Earth In The Balance Sheet: Putting A Dollar Value On Conservation
	found on Salon written by Subtle Trouble, edited by Ajax (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Sun 25 Aug 10:49am
		"In an interview with Salon, ecological economist Robert Costanza discusses how he has created a way to place a rational value on the conservation of natural resources," writes Subtle Trouble."In a recent report, Costanza has found that there is almost a 100 to 1 benefit-cost ratio for every dollar spent on conservation. "So far, it seems like the primary critique of undertaking large conservation efforts, like the Kyoto protocol, has been that they will cost too much in terms of lost production. Costanza seems to say it's not that we can't afford conservation, but rather that we can't afford not to conserve. Will this appeal to the bottom-line finally get the attention of the CEO-in-chief and his boardmem--I mean, cabinet members?"

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 12 commentsbest: 3 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  I'd have thought it was kind of obvious...   by cmyr       at Sun 25 Aug 11:05am score of 1 astute     non-renuable resources are just that. I wouldn't have thought it would take a report for people to realize that using up things that don't come back isn't good for business. However, I doubt anything short of an appearence by Jesus Christ himself would shake his conviction that the world is his personal property to do with what he pleases. But hey, maybe just maybe something will change. cross your fingers. i dunnbe needin nunna yall's fuckin' karma.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  The Alternative   by nsupremo       at Sun 25 Aug 2:19pm score of 1     The Alternative to non-conservation is death. This is what people will be dying from in no particular order. The Weather. Starvation. Murder. And this is before the wars start.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Re: The Alternative   by staph in the cath       at Sun 25 Aug 8:34pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     The Alternative to nonconservation is death only if you're not wealthy. When the shit hits the fan you can be sure that there will be hydroponic farms and such that are protected with the best weapons and men money can buy   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   9.  The end is nigh!   by halfwit       at Mon 26 Aug 12:41pm score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 2     30 years ago we were all going to freeze in a great global cooling that would leave everything North of Mexico encased in a 700' block of ice. Now global warming is the threat du jour. I'm not qualified to say whether global warming, or global cooling for that matter, is a real threat or not. But I do think it's reasonable to assume that any great disaster that has the potential to decimate modern civilization will give plenty of advance notice. We will not wake up one day to find that half of us died over night from genetically engineered foods. On the miniscule chance that some dangerous aberration does exist, its affects will be felt gradually. We will not wake up one day to find that the average temperature of the planet has increased ten degrees and half of the planet has been baked dry. If it does happen, it will happen gradually and we will adapt. This planet was much hotter 65 million years in the past, it will do fine with elevated temperatures a second time. The oil wells will not turn bone dry over night. As oil becomes scarce, prices will rise and alternative fuels will become the cheaper method of providing energy and transportation. When that happens, people will turn to biodiesel, fuel cells, battery vehicles, or even horses just because it's cheaper. As clean water becomes less readily available, sewage treatment plants will become more common. As the forests diminish and demand for wood stays the same, it will become profitable to create man-made forests for periodic harvesting. Now I'm not saying to ignore the environment because it will take care of itself. I buy the most gas efficient car I can get with a superb safety rating. I recycle. I'm considering powering my next vehicle with biodiesel ($5.00 a gallon in my part of the US... expensive, but still feasible with a Volkswagen Jetta TDI. I take advantage of the state's new power system to purchase electricity from environmentally friendly/renewable resource plants. I'm doing what I can, and I'm encouraging others to do what they can. I'm not running around like an idiot with grim prophecies of total ecological collapse followed by the destruction of civilization. All that does is give ammunition to those that wish to discredit the environmentalist movement completely. What's your solution? Mass human suicide to releave poor mother earth of her tremendous burden?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   10.  Environmentalism does not = Alarmism   by Philosawyer       at Mon 26 Aug 1:45pm score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 9     But I do think it's reasonable to assume that any great disaster that has the potential to decimate modern civilization will give plenty of advance notice. We are getting advance notice. No the end is not near, but that is a false characterization of the (great majority of) arguments for increased conservation. That is precisely the problem, people naturally do not want to pay costs for something that is not imminent and have a tendency to wait until it really is too late. Just because a problem is glacial in pace, does not it mean it does not exist. Long term problems require long term thinking and planning. I'm not qualified to say whether global warming, or global cooling for that matter, is a real threat or not. Neither am I or President Bush for that matter, that is why we rely on scientific specialists of whom the large majority is saying it is a real threat. The ironic part is that right of saying you don't know if there is a real threat you dismiss the warnings as not constituting a sufficient