Calling out the policies of countries, the products and particularly shaming the products and companies that sell and market such products is a wise approach.
The USA? We are great at one export: Weapons. Pretty shameful.
Hopefully the nations can can learn from the past rather than using as an excuse to make the same mistakes, that's not a conservation conundrum, that's bull manure.
Small minded short term gains for short term profits. Islands are particularly at risk. And then Agriculture. Urban and drinking water use will pay top dollar for water, so this harms agriculture the most as this process moves towards the climax condition.
Ironically, Agrobusiness is hardly fighting for the water resources it will need to survive. They are trying some things, but it will not be enough to stem the tide of the Urban people.
I fully agree, women's right's in developing nations is the key to all of this. => population control=> educated population=> less consumption=> 7 Billion "Miracles" is enough.
The sea is yet another sad chapter. Thing is, the natural part will recover over time, we... will not.
Okay, back to peat:
Role of wetland plants in the diurnal control of CH4 and CO2 fluxes in peat
http://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2115/43101/1/OG41-5_491-497.pdf
Biomass and nutrient stock of submersed and floating macrophytes in shallow lakes formed by rewetting of degraded fens - Springer
Many of these papers show how aquatic plants enhance sequestering of N and P and how they lock up CO2 for long time frames.
Same is true for papers on the tropical peat systems like the Everglades. But...you need to the area to do it to account for the input loading.
If the land is used wisely, you can rotate the land back and forth with agriculture. Providing them with excellent rich soils and also a long term fallow catchment for flood control and wastewater as well as wildlife habitat.
This was suggested by myself to the lead folks in the Everglades. They liked the idea. By rotating large areas with farming and with sequestering, they could easily accomplish management goals.
Will the farmers agree to do such land swaps? Generally they are against it, but the other options are worse and harder to swallow. So..they might come around.
I think this same approach can work with riparian wetlands along the rivers in the USA. The 1993 flood highlighted the problem. We could reduce the pollution by 40-60% with little land and increase property values and reduce insurance cost on a massive scale.
Cost a lot? Sure, but..........the cost of the flood control network, the cost of flood damages, insurance and payouts for that, lost of life, over time far exceed the cost of providing larger buffer zones for the flood plains.
While we are losing a lot of habitat, we also have the same opportunity to gain and restore the habitats that were destroyed or altered.
In CA, USA, we have lost 96% of the wetlands. So while we only have 4% left, we have a lot of wetlands that can be modified and restored.
Redneck duck hunters, small farmers, urbanites, conservationist, strange bed fellows all come together for many of these issues.
Times are changing for the better as the world gets smaller.
Attitudes can change very fast, even if the world cannot.