Obviously, in an ideal world, the clear answer would be yes. However, is it appropriate to actively ignore the social aspect of conservation and focus exclusively on the environmental side of conservation if it means that a piece of legislation has a greater probability of being passed and implemented, rather than designing idealistic policies that are unlikely to ever be passed? To what degree should conservation policy be compromised, and which stakeholders should be included and which ones should not be included?

For example, India is a country that emits an immense amount of absolute Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Comparatively, the United Kingdom and Canada emit far lower amounts of GHGs. However, given the fact that the UK and Canada has already gone through their environmentally detrimental industrial phases, is it unfair that a poorer nation like India must have its economic growth stifled by emission regulations while richer countries enjoy greater economic prosperity? On a related note, should more economically developed countries (MEDCs) be expected to provide financial assistance/compensation to less economically developed countries (LEDCs) as a part of global environmental and climate agreements?