※ [本文轉錄自 IA 看板]
作者: NPLNT (Bruzi Geist) 看板: IA
標題: [新聞] The Pricetag of Curtainling Exctinction: €30 billion
時間: Sat May 24 17:32:06 2008
What Would It Cost to Save Nature?(Part 5)
標題:The Pricetag of Curtainling Exctinction: €30 billion
新聞來源:http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,554982-5,00.html
(需有正確連結)
By Philip Bethge, Rafaela von Bredow and Christian Schwagerl
Part 5: The Pricetag of Curtainling Exctinction: €30 billion
In short, a high level of diplomatic skill will be needed in Bonn to advance
to the core issue: Who will pay how much and for what? The annual cost of
curtailing species extinction by 2010 is estimated at €30 billion ($46.5
billion). The EU heads of state are even more ambitious and want to put a
complete stop to the loss of biodiversity in Europe by 2010. However, the WWF
believes that this goal can only be reached "at a significant additional
cost."
Mastering the crisis will likely require a wide range of funding models.
Focusing on biodiversity as a source for new drugs and cosmetics is one
possibility, the trade in CO2 certificates is another. Private sponsors can
also have an important impact. The conservation group TNC, for example,
manages a fortune of $5.4 billion (€3.5 billion), some of it donated by
wealthy patrons. In 2007 alone, TNC spent $566 million (€365 million) to
purchase land and protect it for future generations.
Others have chosen to engage in something akin to colonial megalomania and
personally control the fate of nature. Patagonia, for example, appears to be
firmly in the hands of billionaires. For years, Douglas and Kris Tompkins,
the co-founders of the apparel companies North Face and Patagonia, have owned
several thousand square kilometers (more...) of untouched wilderness in the
region. Some of their neighbors are speculator George Soros, fashion magnates
Luciano and Carlo Benetton, actors Sharon Stone and Christopher Lambert, and
CNN founder Ted Turner.
The not-quite-fabulously-rich can acquire tropical islands or hectare-sized
pieces of wild animal corridors through organizations like TNC or World Land
Trust.
Economist Pavan Sukhdev also recommends levying, in addition to the
value-added tax, a kind of value reduction tax in wealthy countries -- a way
of compensating for the environmental damage associated with the production
of a car or a refrigerator. The revenues from such a tax could flow directly
into large-scale conservation projects.
Sukhdev also wants to force companies and consumers to assume more
responsibility. "A coffee company could charge a small surcharge and invest
the money in the rainforest next to its plantations," he says. When it comes
to organic food, consumers are already prepared to pay a premium today. "So
why not create an Eco-Plus label to test whether they are willing to pay an
additional premium to fund conservation projects?"
Nowadays, people can already make their travel climate-neutral by offsetting
the emissions from aircraft or rental cars through companies like the German
firm global-woods. The company uses the revenues to support reforestation
programs in Argentina, Paraguay and Uganda. Another example is the Marriott
hotel chain. The company has paid $2 million (€1.3 million) to the Brazilian
state of Amazonas to protect the 589,000-hectare (1.45 million-acre) Juma
preserve from loggers. In return, Marriott receives CO2 credits, which are
then offered for sale to hotel guests so that they can continue to relax in
their hotel saunas without suffering a bad conscience.
Fisheries experts, on the other hand, recommend only buying fish with the
Marine Stewardship Council eco-label. Anyone hoping to enjoy eating marine
creatures in an environmentally responsible way in the future will have to do
without species like halibut or sole. When it comes to wood, most
conservationists recognize the certification awarded by the Forest
Stewardship Council.
According to estimates, within only two years consumers worldwide could be
spending up to $75 billion (€48 billion) on fish, wood, medicinal herbs and
food produced in an environmentally friendly way. In addition, people have
long been willing to pay directly for species protection. According to the
BfN, every household in Germany would pay an average of €100 ($155) a year
to preserve biodiversity. This would amount to a total of €3.5 billion ($5.4
billion). "That's three times as much money as we have had at our disposal so
far for species and habitat protection," says Burkhard Schweppe-Kraft, an
economist with the BfN.
If natural landscapes are increasingly assigned a value, they could lose
their role as "the world's free garbage dump," as Gordon Shepherd of the WWF
puts it. But Shepherd also warns that adding value to nature is "no panacea."
Indeed, it raises many questions. For instance, developing countries would
have to prove that their goal is not simply to rake in additional cash, but
that they are serious about protecting diversity.
The industrialized countries, for their part, are likely to be accused of
merely orchestrating an enormous green-washing of a failed industrial policy,
which for decades treated nature as a cheap self-service shop. Are the
mechanisms of the global economy truly suitable for ensuring diversity?
"Conservation based purely on profit could fail in places where, for example,
it seeks to protect animals that collide with our interests," writes Douglas
McCauley of Stanford University in the journal Nature. According to McCauley,
nature that does no harm, but is also of no benefit to man would also fail
the economic test.
When wolves kill sheep or cormorants wreak havoc in commercial fish ponds, it
is nothing but nature at work. On the other hand, people would be unlikely to
pay for conservation based solely on its benefit to man.
