Environmental news: good, bad, out there

Good: Palau has a shark preserve. Now the trick is to keep the poachers out of there. Shark-finning is close the most inhumane act of hunting/fishing on the planet. I'll have to think for awhile to see if I can come up with something worse. It's not just a cruel act creating an awful way to die for the shark; it's bad for the planet. And face it, if shark fin hadn't been touted as an exotic delicacy (like caviar, another plundering act of fishing barbarism!) would anyone eat it? Don't get me started.

Bad: Nearly 70% of Argentine forests lost in 100 years (freely translating from the article headline)

But WHY? you ask: "Faced with the breadth of the devastation in the province, the Supreme Court ordered a halt to deforestation in natural forests, following an appeal by indigenous populations. The move ran counter to the provincial authorities, which had authorized forest exploitation." When it's between environmental heritage and preservation on one hand, and jobs/growing economy on the other, the local government and the business community will ALWAYS choose jobs and a growing economy.

Out there: Jordan is going to build a two-billion dollar pipeline to pump water from the Red Sea into the Dead Sea and also to desalinate the Red Sea water. The thing is: this is actually good for the bizarre environmental heritage of the Dead Sea, because it's headed toward disappearance as it stands. My question is: what's the power source for the desalination plant. My hoped-for answer: solar power would seem to be a real good candidate.

My question: is the image on the right in the article a projection for the future?

The era of true enviro-engineering officially starts here. (They could have gone with the Hungry as the Sea solution: tow a tabular berg to Saudi Arabia from Antarctica and use all the ice for fresh water. I'd like to know the economics of the gas needed for the tow vs. the cost of desalinization.)