threat. As you indicated individual action is great, but also has limits. The question is not what else you as an individual should be doing to recycle, it is what the government should be doing in regulating industry and corporations whose financial interests are to export as much of the cost of their doing business as possible. Thus even if the cost ratio is 100 to 1, if you do not bear that 100 cost (or only a tiny fraction of a percent) then the so called invisible hand will be pushing you to pollute absent other forces. During the campaign Bush acknowledged it was a real threat promised to enforce mandatory reductions in CO2 emissions and ridiculed Gore's voluntary plan as a fairy tale. After being declared the winner, he justified his 180 degree switch on the grounds that it would cost money and the nations "standard of living." I assume when he made his promise he already knew (or at least his aids) that it would cost significant amounts of money for industry to comply. So instead of taking the action he promised he ridicules the reports of years of research for political cover. Essentially he has joined Industry in its negative campaign denying the existence of any problem and claim that science connecting the two is speculative in much the same way cigarette manufactures denied the link between smoking and cancer. Opponents point to the concrete costs and belittle the necessarily much less concrete benefits for future generations. When you are talking about real costs now and projected benefits perhaps long after we are dead, it is natural to favor the here and now. So long as people play on that tendency and misdirect the public, nothing will happen. Mass suicide is obviously not the answer, but it along with the "End is Nigh" are good examples of the emotional propaganda used in the marketing campain denying global warming, by puting words into the mouths of their opponents. If you say it often enough, and sound like you mean it, people eventually tend to believe it. Rather we need to consider giving up a small fraction of our living standard to prevent a much greater cost being borne by future generations. The little extra luxery we get from it is not worth the price that will have to be paid. If people want to get serious about the debate they should take the valuation models like the one proposed seriously, rather than just denying that there is any problem at all. The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   12.  Re: The end is nigh!   by Yosarian       at Tue 27 Aug 8:38am score of 1   in reply to comment 9     We will not wake up one day to find that half of us died over night from genetically engineered foods. On the miniscule chance that some dangerous aberration does exist, its affects will be felt gradually. I think you miss the real issue with GM foods -- their effective rate of evolution is greatly increased (the fundamental change is really no different from traditional agricultural crop selection, it just takes much less time.) This means the plants that feed you are changing much more quickly than the fungi or bacteria or virii that might or might not infect them, while at the same time increasing in homogeneity. The danger with this is that if the plants we rely on are changed to become vulnerable to some disease to which they do not have an effective evolved response, or some vital response is inadvertently removed, then the results could be disastrous. Such a disaster could happen within a single growing season and decimate the food supply with little warning. I'm not claiming the sky is falling here, but the people who are wary of genetically modified foods do have a valid and scary worst case scenario. Now, such a disaster would probably only affect one crop in a given year, so we aren't talking the end of the world, but it would pretty much suck if, in the space of a single year, there were no more wheat. An 'o' for an 'i' leaves everyone blond.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   13.  Hey no fair, that's intelligent criticism!   by halfwit       at Tue 27 Aug 2:03pm score of 1   in reply to comment 10     No seriously, you do raise good points. I should not have dismissed global warming just because I have no serious knowledge of the subject. Let me phrase my statements more carefully. I believe pollution should be limited as much as possible because we do not yet possess the knowledge to predict with any certainty the outcome of our current environmental practices. We are playing with fire, we may yet burn ourselves. In that respect, I do support pollution controls. On the other hand, I do not believe environmental scientists and meteorologists that cannot accurately predict the weather from two weeks before hand can predict shifts in the weather patterns across the globe with any certainty. You want me to be careful because I'm not all knowing? Certainly. You want me to be careful because your amazing knowledge sees the future? Pardon me while I cross reference your information with my local tarot card reader. "The End of Nigh" was exactly the scenario described by the person to whom I responded, and I do not think he/she/whatever was making an attempt at humor. Both on plastic, at college, and at work I have encountered people that are quite certain mother nature is somehow going to punish us with completely unexpected mass destruction. This attitude is not a manufactured phantom from conservatives to make mockery of all environmentally friendly people... it is very real. I also want to reintroduce the argument that a large part of pollution fighting could be done at no additional direct costs to the taxpayers or businesses. Charge market rates for private use of government land. A very large portion of pollution in the US takes place on government owned land, because the business doing the pollution will not be held liable for the results. Logging companies get contracts to government forests and chop them down. Industrial companies rent government land cheaply and use it for dumping grounds, and then let their lease expire. Midwestern ranchers