There is no contradiction between protecting the environment and economic well-being

This is according to a report that dealt with the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity prepared for the United Nations ahead of the Copenhagen conference. For the attention of decision makers

A forest fire in the Amazon. Damage to forests also causes economic damage
A forest fire in the Amazon. Damage to forests also causes economic damage

In December, world leaders will gather in Copenhagen for a summit conference in an attempt to reach an agreement on ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a reduction that will moderate global warming. This agreement is supposed to replace the Kyoto Convention from a decade ago.

Ahead of the convention, a report written by economists in collaboration with ecologists is published, the main conclusions in the report are that: "Investment in nature protection yields huge profits"; "Investment in conservation and protection: coral reefs, forests and forests, swamps and lakes, brings profits of hundreds of percent ".

The report is based on a study carried out by The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity study (TEEB - study of the economics of biodiversity and the environmental system), a supported body funded and controlled by the UN and many countries.
"TEEB" is an attempt to give economic value to the "environmental services", those "services" provided to us by the natural world... for free: purification of drinking water, protection of the coast from storms, services that are constantly provided on a global scale.

The director of the research - Pavan Sukhdev, an economist at Deutsche Bank, clarifies that the research conclusions are based on data collected from 1100 studies carried out in many countries, in different environments, in many different habitats and conditions. According to him, "it doesn't matter how the data is presented... we always reach a profit ratio of 25/1 to 100/1. That is, it can be reliably said that - investing in environmental protection yields profits.
One of the focal points that the report referred to are forest areas and groves, it was found that "the continued loss of forests causes an annual loss of 4 trillion dollars (trillion = one thousand billion). Nature conservation organizations call for the expansion of the protected areas in the marine environment, in order to maintain the existing ones and to allow the renewal of edible fish populations. Today less than 1% of all oceans are protected. According to the report: the cost of expanding the protection of the seas to 30% will be about 40 billion dollars. As a result of and because of the protection, income from fishing will increase and in the case of protecting corals, profit from tourism and protecting beaches from destruction by storms, a cost from which a profit of 4 trillion dollars will be produced.

Examples of areas whose preservation yielded profits:

  • - A study in Costa Rica showed that intact groves have more insects that pollinate coffee flowers, coffee plantations near the groves yielded 20% more yield.
  • Reserved grassland areas in New Zealand enable the supply of drinking water to communities. Without the conservation, the cost of water supply would have been 100 million dollars per year.
  • In Vietnam, 120 square kilometers of mangroves were planted at a cost of 1 million dollars. The mangroves saved expansion and maintenance of dams at a cost of 7 million dollars.

As part of the summit in Copenhagen, the countries will call to finance a process for the protection of forests, "TEEB" also shows that the correct and cheapest way to reduce emissions is by stopping the burning, felling and destruction of forests. "TEEB" shows that the failure of the markets to take into account the cost of "environmental services" hurts Not only in the environment, not only in the climate but also and especially in the economy.

The report provides proof of the economic viability of preserving and protecting the natural environment. In the past I referred to the economic viability of preserving nature, (individual) economists joined the "greens" and tried to convince "policy makers" of the viability In the conservation of nature for economic reasons, there is now an official economic body backed by the UN and many countries, a body that will bring the data in a way that will be understandable to the decision makers, an understanding that will hopefully be convincing enough to change its direction The thought and action, changed for the benefit of the environment,

The report suggests courses of action for policy makers:
1 - Investing in environmental infrastructures: will enable efficient and cheap preparation of infrastructures for climate hazards, will improve the security of water and food supply, since investing in ongoing maintenance is cheaper than trying to repair systems that have collapsed. "TEEB" estimates that an investment in the conservation of mangroves will bring profits of 40%, an investment in the conservation of groves and equatorial forests will yield a 50% profit, an investment in the conservation of grasslands and supported habitats will yield an 80% profit.
2 - Providing remuneration and incentive benefits in exchange for environmental services. The compensation will be given to residents who will preserve nature and their immediate environment.
3 - Determining a price for damage to the environment: regulations to protect nature and the environment will establish (financial) responsibility for anyone who harms nature, establishing a mechanism that will enforce the regulations and collect the price.
4 - Cessation of subsidizing industries, entities and activities that cause damage to the environment.
5 - Recognition of the importance of protected areas, recognition of the importance of conservation and the benefits that conservation provides: in the world there are protected areas on approximately 14% of the surface (ground). 6% of the "territorial waters", but only 0.5% of the oceans, about a sixth of the world's population relies on reserved areas that provide a large part of the population's needs. An investment of 45 billion dollars in nature conservation will ensure essential environmental services, clean water, fertile soil, flood prevention, etc., about 5 trillion dollars per year.

