Can nature be priced?

 

© Swimmer off Blue Bay, Island of Mauritius, Republic of Mauritius

Yann Arthus-Bertrand

Can we find an appropriate value for life? Can we express our own lives in economical terms? 

The main critic of cost-benefit analysis (CBA); the traditional economical formula to measure economical wealth, applied to the environmental and social issues, is limited. It is impossible to measure in dollar amount biodiversity or people's lives.

Human evaluation, in a monetary sense, must reflect the best value in terms of aesthetic and spiritual assets since its not because something or someone has no market value that we should let them die. An example is the case of the sick child, the market logic won’t be applicable in looking for his treatment however, we  must save the child. For natural resources such as access to water, pure air and soil, it means for the people with no access to them; death, people do not die of lack of incomes but they die for not accessing vital natural resources. 

Another monetary evaluation; the method of contingent variation (CV), used when pricing a specie or the aesthetic value of ecosystems does not understand that maintaining biological diversity includes improving the health of all ecosystems and that even the most unpopular insects is part of it. The perfect demonstration is the value of pest. For example pest, who wants to save pest? yet, if we exterminate insects, for example, the suppression of 68 herbivore species are link to the distortion of some insects and parasitoids. An ecosystem is a circle of life and eliminating one of its species is jeopardizing the entire ecosystem.

Assessing the economic value of ecosystem services by using dollars does not require that it be bought and sold on global market places, thus, dollar figures can be used as an indicator that has a concrete representation for people. It is easier to mobilize media, people and politics with figures such as; in 1997, the value of the global ecosystem was estimated at $33 trillion, compare with the 2009 world’s GDP was $58,141 trillion. However, placing value on ecological services and natural resources can be good for alerting and saving in the emergency in where we are now.

Another approach, to value nature is the “travel cost method”, to measure recreational attribute of National Parks for example. The method can reflect actual choice by consumers and might help pricing, assessing and saving natural resources used by humans for recreational benefits. Furthermore, biodiversity is disappearing at an unprecedented rate. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife estimates that more than 500 U.S species have gone extinct during the past 200 years, thus, the discussion on the dollar value placed on the global ecosystems and environmental services can and must be debated until an alternative solution could emerged and save the environment from an economically predicted destruction. The value of ecological services and their importance in policy making decision must be a global and urgent preoccupation and until global awareness on the vital threat of destructing the environment is becoming our number one preoccupation.

We all agree that nature must not be seen as a free good any longer, as an example is the fast depletion of the world fish stock. It is not possible to pollute the own source of our subsistence any longer. Another example, our drinking water, which is a limited vital supply where we dump our pesticides and wastes. The cost of pollution is real and can be estimate in dollar value “but it has been individuals and governments to bear the costs associated with those effects ”. These costs must be measured in a monetary sense and being included in the cost-benefit analysis. In economical terms these externalities must be internalized because before having a debate about valuating nature with a classic economical approach, this economical method must be accurate and must take into account the real cost of our pollution. 

The real paradox of the debate is that if more ecological consideration and sustainable scientific solutions can be applied to industries and economical activities, the stage of the biodiversity and important natural resources would in a better shape and our economical situation as well. 

References:

Taking Sides: Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Environmental Issues, 13th Ed.
Publisher: McGraw-Hill. Paperback
World Bank. World Development Indicators. http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators?cid=GPD_WDI
Berg, L.R., & Hager, M.C. (2009). Visualizing environmental science (2nd Ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

8.5 million jobs in the clean-tech sector, what are we waiting for?

Nationwide, the American Solar Energy Society estimates, that 8.5 million jobs in the clean-tech sector, are projected to grow to 40 million by 2030 with the right policies.

Green and sustainable economic projects are beneficial for the economy especially for job creation. Critics say that a clean economy is expensive, yet, the clean sector creates more jobs than our old dirty economy green investment project can advance a full employment agenda because it will create about 17 jobs for every $1 million in outlays, whereas spending the same $1 million in the oil and coal industries creates about 5.5 jobs—i.e., the job-creation effect of green investments is more than 3 times larger than  for fossil fuel production.  

Furthermore, sustainable development in America would create local jobs which would profit the American people and not foreign interests. The oil industry spends only “80 cents of every dollar” in the United States, and the rampant negative effect of globalization on the labor market with 20 to 30 % of all US jobs in the range of 30 million to 40 million are ready to export U.S jobs to cheap labor countries. 

