The cost of the recent financial crisis is nothing – in economic terms – to the cost of destroying the environment. A recent EU report put that cost at between $2 and $5 trillion (yes, trillion!) annually, or about 7% of global GDP.
The figure is derived from adding the value of the various services that ecosystems provide, such as clean water and absorbing carbon dioxide. Putting a price on these services is like taking out an insurance policy to maintain our life support systems.
Intrinsic value
In global markets today, rainforests are worth more dead than alive
Some will argue that putting a price on nature, in terms of the services it offers, is ethically unsound.
But we need to face up to the fact that, in a free-market economy, despite decades of pleading to halt the degradation, the intrinsic value of ecosystems and biodiversity carries no weight. By persuading policymakers of the economic value, and the financial cost of allowing the decline to continue, there’s every chance of a change.
The way forward
At the world’s largest gathering of conservation scientists and NGOs in Barcelona this month, participants succeeded in defining a way forward.
The clear message coming out of this meeting is that biodiversity underpins the well-being of human societies and their economies. The tide is turning in our favour, we have the scientific knowledge and we have the governmental willpower to put the solutions in place.
More than 8,000 specialists from the conservation community, NGOs, governments, academia, the private sector and indigenous groups were gathered in Barcelona to discuss the most pressing issues of our time and develop a framework for protecting the environment.
Will it work?
Is putting a price on the environment a good idea? Will it work? Will it safeguard our future? Share your views by leaving a comment below for others to read…
No recommended reading.
4 comments… read them below or add yours now
I’m not so sure. If something has a price it’s usually for sale. I mean what if these scientists or whoever say an area of rainforest is worth $10m then a logging company comes along and offers $11m for it! What happens then? I think putting a price on the environment is wrong.
It sounds like a good idea. Valuing the environment in economic terms will make the policymakers sit up and take notice.
Thanks for joining the discussion ;-)
I agree with Katy. Putting a price on our natural environment is not the way forward.