Tag Archives: ecosystem services

November 2015 in Review

Leave a reply

What did I learn in November? Let’s start with the bad and then go to the good.

Negative stories (-10):

  • The World Economic Forum’s 2015 Global Risks Report came out. Some of the top risks are interstate conflict, water crisis, failure of climate change adaptation, unemployment and underemployment. Hmm, that “interstate conflict” items might be what we used to call “war”. And I think there might be one underway right now in the Middle East, which Jimmy Carter says we are getting all wrong. And it just might be caused by the other items on the list. And speaking of war, there is a new book on the Vietnam War aimed at the middle grades, but it seems pretty harsh for that age to me. (-2)
  • I noticed that Robert Costanza in 2014 issued an update to his seminal 1997 paper on ecosystem services. He now estimates their value at $125 trillion per year, compared to a world economy of $77 trillion per year. Each year we are using up about $4-20 trillion in value more than the Earth is able to replenish. The correct conclusion here is that we can’t live without ecosystem services any time soon with our current level of knowledge and wealth, and yet we are depleting the natural capital that produces them. We were all lucky enough to inherit an enormous trust fund of natural capital at birth, and we are spending it down like the spoiled trust fund babies we are. We are living it up, and we measure our wealth based on that lifestyle, but we don’t have a bank statement so we don’t actually know when that nest egg is going to run out. (-3)
  • This crop of presidential candidates is easy for comedians to make fun of. I enjoy it but think it may be a contrary indicator for the health of the country. (-1)
  • Bicycle helmets are not making U.S. bicycle riders any safer. This is why we need streets designed on the European model to be safe for driving, bicycling, and walking. It’s 100% known technology and there can be no excuses! (-2)
  • In current events, we had the awful, shocking terrorist attacks in Paris. I suggested that the long-term answer to violence caused by angry young men anywhere is to understand why they are angry, address their legitimate grievances, and give them productive work to do. Short term, we also have to detect and disrupt any plots involving nuclear or biological weapons, of course, because we can’t afford even one. (-2)

Positive stories (+9):

the Paris climate summit

Leave a reply

Thomas Sterner at The Economist says that there really is a near-consensus among economists on how to reduce carbon emissions.

Economists keep on repeating: all you need is a price on carbon. This is true in one narrow sense: had there—by some (peak-oil or other) magic had there been a high price on carbon then the world economy would just adapt and we would hardly notice—just like we have “adapted” to expensive gold and titanium.

But the problems are practical and political.

The problem lies in how to design the institutions and instruments that create that high price when the market does not. Subsidies must be removed, fossil fuels taxed (or subjected to permit trade) and all countries need to agree on the details in a way that all find “fair”. In Copenhagen, people hoped for a treaty that kept warming below two degrees and an agreement that was generous in giving poor countries more of the remaining space.

One idea is for a decentralized system where individual countries each create carbon markets, then link them later.

The negative attitude to heavy UN negotiations is so strong that some welcome a more “decentralised architecture” of the climate negotiations and policymaking. Some claim we do not need an agreement. It is sufficient for each country to have an individual target and permit trading scheme and then all the permit schemes could be linked together. Linked permit markets would exhibit all the advantages to trade and circumvent the need for an international agreement.

It sounds like the strategy is to set relatively low, realistic expectations for this summit and then meet them. You can say that doing something is certainly better than doing nothing. You could also say that whatever we do will be too little, too late to solve the problem. Our deeply flawed species has failed this test and we are going to suffer the consequences.

Costanza!

1 Reply

Last year Robert Costanza published an update to his seminal 1997 paper The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital.  Here’s what I had to say about that in 2014:

The paradox is that because nature has so far provided many services in abundance, they are not “scarce” in an economic sense and our human markets place little or no monetary value on them. This would change in the event our human civilization caused the services to be reduced or interrupted in any way. While it may seem strange to value ecosystem services in monetary terms, it can be instructive to ask what we would be willing to pay if we had no choice but to pay for these services. There are many conceptual and practical challenges with this sort of monetary valuation, but there have been some brave attempts to do it, such as those led by Robert Costanza at the Australian National University.[9] By comparing the magnitude of what we would be willing to pay for these services to the magnitude of the human economy, we can get a sense of the importance of ecosystem services in underpinning our human economy. Costanza’s estimate of the annual value of global ecosystem services ($33 trillion in 1997 U.S. dollars) is the same order of magnitude as the world output of goods and services in that year (approximately $29 trillion[10])! While the estimated value of ecosystem services is certainly less precisely measured than the monetary value of goods and services produced, the order of magnitude suggests that humanity could not afford to substitute its own technology and efforts in place of the services provided by ecosystems, at least not with the wealth and knowledge available to us now.