Additionally, local economies reduce poverty and have a positive social impact on the entire society. Sustainable development is not a far utopia but a real and financially solid initiative “we spend about $600 billion a year in the oil, natural gas and coal sectors. Transferring, for example, 25% of those funds into energy efficiency and renewable energy projects can jump start a new sustainable economy. 

Local green jobs would benefit people directly encouraging employment in a sustainable manner “the 1990s to 2000 job growth was driven by the irrational Wall Street dot-com frenzy. By contrast, a green investment program can underwrite a durable full employment economy precisely because it is environmentally sustainable and morally just”. A change in the economy must be encouraged by strong government intervention in economic policies by investing and subsiding sustainable programs, “as a tool for fighting the recession, green projects can inject more money into the economy as quickly as possible. In this way, a $100 billion green investment program would create on the order of 1.7 million new jobs." 

No debate on jobs and the economical situation should take place without debating a new green and sustainable economy. Today, we have a major problem with the job market but we have also the solution with a green collar market. Similarly, we have enormous challenges with environmental degradation and we have a large workforce ready to be employed. The remedy is available for a better environment and a better job market; we have the solution to our problems. For the new economy to emerge the Federal government must invest in the public and private sectors to stimulate new environmental activities. 

The change for a green and sustainable economy in America is not only going to create millions of jobs but also would help people to live a meaningful life. This belief requires a deep change in human behavior as people must purchase and uses fewer items. In addition, renewable energy efficiency and, cap on fossil fuel consumption would help to improve social and environmental justice. It would give us clean air and water and would break our dependence on foreign oil. Environmental sustainability is a concept that must become our economy, philosophy, policy and a way of life. 

References:

Hazell, Stephen. "Green Collar Revolution." Alternatives Journal 35.6 (2009): 8-11. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 
OLLIN, ROBERT. "DOING THE RECOVERY RIGHT. (Cover story)." Nation 288.6 (2009): 13-18. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 
Walsh, Bryan, et al. "Why Green Is the New Red, White And Blue. (Cover story)." Time 171.17 (2008): 45-57. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO.

Business-NGO partnerships; hope for a sustainable future

The WWF - Johnson & Johnson partnership is a vivid example of a successful collaboration; the company profit from a public image and drive eco-conscientious consumers, while WWF accomplishes a step toward sustainable future supporting companies that cares for the health of other.

A new business universe can emerge from a sustainable innovative economy. WWF Climate Savers program is a group of leading corporations worldwide, working with World Wildlife Fund to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  A strong commitment as emerged between Johnson & Johnson Companies and WWF to reduce green gas emissions and let to the WWF’s Climate Savers initiative with 15 other major international companies committed to reduce their total emissions of carbon dioxide by over 10 million tons per year (WWF, 2010). 

Climate Savers companies were among the first to recognize that climate change posed both risks and opportunities to businesses and leading corporations to establish ambitious targets to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions voluntarily. By increasing efficiency, Climate Savers companies are saving hundreds of millions of dollars, proving that protecting the environment is also a sound business practice. This collaboration is a plus for Johnson & Johnson’s image; the company has been publicizing its CO2 reduction goal around the world.  J&J covers buildings, “equipment, management practices, maintenance practices, and operational practices developed a comprehensive set of energy efficiency best practices. ”

In addition,  J&J is participating in the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification program for existing buildings with its world headquarters building serving as a pilot project.  J&J invested in on-site renewable generation with the installation of 4 solar systems; in California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Brazil. In his Texas operations has 15% wind power (10.6 million kWh/year).  

Business-NGO partnerships may represent an alternative to partnerships between multi-billion dollar global corporations and local community groups. NGOs increasingly need to work with businesses in order to realize their organizational goals in a globalized economy especially when innovative projects, fair trade practices and micro-credit are representing an incredible potential for the developing world. 

However, NGOs must keep independent guidance in order to respond appropriately to concerns about the social and environmental impacts of their products and production processes. 

References:

WWF. Companies commit to saving climate. http://www.jnj.com/connect/caring/environmentprotection/.  

Climate Savers: Elements of Fulfillment Strategies.  Johnson & Johnson. http://www.worldwildlife.or/climate/featuredprojects.html.