rent land according to 100 year old contracts for 3 cents and acre, and let the cows overgraze and eradicate the plants which keep the topsoil from eroding. Once people are buying rights to land at public auction (which raises revenue for the government to use in other environmental practices), they will be paying enough that they can't afford to just abuse the property and then move on to the next. It's been in the news for years that once plentiful fisheries are in danger of becoming totally deserted. Want to fix it? Lease rights to certain sectors and permit the lessee to sue trespassors. When only one business harvests an area, greed will lead it to make sure enough fish remain to restock each year. The problem arises when there are a hundred boats trying to harvest as much as they can in a public area. That's when species are wiped out. Now we come to the part where I wave my hands in the air and say, "We just don't know." I would be willing to forfeit extra income, maybe even 5% of my income, to support increased governmental controls on environmental policies. I wouldn't mind taxes attached to gas use to encourage walking or public transportation. But I would not be willing to see my employer shut down because environmental standards brought their net income below zero. Unfortunately, it's one thing to describe tightening our collective belts to help the environment, and it's something else to be the person who becomes unemployed as a result.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  Touche' - Logging Policy an Excellent Example   by Philosawyer       at Tue 27 Aug 2:38pm score of 1   in reply to comment 13     Hey, we actually agree on most of the issues despite some hyperbole to the contrary. Frankly upon re-review of comment 2 it does put the comment in a different context. "The End of Nigh" was exactly the scenario described by the person to whom I responded, and I do not think he/she/whatever was making an attempt at humor. Both on plastic, at college, and at work I have encountered people that are quite certain mother nature is somehow going to punish us with completely unexpected mass destruction. This attitude is not a manufactured phantom from conservatives to make mockery of all environmentally friendly people... it is very real. I agree with your comments here, unfortunately in the public debate often the loudest voices are also the most extreme. I agree that there are many uncertainties and that we should not make huge sacrifices to change our ways - but this is not going to happen anyway. We do have sufficient information to conclude that we need to change. Frankly if done incrementally I am not sure that the net number of jobs necessarily will decline and may increase. Whenever you change the Status Quo someone is going to get a raw deal, but then again many are getting it with the Status Quo as well. The point you raise about how the US manages its resources is a critical one with no change in sight. In the case of logging, for example today's editorial in the NYT points out that the United States actually looses money when it sells timber rights. However, you can not say exactly how much because the Bush administration stopped releasing that information. In other words, rhetoric to the contrary we are subsidizing the timber industry to take our own resources. The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  environmental accounting   by lopati       at Sun 25 Aug 4:15pm score of 2 informative     grist magazine had a review to a book that dealt with the subject of environmental accounting, "you can't eat GNP" :) what's interesting i think is that increasingly there's a business case for implementing conservation efforts. the economist recently had a crack at it as well: Kenneth Arrow and Larry Goulder, two economists at Stanford University, suggest that the old ideological enemies are converging: "Many economists now accept the idea that natural capital has to be valued, and that we need to account for ecosystem services. Many ecologists now accept that prohibiting everything in the name of protecting nature is not useful, and so are being selective." They think the debate is narrowing to the more empirical question of how far it is possible to substitute natural capital with the man-made sort, and specific forms of natural capital for one another. NEC is doing it!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  Choose your fundamentalism   by wetzel       at Mon 26 Aug 7:08am score of 2 astute     Both environmentalists and industrialists look to cost-benefit analysis as a means of resolving environmental disputes. Environmentalists want the environmental cost to enter market transactions, and industrialists want the cost of "regulatory burden" to be seen as a form of "takings" by government. I'm afraid that neither approach holds out much hope as a basis for political consensus. As the interview makes clear, the complexities involved in valuing an "ecosystem service" or a "statistical human life" could easily become secret rituals of an esoteric bureaucratic priesthood. There is something important to maintaining freedom in protecting the idea that a transaction conforms to justice if the buyer and seller have given knowledgeable consent. Certainly there are all kinds of costs that don't enter in to the transaction. Life itself is being consumed in the flow of time. If we need to tax the economic activity directly or impose regulation to repair ecological damage or improve safety or otherwise make sure we have a reasonable sustainable economy, then that's why we have representative government. Although I can see the importance of cost benefit analysis in helping decide which problems to tackle first, cost benefit analysis itself is based on an overarching 'socialist' myth. Something seems like a social good because the economic benefit outweighs the cost, but often one group shoulders the cost and another group is benefiting. Power gives insiders the ability to socialize costs and privatize benefits.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]