nahal Nadar in Carmel Park. Orrling photo - from Wikipedia
Nahal Nadar in Carmel Park. Orrling photo - from Wikipedia

As part of Environment Day, the Science and Technology Committee, chaired by MK Meir Shatrit (Kadima), discussed the National Biodiversity Plan in Israel. Representatives from the Ministry of Environmental Protection, the Nature and Parks Authority, the National Fund for Israel, the Society for the Protection of Nature and scientists from the various universities participated in the discussion.

The chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, MK Meir Shetrit, opened the discussion by reviewing the issue of biodiversity in the State of Israel and expressed dissatisfaction with the government's handling of the issue: "I saw the plan of the Ministry of Environmental Protection and we are very far from an optimal situation. There are many beautiful ideas whose implementation is far from reality. There is logic and a role for every animal that exists in nature even though we don't always understand it. This is worse than the cottage crisis. You can live without a cottage, but without biodiversity there is no life."

Prof. Uriel Sferial, the adviser to the Ministry of Environmental Protection on biodiversity, said that: "Ecosystems provide life-supporting services until the day when red lines are crossed. In the end, human development that comes at the expense of biodiversity will backfire. We don't yet know where the red line is, but we hope we will identify it in time."

Dr. Uri Shains, Head of the Department of Biology and Environment at Oranim College, said that: "Loss of open spaces is one of the main causes of damage to biological diversity. There is a serious problem with Israel's land manager who makes fateful decisions with zero representation supporting the issue of biodiversity. A policy must be enacted that states that fertile agricultural areas that are abandoned will return to nature and will not become warehouses."

Alon Rothschild, coordinator of biodiversity at the Society for the Protection of Nature, said that: "If we don't understand that biodiversity is the infrastructure for all our lives, we are in trouble." In England and the USA there are already laws that require government officials to take biodiversity into account before enacting laws. In the world, the services we receive from nature are already priced economically, and then we look at decision-making in a different way."

Israel Tauber, Director of the Department of Forest Management and Geographical Information at the National Fund for Israel, said: "Something is happening in the world. From floods, droughts to huge fires. The question is whether we are ready for this challenge and know how to identify the red lines before we cross them. It is our duty and that of the decision-makers to demand answers, to receive data and integrate it into a decision-making system."

In a report on biodiversity compiled by the Knesset's Research and Information Center, it is stated that: "The legal infrastructure in Israel for incorporating considerations of biological diversity into decision-making is partial and insufficient, and is limited to some projects within the framework of the Planning and Construction Law only. Israel, as a player in the global market, has to meet expectations to improve the legal infrastructure - by virtue of joining the OECD and signing various international treaties"

After hearing all the speakers, the chairman of the committee, MK Shatrit, concluded that "if we harm nature, it will come back to us like a boomerang", and called on the government and the Minister of Environmental Protection to fund a national monitoring system to preserve biodiversity, to add standards for scientists in the academy and to take a long-term view Long who also sees biodiversity as of national importance. MK Shetrit even announced that he would consider initiating a bill that would oblige legislative bodies to review biodiversity. He also recommended institutionalizing the activity of the MRG (a multifactorial ecological system) and budgeting it on an ongoing basis, and also called on the MLA and LT to prioritize the absorption of scientists from the fields of taxonomy and ecology.

Link to the image on Wikipedia

9 תגובות

  1. DNA polymerase:
    I agree with your words about Meir Shetrit - that is - with the claim that it has nothing to do with creationism.
    This does not mean that it belongs to something better - maybe he just found these statements as something that would serve him electorally, but I definitely think that he should be given the benefit of the doubt because it could (and not with low probability) be that his reasons are completely pure.
    With the continuation of your words, I find it difficult to agree because they include an internal contradiction.
    You say "a person must not harm nature simply because nature does not belong to him" but I ask you to think again and tell me what you mean by the word "harm"? Which changes in nature are allowed and which are not? Is the use of antibiotics to kill bacteria okay? After all, there are species of bacteria that we mean on purpose - do you think we have committed a crime?
    I assume that your answer in the matter will be that we have not committed a crime and this is because inadvertently - when you say "hurt" - you mean an action that creates a change that hurts us, while changes that benefit us are completely legal in your eyes.

  2. A. Ben Ner:
    Nothing to do with creationism. The view presented by Meir Shetrit regarding biological diversity (which is quite acceptable to me) is that a person has no right to cause the extinction of species in nature and therefore must avoid harming them. This view is more acceptable to me than the view (the second one you present) according to which the preservation of biological diversity originates from the preservation of human existence. Man must not harm nature simply because nature does not belong to him. Every species in nature has a right to exist. The eternal consideration here is indeed necessary, but it should be secondary in importance.

  3. In my opinion, Meir Shetrit's words can be understood on two levels.
    One, the declarative level - Meir Shetrit is a fighter for the quality of the environment and mobilizes to protect it
    on biodiversity for the sake of the environment.
    The second, the Freudian level - the wording in which Mr. Shetrit chose to express the idea of ​​maintaining
    Biodiversity is a classic creationist formulation, and may have revealed the
    The religious layer in Meir Shetrit's worldview is as follows:
    "...there is a logic and a role for every animal that exists in nature even though it doesn't
    We always understand him..."
    Phrasing such as: "The preservation of biological and botanical diversity (!) is essential for preserving the quality of the environment
    and the health of humanity" seemed to me to be more accurate and better.

  4. Liotam
    By now you know that you, yes you too are part of biological diversity,
    As in any system, as in any chain, when one link is damaged
    There is immediate damage to the entire system/chain,
    Biodiversity is part of the environment in which we live,
    an environment that satisfies our needs,
    Damaged biodiversity means damaged environment,
    Therefore, in a damaged environment, even "yotham" will have an existential problem.

  5. Jotham:
    We need to properly understand the problem of biodiversity where, unlike many other areas of our lives (but in common with many of the areas of ecology) - there are catastrophic breakdowns that we can easily spoil without ever being able to fix them.
    Education is important - no doubt - and I also talk about it quite a bit, but biodiversity is also important.
    Luckily we can do several things at the same time.

  6. Can you live without a cottage huh? It is also possible to live without a house, without clothes, without a refrigerator... it is not very convenient, but it is possible

    I don't think biodiversity is at the top of the list of things to invest tax money in at this time, it is of course positive in general but there are many more important things. Let's invest our money in education instead, after we have a more relaxed society in Israel, the state of nature will also improve

  7. For biometrics, when there is an article about the biometric database and MK Shatrit is quoted in it, your response will be relevant. Here we are dealing with a non-controversial issue (except for those who oppose investment in environmental issues for ideological reasons).

  8. Meir Shetrit is responsible for the biometric database disaster, I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth. The next civil insurrection will not be about the cottage. Meir Sheetrit will be the first target of the biometric database hackers.

  9. The impotence stems from a severe lack of a direct link between science and government. Science in Israel is great and some politicians even have good intentions to do the right things. The problem is that science and government do not speak the same language and this hurts both the environment and economic growth.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.

Skip to content