The new paper is called Changes in the Global Value of Ecosystem Services. Here’s the abstract:

In 1997, the global value of ecosystem services was estimated to average $33 trillion/yr in 1995 $US ($46 trillion/yr in 2007 $US). In this paper, we provide an updated estimate based on updated unit ecosystem service values and land use change estimates between 1997 and 2011. We also address some of the critiques of the 1997 paper. Using the same methods as in the 1997 paper but with updated data, the estimate for the total global ecosystem services in 2011 is $125 trillion/yr (assuming updated unit values and changes to biome areas) and $145 trillion/yr (assuming only unit values changed), both in 2007 $US. From this we estimated the loss of eco-services from 1997 to 2011 due to land use change at $4.3–20.2 trillion/yr, depending on which unit values are used. Global estimates expressed in monetary accounting units, such as this, are useful to highlight the magnitude of eco-services, but have no specific decision-making context. However, the underlying data and models can be applied at multiple scales to assess changes resulting from various scenarios and policies. We emphasize that valuation of ecoservices (in whatever units) is not the same as commodification or privatization. Many eco-services are best considered public goods or common pool resources, so conventional markets are often not the best institutional frameworks to manage them. However, these services must be (and are being) valued, and we need new, common asset institutions to better take these values into account.

So $125 trillion dollars per year in value, and last year the IMF says the world economy was about $77 trillion. This is important for a few reasons. First, it strengthens the argument even further that ecosystem services are not just something happening on the fringe of our economy that give us a helping hand. They are absolutely essential and we could not afford to do without them. Second, if I understand correctly, the annual value we can derive is lower per unit area of land because of degradation of the land since 1997. Every year we are using up $4-20 trillion that the Earth is not able to replenish. That value is hard to put in context, because we don’t know what the total stock is, or how low that stock could fall before it would start to constrain our economy.

There’s another implication – if we could develop a precise accounting of the natural capital being used up each year, we could orient our economy to shift more of those costs to the people, governments, and business entities choosing to impose those costs on the rest of us. Carbon taxes are a fairly obvious first step.

 

value of levees

Leave a reply

This study seems to have had trouble finding any measurable economic value of levees, which is interesting.

The value of levee protection to commercial properties

Ecological Economics

Volume 119, November 2015, Pages 181–188

Levees have historically been a dominant approach to riverine flood control in the United States. Recent investigations have found many levees around the country are in substandard condition, however, and some communities are moving to upgrade and repair their levee systems. Little empirical work has examined how increasing flood protection from levees is valued. We present estimates of the capitalization of upgraded levee protection into commercial property prices in St. Louis County, Missouri. By using controls for surrounding land cover and coarsened exact matching to ensure close distribution between treatment and control on surrounding land cover, we attempt to isolate the price effect of the levee from agglomeration effects that may also be operating. We find that commercial properties protected by a 500-year levee do not have a statistically significant price discount as compared with properties not in a floodplain. We find the selling price of properties with levee protection to be higher (although also insignificant in many specifications) than those in a floodplain without levee protection.

August 2015 in Review

Leave a reply

Negative stories (-12):

  • About 7-19% of cancers are caused by chemicals in the environment. (-1)
  • Steven Hawking is worried about an artificial intelligence arms race starting “within years, not decades”. (-2)
  • The anti-urban attack continues, based on the false idea that crowded, stressful living conditions are the only type of urban living conditions available, and people are being forced into them against their will. This is naked, obvious propaganda that must be rejected. (-1)
  • The more ignorant our species is, the more confident we tend to feel. (-3)
  • According to Naomi Klein, “Our economic system and our planetary system are now at war.”  In related news, July was the warmest month ever recorded by humans, and carbon dioxide concentrations are the highest seen for millions of years. (-3)
  • The media buzz about a worldwide recession seems to be increasing. (-2)