Economics and the preservation of diversity are often diametrically opposed.
About 50 years ago, for example, the Nile perch was deliberately introduced
into Lake Victoria in East Africa. Fishermen in the countries adjoining the
lake, Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya, remain enthusiastic about the arrival of
the edible fish to this day, because it helped fuel copious economic growth.
But the new arrivals spelled ecological disaster for the lake's diverse and
unique population of haplochromine cichlids, leading to what social biologist
Edward Wilson once called "the most catastrophic wave of extinctions in
recent history."
Making the economic value of ecosystems the sole basis of conservation would
mean that "nature is only worth protecting if it is also profitable," warns
biologist McCauley, referring to the risk of a sudden decline in value.
What happens to the rainforest, which we now want to see serving as a CO2
storage system, if a cheaper technical solution is ultimately found to
dispose of greenhouse gases? Will the forest then be liquidated, to borrow an
economic term? The value of nature -- its beauty, and its cultural and
evolutionary importance -- cannot be estimated, says McCauley. "In the long
run, we will achieve more progress if we appeal to human hearts and not their
wallets."
In other words, it is up to man to decide what kind of world he wishes to
inhabit. Anyone familiar with wilderness knows what will be lost if
environmental destruction continues unabated. By the time the world community
can agree to a business model to save biodiversity, it could be too late.
We should also consider the need to preserve "refuges for the soul,"
says Beate Jessel, the president of the BfN. The CBD partners should also take
this to heart if they hope to avoid becoming lost in a jungle of
international agreements and bilateral sensitivities in Bonn.
Are we negotiating ourselves to death? Words must soon be followed by deeds.
Indian economist Pavan Sukhdev, at any rate, sees the situation as dead
serious. We face a decision, says Sukhdev, one whether or not our
civilization is to survive.
Sukhdev was in Berlin recently for a meeting with German Environment Minister
Gabriel to discuss the crisis. The ministry lies across the barren
Alexanderplatz square, past a gray, concrete desert. "It's an ideal place for
an environment ministry," says Sukhdev. "Every day you see the things you
want to prevent."
Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan.
--
「只有在人們能夠自由地利用和享受知識帶來的好處時，新知識的發現才對他們有價值。
新發現對所有的人都有潛在的價值，但不是犧牲人們所有的現實價值為代價。無限發展的
『進步』不能給任何人帶來好處，那麼這『進步』就是一種恐怖的謬論。」
Ayn Rand<The Virtue of Selfishness>
--
作者: NPLNT (Bruzi Geist) 看板: IA
標題: [新聞] The Pricetag of Curtainling Exctinction: €30 billion
時間: Sat May 24 17:32:06 2008
What Would It Cost to Save Nature?(Part 5)
標題:The Pricetag of Curtainling Exctinction: €30 billion
新聞來源:http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,554982-5,00.html
(需有正確連結)
By Philip Bethge, Rafaela von Bredow and Christian Schwagerl
Part 5: The Pricetag of Curtainling Exctinction: €30 billion
In short, a high level of diplomatic skill will be needed in Bonn to advance
to the core issue: Who will pay how much and for what? The annual cost of
curtailing species extinction by 2010 is estimated at €30 billion ($46.5
billion). The EU heads of state are even more ambitious and want to put a
complete stop to the loss of biodiversity in Europe by 2010. However, the WWF
believes that this goal can only be reached "at a significant additional
cost."
Mastering the crisis will likely require a wide range of funding models.
Focusing on biodiversity as a source for new drugs and cosmetics is one
possibility, the trade in CO2 certificates is another. Private sponsors can
also have an important impact. The conservation group TNC, for example,
manages a fortune of $5.4 billion (€3.5 billion), some of it donated by
wealthy patrons. In 2007 alone, TNC spent $566 million (€365 million) to
purchase land and protect it for future generations.
Others have chosen to engage in something akin to colonial megalomania and
personally control the fate of nature. Patagonia, for example, appears to be
firmly in the hands of billionaires. For years, Douglas and Kris Tompkins,
the co-founders of the apparel companies North Face and Patagonia, have owned
several thousand square kilometers (more...) of untouched wilderness in the
region. Some of their neighbors are speculator George Soros, fashion magnates
Luciano and Carlo Benetton, actors Sharon Stone and Christopher Lambert, and
CNN founder Ted Turner.
The not-quite-fabulously-rich can acquire tropical islands or hectare-sized
pieces of wild animal corridors through organizations like TNC or World Land
Trust.
Economist Pavan Sukhdev also recommends levying, in addition to the
value-added tax, a kind of value reduction tax in wealthy countries -- a way
of compensating for the environmental damage associated with the production
of a car or a refrigerator. The revenues from such a tax could flow directly
into large-scale conservation projects.
Sukhdev also wants to force companies and consumers to assume more
responsibility. "A coffee company could charge a small surcharge and invest
the money in the rainforest next to its plantations," he says. When it comes
to organic food, consumers are already prepared to pay a premium today. "So
why not create an Eco-Plus label to test whether they are willing to pay an
additional premium to fund conservation projects?"