The "TEEB" report shows the benefits as well as the immediate need to change the policy regarding environmental priorities:
6 - An immediate stop to all forms of damage to forests must be included in any agreement and activity to stop global warming;
7 - Protection of the coral reefs (in the equatorial regions), areas from which they make a living and where about 500 million people live.
8 - Saving and preserving the world's fish, today the population of edible fish is collapsing in the entire world,
9 - Recognizing the connection between damage to the environment and the continuation of poverty in rural areas, implementation of the "Development Goals for the Third Millennium" policy.
10 - An agreement that would link the protection of forests to the limitation of greenhouse gas emissions.

To this must be added the treatment (how?) of frozen soil (permafrost) areas that thaw, emit matan (greenhouse gas) and harm the life of indigenous tribes. Natives in PermaProsert territories as well as natives of islands, Africa and other "developing" countries are harmed because of the activities of "developed countries" therefore their demand for funding for protective measures against the damage is justified, funding that will come from those who have the means - the developed countries.

Ahead of the gathering in Copenhagen, ahead of the "Year of Biodiversity" International Year of Biodiversity, there is a broad basis for the demand to stop harming our environment, a moral, logical, scientific basis and now again an economic basis.

Because the time has come that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment.

Asaf

Comments

  1. The movie "HOME"
    From Wikipedia about the film:

    Home is a documentary that was released for screening in theaters and on television on June 5, 2009 and is now available for a limited time on YouTube - something that is unprecedented. The film is made of aerial photographs of different places in 54 countries around the planet, illustrating the beauty of the planet and the life that exists on it as well as their diversity; And all this alongside the damage that man inflicts on them.
    The film emphasizes the balance between the environment and the flora and fauna, and conveys a message that there is a delicate but essential relationship and balance between all life forms on the planet, and that not one of them can exist in limbo. The film describes the formation of life on Earth, from algae to large mammals. It stands for the appearance of man, and the great change that took place with the agricultural revolution. He then focuses on the energy revolution that began with the exploitation of oil, and the destructive processes that have moved and come upon the planet in the last fifty years. The film refers, among other things, to the accelerated urbanization, the industrial development and the danger of pollution, the depletion of energy and mineral resources, the problem of water and food shortages, deforestation, and the extreme inequality in which the human race has fallen. The film is also about the damage to the ice caps at the poles, the danger to the swamps and the damage caused by the modern branches of agriculture - the cattle farms, and the palm and eucalyptus plantations. Home refers to global warming, sea level rise and the dramatic changes in the weather. The film ends with the efforts made by the human race to repair the damage it has caused.
    Home was filmed from a helicopter in many places in 54 countries around the world. The filming took 18 months and was done using high-resolution "Cineflex" cameras that were hung under the belly of the helicopter. The cameras were placed in a way to reduce vibrations, and the footage was checked after almost every flight. In the end, the filmmakers had 488 hours of high-quality and spectacular photography at their disposal, from which they edited the film. The narration sections for the film were recorded in 14 languages.

    Link to the movie in English:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU

  2. To a concerned citizen…
    How are you so sure they are wrong? ...the fanaticism of the anti-environmentalist is often not proven / justified but they stand behind it without reservation.
    I am in favor of criticism and we also need to understand the connection between environmentalism, capital and control, like the (clearer and older) connection - oil and pollution, capital and control. It is necessary to test both and to criticize the scientific and public perceptions. But where does this absolute and anti-scientific confidence come from that one side is hunting and the other is not?

  3. The prisoner's dilemma in its environmental form. If no one exploits the environment everyone will benefit, but whoever exploits a certain environment (and in the process harms or destroys it) the profit in the short term will be his. And for the concerned citizen - if you are worried about the noise - buy earplugs, if you are worried about harming the environment, and as a result the ability of the human race to survive for a long time... Oh, actually you are not worried about that...

  4. Stop already if your nonsense isn't harmful
    To a concerned citizen: In my opinion I would be more concerned about what the scorner makes you think that way

  5. 2, is there any argument that the pollution created by burning fuels is not harmful to humans? Even if it is not responsible for global warming (and anyone who has bothered to study the matter in depth knows for sure that it is) it is still very harmful to humans and that is reason enough to immediately stop using this energy source.

  6. It is known that they started using the excuse and intimidation of the environmentalists to make money all over the world
    Before that they were not mentioned and suddenly they started holding top meetings every year and noise.

  7. Cleantech can be a big growth engine for the economy, it's a shame that not many countries in the world are still taking it seriously.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.