Positive stories (+12):

  • The suburban vs. urban culture wars continue. Suburban office parks are tanking as young people prefer more urban job settings. Entrepreneurs are working on the problems of being car-less with children. (+1)
  • Steven Hawking has a plan to figure out if there is any intelligent life out there. (+1)
  • There are straightforward, practical ideas for dealing with the issues of loading, deliveries, and temporary contractor parking in dense urban areas. (+1)
  • Economists have concluded that preventing human extinction may be economical after all, because “reducing an infinite loss is infinitely profitable”. Is this kind of thinking really useful? (+0)
  • “gene drive” technology helps make sure that genetically engineered traits are passed along to offspring. (+0)
  • Technology marches on – quantum computing is in early emergence, the “internet of things” is arriving at the “peak of inflated expectations”, big data is crashing into the “trough of disillusionment”, virtual reality is beginning its assent to the “plateau of productivity”, and speech recognition is arriving on the plateau. And super-intelligent rodents may be on the way. (+1)
  • Honeybees may be in trouble, but they are not the only bees. (+0)
  • Robotics may be on the verge of a Cambrian explosion, which will almost certainly be bad for some types of jobs, but will also bring us things like cars that avoid pedestrians and computer chips powered by sweat. I for one am excited to be alive at this moment in history. (+2)
  • Dogs can be trained to smell cancer. (+1)
  •  There’s promise of a vaccine for MERS. (+1)
  • It may be possible to capture atmospheric carbon and turn it into high-strength, valuable carbon fiber. This sounds like a potential game-changer to me, because if carbon fiber were cheap it could be substituted for a lot of heavy, toxic and energy-intensive materials we use now, and open up possibilities for entirely new types of structures and vehicles. (+3)
  • Robot deliveries and reusable containers could be a match. (+1)

You might think I rigged that to come out even, but I didn’t.

the Environmental Kuznets Curve

1 Reply

Here’s a journal article with some discussion of the Environmental Kuznets Curve, which is the idea that a developing country’s environment will slowly degrade, then improve again. Having breathed and drank in a variety of countries, it is pretty clear to me that the concept applies to air and water pollution, but not to overall ecological footprint, wildlife habitat, or long-term stability of our atmosphere and oceans. I suspect that this is because air and water pollution are things people can understand – they affect health, safety, and property values in pretty obvious ways. Over time, economic development starts giving people some money, education, and leisure time, and they become more politically active, generating pressure to clean up the immediate human environment. But people don’t understand or don’t care about the long-term ecological issues as much, so the political pressure does not develop.

The main purpose of this paper is to present a theoretical model incorporating the concept of circular economic activities. We construct a circular economy model with two types of economic resources, namely, a polluting input and a recyclable input. Overall, our results indicate that the factors affecting economic growth include the marginal product of the recyclable input, the recycling ratio, the cost of using the environmentally polluting input and the level of pollution arising from the employment of the polluting input. Our analysis also shows that, contrary to the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC), environmental quality cannot be maintained or improved via economic growth. Instead, the improvement in environmental quality, as measured by a reduction in pollution, can only be achieved by an increase in the environmental self-renewal rate or the recycling ratio.

July 2015 in Review

Leave a reply

I’m experimenting with my +3/-3 rating system again this month, just to convey the idea that not all stories are equal in importance. The result is that July was a pretty negative month! Whether that reflects more the state of the world or the state of my mind, or some combination, you can decide.

Negative stories (-21):

