What's Nature's Economic Value? - Pavan Sukhdev
Economy | Information | History | Online | Facts | World | Global | Money
Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2010/08/03/Pavan_Sukhdev_What_Is_the_World_Worth Economist Pavan Sukhdev argues that in order to protect nature from damage caused by industrial growth, natural resources must be measured in terms of economic value. This viewpoint, he explains, can expose companies that destroy more wealth than they create. ----- Environmental damage is already costing us trillions a year, according to Pavan Sukhdev, head of the UN Green Economy Initiative. Sukhdev applies numbers to things that nature does for free -- like purifying drinking water, supplying food and fuel, protecting coasts from storms, and generally keeping humans alive and healthy. The cost of the global financial crisis stunned the world, with an estimated $862 billion in direct government bailouts alone. After years of running down our natural capital, are we getting close to an environmental version of the credit crunch? Climate change has been grabbing most of the headlines in recent years, but we are now up against many environmental limits at once. Sukhdev looks at what this tells us about the limitations of our economic system and how it needs to change. The pioneering economist (who also works for Deutsche Bank) describes what the global economy would look like with nature on the balance sheet. His talk was presented by the Centre for Policy Development at the Sydney Opera House. Afterwards, he joined a panel consisting of leading business people, climate change advocates and scientists. - Australian Broadcasting Corporation Pavan Sukhdev is Special Advisor and Head of UNEP's Green Economy Initiative, a major project suite to demonstrate that the greening of economies is not a burden on growth but rather a new engine for growth, employment and the reduction of persistent poverty. Sukhdev is also Study Leader for the G8+5 commissioned report on The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), a project he was appointed to lead in March 2008 by the EU Commission and Germany whilst still working full-time at Deutsche Bank. TEEB's Interim Report was welcomed globally for its fresh economic outlook, showing the economic significance of the loss of nature's services, and connecting biodiversity and ecosystems with ethics, equity and the alleviation of poverty.
Comments
-
@truthadvocate you are right. the government has no right placing subsidies so that people can keep destroying the land. if they simple removed subsidies on oil and coal and water and bad farming.. that would be enough
-
@tHecOmMeNtErSrEtUrN you're not serious are you?
-
@miglegtr, When a coercive monopoly like the government passes environmental regulations & "carbon" taxes, it requires more theft & threats of force against peaceful people. Allowing individuals to homestead & own their own property costs nothing and requires no initiation of coercion against others. By using government to attempt to solve problems you aren't changing conditions. You are continuing the failed policies of the past.
-
@truthadvocate a lot of those companies own the land they kill. but you are right about incentives and conditions and stuff. that is what the environmental movement is about
-
@miglegtr, It's easy to make a quick profit by stripping & poisoning the land because no individuals own it. If individuals owned the land, you would be punished more severely by those individuals for abusing it. If you purchased the land yourself, you would lose a lot of money if you damaged it, then tried to sell it, just as you would lose money if you bought a house, damaged it & tried to sell it. You can't just force people to think differently. You need to change the conditions & incentives
-
@truthadvocate the point of this video is that people DONT see it that way. they just want the quick profit
-
What's with the arguing about capitalism vs. socialism? To me the message was clear: nature is undervalued, so private interests don't see it on their bottom line and make decisions that look smart on paper when in reality there are alternatives that create more wealth. The solution: figure out the cost of certain actions in terms of destruction/replenishment of the commons, then tax/subsidize so the bottom lines of private interests better reflect reality. Better for business and the public.
-
@Wrath0fKhan Of course he never lived under socialism, judging from his ignorant comment.
-
@blackiron60 I dont understand what you are talking about. You dont seem to respond to the claim Ive made. I tried to allude to the fact that I did live under the "banner of socialism" and that in fact it was much worse than it is now. As from a perspective of personal freedoms and as from a perspective of environmental achievements. So its actually you who doesnt understand...
-
@Wrath0fKhan And it looks like you don't understand the capitalist society you live in.
-
"Destroyed a lot more value than it has created." Perfectly said.
-
@blackiron60 Looks like youve never lived under the banner of "socialism"...
-
And they say socialism is "inefficient". Capitalists are such hypocrits.
-
@miglegtr, Certainly. If I owned an area that was not valued for it's natural wonders, I could easily decide to build a factory. However, if I owned a world wide nature lovers' travel destination it would make more sense to preserve it. If there was some precious metal or fuel I needed to extract from the site, I could do it while leaving most of the site in tact. Plus there would be more incentive to not pollute surrounding land & water because owners could severely punish me if I did.
-
The Tragedy of the Commons applies across a timeline as well as against fellow Commons consumers; aka, people will near sightedly overvalue a consumed resource today over a reusable one tomorrow.
-
@truthadvocate or they would build a factory on it
-
@truthadvocate Government managers don't lose money, but the companies do. Even if they don't own the land, they're still screwed once it runs out, so it's still in their interest to conserve it. Except they don't. Take a look at the rainforests: lot of private business, lot of deforestation.
-
Value is subjective. You cannot determine an objective value for nature. The problem today is that nature often is managed & "owned" by the government. As such there is no incentive to preserve & protect it because government managers don't lose their investment when nature is destroyed.. However, if wonders of nature were owned by private individuals without government intervention, those individuals would have incentive to protect their investment far more aggressively & effectively.
-
too bad he uses an apple.
5m 17sLenght
52Rating