(You can listen to it on the BBC's website here. Debate starts at 11:00 minutes.)
Two knowledgeable experts were on discussing the issue; one a writer and environmental consultant, the other an environmental economist. Both had impassioned and differing views of what would be required to address the state of our biosphere - currently in poor shape with levels of extinction so high many scientists agree that we are in a mass extinction event (known as the Holocene extinction event or Sixth Extinction).
So, should we put a price on it? Here are the general arguments:
#FOR
The arguments for putting a price on nature stems from the fact that so much of our world is seen in financial terms by governments and economists and the only way to make visible what we are losing is to express it financially. That way taxes, subsidies, and laws can be built around it in order to protect it. It is also the case that many people are not well-informed or indeed prepared to vote for more radical alternatives. In a democracy these are not vote-winners so we need to work with what we can.
#AGAINST
The counter to this was that pricing nature is a near impossible thing to do and would depend greatly on who was doing it and how? Ecosystem relationships are a complex web of inter-connectivity providing materials, food, medicine, tourism, and ecosystem services such as water purification that make it hard to pin down and value. Putting a price on natural does not address the growth problem which has led much of the environmental loss that has occurred and could simply act as a way to 'market' nature such as what has happened with climate change and the carbon market where credits are traded and offset; making profit for speculators and polluters but simply not addressing the problem. As such a more radical rethink of how our society's success and wealth is calculated is needed and that chasing GDP now was bringing us little in terms of better lives and happiness and furthermore it was unable to value such things.
It was an interesting debate and one I'd like to add a couple of thoughts to:
Seeing as how so much of our economy and lives is depended on the natural world (its products and services) it is surprising to me how little it is thought of. Here's a vague list of ecosystem services the natural world provides us for example:
- Food
- Medicine
- Raw Materials
- Fuel
- Tourism
- Recreation
- New Technologies
- Carbon cycle and storage
- Nitrogen cycle
- Soil formation
- Water cycle
- Water and air purification
- Flood regulation
- Oxygen production
- Pollination of crops
- Decomposition of waste
- Pest and disease control
- Genetic diversity
- Energy production
- Seed dispersal
Valuing this and more would certainly be a tall order and how would you take into account potential unknown discoveries or value a failing keystone species? What about a capacity to recover? Even a single food source can rely on a complex ecosystem arrangement. Take the Brazil nut for example:
Brazil nut trees rely on pristine forests; attempts have been made to grow the trees in orchards but with little succes. Here in the rainforest the tree's bee pollinators live, which in turn depend on orchids that grow in the forest canopy. Male bees use the orchid's pollen as attracting scents to entice female bees, meaning many of the orchids have species-specific pollinators. Once the nuts of the Brazil nut tree are ripe they fall to the forest floor. Here the agouti, a large rodent, has the teeth strong enough to break through the thick hard shell. For food storage it buries some of the seeds, some of which are inevitably forgotten thus playing an important role in the germination of Brazil nut trees.
In regards to working within the current system it seems that often this generates slow or little progress - global warming springs to mind, as does stewardship schemes. These were introduced in the UK to persuade farmers to take up more wildlife-friendly measures by negating their financial costs. These came into effect due to large population declines observed in farmland-associated species, particularly birds, and were brought in to reverse the declines. There has been around a 60% take up of the basic form of stewardship (ELS) but the declines haven't been reversed or even stopped but only slowed.
It's because of this that I do think big changes are necessary along with a radical rethink to improve the situation. But at the same time I can appreciate that by valuing nature in monetary terms is perhaps the most realistic option in what is a stubborn status quo. History has shown us that it has been mainly through large upsets and catastrophes that we have adjusted the course of our progress.
My foundation argument when it comes down to it falls back to 'If we don't do anything, ultimately, it will be us who will eventually suffer the consequences of broken ecosystems'. Through over-consumption, pollution, habitat removal, climate change, et cetera we have lead to the extinction and the future extinctions of many species. By doing this to such inter-connected ecosystems on which we rely we are effectively sawing the branch we are sitting on.
I don't like to use this argument though. I'd rather argue the more romantic notion that something can exist for its own sake rather than based on how useful it is to us. But sadly I don't think that will work. Maybe I'm wrong though. I hope I am.
No comments:
Post a Comment