  • In The Dead Hand, I learned that the risk of nuclear annihilation in the 1980s was greater than I thought, and the true story of Soviet biological weapons production was much worse than I thought. (-3)
  • Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking, among others, are concerned about a real-life Terminator scenario. (-2)
  • I playfully pointed out that the Pope’s encyclical contains some themes that sound like the more lucid paragraphs in the Unabomber Manifesto, namely that the amoral pursuit of technology has improved our level of material comfort and physical health while devastating the natural world, creating new risks, and leaving us feeling empty somehow. (-1)
  • Bumblebees are getting squeezed by climate change. (-1)
  • The Cold War seems to be rearing its ugly head. (-2)
  • There may be a “global renaissance of coal”. (-3)
  • Joel Kotkin and other anti-urban voices like him want to make sure you don’t have the choice of living in a walkable community. (-2)
  • I think Obama may be remembered as an effective, conservative president, in the dictionary sense of playing it safe and avoiding major mistakes. Navigating the financial crisis, achieving some financial and health care reforms, and defusing several wars and conflicts are probably his greatest achievements. However, if a major war or financial crisis erupts in the near future that can be traced back to decisions he made, his legacy will suffer whether it is fair or not. (-0)
  • We can think of natural capital as a battery that took a long time to charge and has now been discharged almost instantly. (-3)
  • James Hansen is warning of much faster and greater sea level rise than current mainstream expectations. (-3)
  • Lloyd’s of London has spun a scenario of how a food crisis could play out. (-1)

Positive stories (+7):

June 2015 in Review

1 Reply

Negative stories:

Positive stories:

climate change impacts

Leave a reply

Here are a couple projections of climate change impacts.

The World Health Organization projects “Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress.” This sounds awful, and of course it is. But if you compare this to other preventable causes of death like traffic accidents, smoking and air pollution, you could probably save a lot more lives with a given amount of money focusing on the latter group than exclusively on climate change.

A more sobering projection, at least to me, comes from an organization called DARA.  Although the report includes some truly awful and incomprehensible infographics, there is a very clear graphic on p. 21. Under a “no action” scenario, climate change subtracts about 3% from world economic growth in 2050 and 7-8% in 2100. If you believe technology will lead to a massive acceleration of economic growth, we may be able to afford even this (although our children will be learning about Earth’s original native ecosystems in history class). If long-term growth stays in the sub-5% range where it has been recently, this will mean the decline and fall of civilization as we know it.

February 2015 in Review

Leave a reply

This blog got 173 hits in February! Pretty cool, considering I really just meant it as a place to collect my own scattered thoughts and refer back to them later. If 173 out of the 6 billion people out there like it, I am flattered. Okay, I understand there may have been a few repeat visitors. Also, judging from the most popular posts, there is one thing I mention occasionally that people really like: robots!

Negative trends and predictions:

  • Fresh Air had an interview with Elizabeth Kolbert, author of The Sixth Extinction. The idea here is that what humans are doing to other species is equivalent in scope to events that have killed off most life on Earth in the past.
  • The drought in the western U.S. continues to grind on.
  • There are some depressing new books out there about all the bad things that could happen to the world, from nuclear terrorism to pandemics. Also a “financial black hole”, a “major breakdown of the Internet”, “the underpopulation bomb”, the “death of death”, and more!
  • Government fragmentation explains at least part of suburban sprawl and urban decline in U.S. states, with Pennsylvania among the worst.

Positive trends and predictions:

  • Libraries are starting to go high-tech using warehouse robot technology.
  • I had a rambling post on technologies to watch: carbon fiber, the internet of things, self-driving cars and trucks, biotechnology for everything from carbon sequestration to cancer treatment to agriculture, and of course more automation, robots, and artificial intelligence. And yes, Clark W. Griswold’s cereal varnish is a real thing!
  • U.S. utility solar capacity is slowly ramping up.
  • A new study suggests a sudden, catastrophic climate tipping point may not be too likely.
  • Robots can independently develop new drugs.
  • According to Google, self-driving taxis are only 2-5 years away.
  • Complex ecosystems can be designed.
  • Compost toilets may save the world…if we can get over the ick factor and the sawdust problem.
  • There are lots of cheap new options for the aspiring high-tech handymen (and women and children) among us. Even better news, we may have reached the point where if you build a robot with your kid in the basement, and he then tells other kids about it, he might not get beat up on the playground.
  • New York City has some good examples of green stormwater infrastructure integrated in sidewalk and street design.

One thing that strikes me is that we keep hearing about biotechnology, but we haven’t seen big, obvious impacts in most of our daily lives yet. I suspect biotechnology is like computers and robots in the 70s, 80s, and 90s – slow but steady progress was being made in the background, the pressure was building, and then the wave suddenly broke onto the commercial and public consciousness. I suspect biotechnology is the next big wave that is going to break.