A Price or a Value on Nature?

When we consider the interconnected “Planetary Boundaries” that we may cross we see that they are all directly or indirectly connected to humanity's interaction with the natural world. To ensure our chances of a sustainable future it is essential that we consider our impact on the land, the oceans and biodiversity in general. It has been argued that we should put a price on nature to ensure sustainability.

In this section I will consider whether or not we can put a price on nature, what this may mean or not mean, and if so should we do so? What are the potential benefits or pitfalls in attempting this?

In 2011 Pavan Sukhdev gave an excellent Ted talk on “Put a value on Nature!” in which he discusses the “economic invisibility of nature”. He indeed makes a very good case for considering economic decisions with an increased awareness of the benefits of nature. It is well worth listening to, but why should I also consider potential pitfalls?

To ensure that humanity follows a path that is sustainable, a clear statement of goals such as the United Nations sustainable development goals (UN SDGs) is essential. I made the point in section 3 of this series that they should be based on core values and it may be worthwhile to read that section. Not everyone will share these goals and indeed some may focus on personal wealth and power. The path that we take is uncertain but we may not even agree on the need to aim for a sustainable world or the kind of world that is valued. In a previous section I discussed those that hold political views that will oppose any regulation that will distract from their agenda; namely to “move towards a more extreme political framework that allows businesses to operate without the need to consider the environmental or social consequences”. With any proposed policies that are envisaged, we must be wary of the steps that may be taken by others to undermine effective policy.

There is another issue that needs resolved about these goals:

Can we add up all the things we value that I discussed in section 3 of this series to arrive at a figure for comparison purposes?

If these goals are based on values we cannot trade one of them off for another.

These goals are not commensurable. It is like “comparing apples and oranges”.  When considering the goals regarding nature, it is wise to be aware of all the “ecosystem services” that nature provides and that some of these “services” within an ecosystem can be given a price in pounds or dollars. What we must not do is say that the value of say a forest and all its intrinsic values is equal to x$.  When or if we do, we risk the degradation of the forest on potentially flawed market values by those who do not share our values.

Pavan Sukhdev (link above) considers economic benefits of nature that we may have overlooked but that we are gradually becoming aware of.  This will certainly improve the short term economic decisions we may make as we include the benefits of regulatory functions that say a forest may have in issues such as flood control or distant rainfall that the forest influences.  This price we put on nature is one that can be measured in dollars but it is not the same as a value when considering our SDGs.  This price can be used as an argument to preserve woodlands, mangroves etc by pointing out, to those who do not even value nature, that degradation of the reserve is not in the best financial interest.

However by confusing value with prices, or by compromising values through appeasement, we risk losing valuable reserves through a short term, possibly flawed economic argument that would have otherwise not have been contemplated.  The pitfalls of trusting purely market solutions are described here in” The Pricing of Everything” by George Monbiot in a Guardian article.

When we look for success stories on environmental issues we can see that a combination of methods using market values is required while being aware of the limitations of market values. This occurs when we have clear goals based on values. The Union of Concerned Scientists discusses the complexities of protecting forests from around the world in “Deforestation Success Stories”. Here we see some albeit limited examples whereby deforestation is stopped and compensation for the loss of economic gain to individuals is compensated through some direct finance scheme. Being aware that success is only limited and that there is much more to do, the Union of Concerned Scientists give recommendations to policy makers. Some examples from page 56 are given here:

• “Establish moratoria. Voluntary or legislated moratoria on deforestation per se, on permits to clear forestland, or on the purchase of goods produced in deforested areas can help address the drivers of deforestation. Moratoria, even if temporary, can become parts of corporate responsibility policy that transform whole sectors and move provisional moratoria toward permanence.

• Obtain financing for action. Although the success stories in this report cannot provide a clear cause-and-effect relationship between international financing and successful results, it is notable that all the cases depended to some extent on international support. There is the potential in many other countries to reduce land-based carbon emissions substantially if financing were provided to do so. The stories in this report should bolster the political will, country by country, to obtain or provide such funding and thus contribute to the global effort to curb global warming.”

Concluding.

When we put a price on nature this can contribute to reasons for preserving natural ecosystems. We must be aware that the price only represents economic value and that this value is likely a short term price and only the price we have recognised so far. Further this price can be further devalued by irresponsible or misguided lobbyists and hence the price should not be used as an excuse for ecosystem degradation.

See also “Putting a price on nature may backfire”

Goals and Values for a Sustainable Future.

In part one of this series - regarding whether or not humans are on a sustainable path - I made the point that our path is NOT predetermined.

Rather than being up to fate, our future will largely depend on our collective goals which will in turn depend on which values we prioritize. Ultimately it is our collective values that will determine what goals we have in place which will determine if we have a sustainable future. This is the greatest task facing each generation. As we become aware of social unrest or the planetary boundaries that we may cross, this task is more in need of concerted action today than ever before.  But first we need to make clear what we mean by a sustainable future.

A sustainable future.

What many people think about when considering the issue of a sustainable future is whether or not our human civilization will continue without a global catastrophic fall. This fall may arise from an inability to provide adequate basic needs for humans as we cross boundaries that lead to tipping points with a resulting sharp fall in population. The boundaries may be those as described by the science of biophysical thresholds that have shown to exist. These thresholds cover interconnected environmental aspects such as biodiversity loss and climate change and are well documented in “Planetary boundaries”. (The link is a 2015 update).  Social and political unrest due to intolerable living conditions may aggravate or hasten the arrival of a potential collapse as we approach or cross some of these boundaries. A catastrophic fall may also occur if our financial systems collapse.

These possibilities all become more likely if we do not have an adequate political framework that looks ahead and makes appropriate plans.