Nowadays, people can already make their travel climate-neutral by offsetting
the emissions from aircraft or rental cars through companies like the German
firm global-woods. The company uses the revenues to support reforestation
programs in Argentina, Paraguay and Uganda. Another example is the Marriott
hotel chain. The company has paid $2 million (€1.3 million) to the Brazilian
state of Amazonas to protect the 589,000-hectare (1.45 million-acre) Juma
preserve from loggers. In return, Marriott receives CO2 credits, which are
then offered for sale to hotel guests so that they can continue to relax in
their hotel saunas without suffering a bad conscience.
Fisheries experts, on the other hand, recommend only buying fish with the
Marine Stewardship Council eco-label. Anyone hoping to enjoy eating marine
creatures in an environmentally responsible way in the future will have to do
without species like halibut or sole. When it comes to wood, most
conservationists recognize the certification awarded by the Forest
Stewardship Council.
According to estimates, within only two years consumers worldwide could be
spending up to $75 billion (€48 billion) on fish, wood, medicinal herbs and
food produced in an environmentally friendly way. In addition, people have
long been willing to pay directly for species protection. According to the
BfN, every household in Germany would pay an average of €100 ($155) a year
to preserve biodiversity. This would amount to a total of €3.5 billion ($5.4
billion). "That's three times as much money as we have had at our disposal so
far for species and habitat protection," says Burkhard Schweppe-Kraft, an
economist with the BfN.
If natural landscapes are increasingly assigned a value, they could lose
their role as "the world's free garbage dump," as Gordon Shepherd of the WWF
puts it. But Shepherd also warns that adding value to nature is "no panacea."
Indeed, it raises many questions. For instance, developing countries would
have to prove that their goal is not simply to rake in additional cash, but
that they are serious about protecting diversity.
The industrialized countries, for their part, are likely to be accused of
merely orchestrating an enormous green-washing of a failed industrial policy,
which for decades treated nature as a cheap self-service shop. Are the
mechanisms of the global economy truly suitable for ensuring diversity?
"Conservation based purely on profit could fail in places where, for example,
it seeks to protect animals that collide with our interests," writes Douglas
McCauley of Stanford University in the journal Nature. According to McCauley,
nature that does no harm, but is also of no benefit to man would also fail
the economic test.
When wolves kill sheep or cormorants wreak havoc in commercial fish ponds, it
is nothing but nature at work. On the other hand, people would be unlikely to
pay for conservation based solely on its benefit to man.
Economics and the preservation of diversity are often diametrically opposed.
About 50 years ago, for example, the Nile perch was deliberately introduced
into Lake Victoria in East Africa. Fishermen in the countries adjoining the
lake, Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya, remain enthusiastic about the arrival of
the edible fish to this day, because it helped fuel copious economic growth.
But the new arrivals spelled ecological disaster for the lake's diverse and
unique population of haplochromine cichlids, leading to what social biologist
Edward Wilson once called "the most catastrophic wave of extinctions in
recent history."
Making the economic value of ecosystems the sole basis of conservation would
mean that "nature is only worth protecting if it is also profitable," warns
biologist McCauley, referring to the risk of a sudden decline in value.
What happens to the rainforest, which we now want to see serving as a CO2
storage system, if a cheaper technical solution is ultimately found to
dispose of greenhouse gases? Will the forest then be liquidated, to borrow an
economic term? The value of nature -- its beauty, and its cultural and
evolutionary importance -- cannot be estimated, says McCauley. "In the long
run, we will achieve more progress if we appeal to human hearts and not their
wallets."
In other words, it is up to man to decide what kind of world he wishes to
inhabit. Anyone familiar with wilderness knows what will be lost if
environmental destruction continues unabated. By the time the world community
can agree to a business model to save biodiversity, it could be too late.
We should also consider the need to preserve "refuges for the soul,"
says Beate Jessel, the president of the BfN. The CBD partners should also take
this to heart if they hope to avoid becoming lost in a jungle of
international agreements and bilateral sensitivities in Bonn.
Are we negotiating ourselves to death? Words must soon be followed by deeds.
Indian economist Pavan Sukhdev, at any rate, sees the situation as dead
serious. We face a decision, says Sukhdev, one whether or not our
civilization is to survive.
Sukhdev was in Berlin recently for a meeting with German Environment Minister
Gabriel to discuss the crisis. The ministry lies across the barren
Alexanderplatz square, past a gray, concrete desert. "It's an ideal place for
an environment ministry," says Sukhdev. "Every day you see the things you
want to prevent."
Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan.
--
「只有在人們能夠自由地利用和享受知識帶來的好處時，新知識的發現才對他們有價值。
新發現對所有的人都有潛在的價值，但不是犧牲人們所有的現實價值為代價。無限發展的
『進步』不能給任何人帶來好處，那麼這『進步』就是一種恐怖的謬論。」
Ayn Rand<The Virtue of Selfishness>
--
All Comments