We know the problems, so why haven't we really done much to deal with them? The answer, of course, to such a question is at best long-winded, complicated and perhaps even non-existent. But a common thread does exist in most of our current environmental problems: pricing.
There is very little consideration of pricing for many of the world's environmental factors. What is the price of the boreal forest? How about Lake Superior? Particulate matter in the air?
I certainly don't know, and even if I did, very few people would agree. People value all of these factors differently, so determining a price (like one might do for a car) is very difficult. Some might even say impossible (how can you put a numerical price on something like a spotted owl?).
But the fact of the matter is that we live in a capitalist, market-based economy. Despite our non-market valuations of environmental factors (prices are only one aspect of value), these valuations are rarely and inaccurately accounted for in economic decision making. And in this global economy, it (sadly) ultimately comes down to money. So rather than even under-valuing the environment, it is simply not valued at all. And that's where the problem starts.
We know we need fresh water to live. Yet we toss our waste into our lakes and rivers. It's because our value of water is a non-market value and dealing with waste can be given a market value. We may take both seriously, but 99 times out of 100 the market-based values carry the trump card. The harm we might do to our drinking source may not hit us quite as hard as having to pay to deal with the waste sustainably. It's a hard but usually true pill to swallow.
If we want to do something about the environment, we need to start incorporating it into our economic formulas and make it part of the equation.
Yes, it might be hard to place a value on these things. It might even be unethical. But it needs to be done. The market-based, capitalist system isn't going to be overthrown. Even calls for socialism during a massive economic downturn haven't taken the capitalist beast off its path.
The prices may not be accurate, but at least something should be tossed into the equation. Pricing carbon at $10/tonne like they do in B.C. has been balked at by environmentalists and economists alike for being too marginal, but it's certainly better than $0/tonne. Most importantly, an accountant certainly notices the number 10 over 0.
So where should we start? Put a price on carbon and put a price on fresh water. Intrinsic values can be priced through willingness to pay, hedonistic valuing and other ecological economic value strategies.
It may not be right and it may not be accurate. But at least it would be a start.
Putting prices on the environment is proving to be a challenging task. National Parks for one, seem to have a lot of benefits and attractions including recreational uses, education, research. But all of these "uses" are created for the purpose of serving anthropogenic needs. What about the conservation of natural resources? Are we creating these parks for these various uses and to protect all of the species found therein? Or we created them to get our hands closer to those precious natural resources? Why is this action so covert, getting to those resources is so contentious. It seems that the creation of parks and game reserves, the government can surreptitiously approve development and/or extraction projects to get those natural resources.
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned pricing carbon and fresh water. Do you think this a warranted right now with the recession? We may see more of the free- rider approach if pricing came about right now. People are evading their taxes and costs because they have no money. I liked the post, but I want you to discuss the implications of the recession on valuing the environment. Moreover, with deflation, how does this impact our willingness to pay for things like National Park appreciation, or paying to improve the state of the park because ecologically, it has been damaged and undermined by our anthropogenic pressures.