The science behind the environmental boundaries, however, should not be confused with the policies that we must develop as a result of this knowledge about “the safe operating space for humanity”. Any policies we implement will depend on the values that we collectively have and on the politicians we choose to carry these out. This is largely a democratic process.

Sustainable development goals.

Integrating the science of the planetary boundaries with the social science of economics has led the United Nations to set up their sustainable development goals (UNSDGs). The planetary boundaries provided a framework for these sustainable development goals

These goals reflect a definition of sustainable development that includes economic, social and environmental aspects. As an exercise, compare and contrast what your proposed goals and values are and how you would add them up and prioritize them. In any case how would you ensure that none of your prioritized values were forgotten?

A sustainable path.

A sustainable path must ensure a future that meets the needs of society. When choosing qualities and values it can be helpful to think about what kind of world you’d want your children or grandchildren to find themselves in.

Here is my priority list in no particular order; a world or society that indiscriminately provides:

1. Enough clean water, food, warmth and shelter

2. A means whereby everyone can contribute to society

3. An environment that provides clean air, and natural resources including farmland woodlands, forests, clean rivers that run to the sea, coral reefs, wetlands and mangroves etc.

4. Enough time free from labour that allows meaningful education and time to reflect and pursue interests beyond that of merely trying to eke out a living

5. Affordable health care when needed

6. Industry that can provide and replace a responsible quantity of products

7. Governance that promotes the availability of these needs.

Prioritizing.

Are there any of these you would omit; any that you would replace; any others that you would prioritize? With this in mind you can evaluate the UNSDGs. In later sections I will comment on evaluation.

The benefit of having clearly defined goals.

The United Nations goals go into a lot more detail than my goals above that are merely stated in a qualitative way. The UNSDGs are accessible to all with quantitative targets with dates for assessing progress and dates for reviewing. These goals also help mobilize people, organisations and governments in an agreed direction but with room for modifying at regular reviewing dates.

A further note on values.

The seven values I have stated above (or 8 if the indiscriminately provision is included) are values in the sense that these are things that one might value and are measurable. They are based on core values that are essential in determining these and must be encouraged and nurtured. These non measurable core values, however, such as empathy or respect, can be disingenuously presented and on their own difficult to report progress on.

Towards an alternative narrative.

A price or a value on nature?

Trump? Brexit? What’s going on?

Immigration control is a smokescreen for the real intentions of Trump and his appointees. Nevertheless, it is a very real and damaging issue if not tackled humanely. The  Trump team (with very similar attitudes to the Brexit team) know that this is an emotional subject and will divide the electorate. The many who suffer as a consequence of this smokescreen are merely collateral damage in their eyes.

Not everyone on Trump’s team is racist; they may be immigrants themselves, some have married foreigners, but their rhetoric is very much aimed at persuading members of their electorate who do hold racist attitudes. The team may not be anti-Muslim, but they know that there are those who fear the very weakest and those in most need: the refugees.

We who oppose these actions must tackle both the prejudices and racist smokescreen and also be aware of their real intentions. We have no other option. The Trump team feel they are winning. As we rightly attempt to “put out the fire” that they lit they can get on with their more subtle agenda; hidden enough to go unnoticed by much of the electorate.

“Their” agenda:

To move towards a more extreme political framework that allows businesses to operate without the need to consider the environmental or social consequences.

That’s it. That sums up all their moves. That is the longer term goal; to maximise their profits in their lifetime. Now I am not just referring to Trump (he personally is unpredictable) but the team that will use him and aim to gain power and his support by pandering to his narcissistic temperament.

The evidence.

The starting point for them is to dismantle regulations. We take for granted the many regulations that have both improved social conditions and reduced environmental damage. The Trump administration has already begun this dismantling. This climate deregulation tracker from Columbia Law school is regularly updated.

Historically, we have seen that hard fought for regulations have improved the lives of many around the world. These conditions relate to working hours, health and safety, pollution emissions, human rights etc., that many have opposed with all their efforts and would like to remove if they get the slightest of chance.

It is clear that in general the Trump team will be very sympathetic to climate change denial since the obvious solution to this problem is that we will need to deal with the external consequences (or social costs) of the causes of human induced climate change. (The same applies to many related environmental issues such as bio-diversity loss and degradation of oceans via excessive nitrogen leakage from croplands). To tackle these environmental issues we will need to continually upgrade and improve tax systems and regulations. These are global in nature but handled differently around the world to accommodate different climate, geographical, and political conditions. Unfortunately, many climate deniers have managed to get onto Trump’s team.

Playing on fear.

A short life-time business opportunity is the arms trade. I would expect this not only to continue but to expand on the basis of my claim that we are witnessing a “move towards a more extreme political framework that allows businesses to operate without the need to consider the environmental or social consequences”.

For those who have no concerns of the “collateral” damage this provides an ideal opportunity to promote life-time financial personal gains. If the weapons get into “the wrong hands” this has the added advantage of increasing sales, increasing, terrorism, increasing fear of terrorism, encouraging extreme political attitudes that further promotes fear of foreigners and refugees. A reinforcing cycle is created. Whether this is done wittingly or or otherwise the consequence are the same.

Hope.

All around the world we see protests at Trump’s attitude to women and immigrants.People are either involved directly or are witnessing these events via word of mouth and via the media. Trump over-impatiently exposes the more subtle agenda by attacking regulations and the science of climate change within the first days of his presidency. This draws attention to these issues that have largely not been seen as connected or have not been in the forefront of people's minds.

It is my hope that Trump may have unwittingly sparked a rebound effect that will promote awareness and a willingness to put out his “fires” from inhumane immigration attitudes to the need to curtail environmental degradation and improve social well-being for all.