[babopeddy]

This UK paper asks:

Despite pledges by the G20 countries to stem the loss of biodiversity, their achievements have amounted to little. In many cases, we know the actions that need to be implemented to save wild species or areas - what is lacking is the political commitment to act.

With your help, the Biodiversity 100 campaign, hosted by the Guardian, is compiling a list of actions we want governments to take. They must:

• Make a major contribution to the safeguard of a particular endangered species or area;
• Be politically costly to implement or strongly opposed by some interest;
• Be strongly and widely supported by scientific evidence.

Which action can you suggest? Tell us using our simple form below, and we'll publish your submissions online.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...rsity-100-form I suggested that they work to stem human biodiversity loss, and for non-human species, that we use conservationist (see username) principles of leaving lots of land open for natural use only.

It'd be "interesting" if a number of people made comments supporting the idea of human biodiversity preservation. You don't have to register at all. Just enter your answers and if you want, an email address. There's no verification.