a ridiculous pipe dream and vulnerable to all sorts of the same dirty tricks and loop holes that break "ideal market conditions" we are all taught to venerate (but are as common as unicorns). capitalism is systematically flawed, you cannot solve the problems it creates from within that system. you need to abandon the system.
good, I d also like to put a tag on life and everything and make the law in such a manner that let's say someone steals 1000 usd and someone steals 10.000.000 usd,. so , one should get 1 month of jail and the other, 10000 months, something like that is my dream for the world.
I've worked a while for the UN in a project valuing ecosystem services (SEEA-EEA) and the consense was NOT to put price tags in money value on those services, but rather in tons of resources or percentages of certain political goals, if at all. Exactly because of the sheer complexity of ecosystems, the calculation ends up completely different, depending on the perspective. And it depends on the dimensions. If you cut down one tree - oh, well. But if you cut down a whole forest, you lose soil due to erosion, water due to lack of capturing it, you might even lose tourism - just to name a few. Valuing ecosystem services usually works at a big scale and I consider it as a tool for helping politicians and decision makers with their strategies ("will you get to X% increase or decrease of Y, like you promised?"), or sometimes with "smaller" decisions ("what will you get and what will lose, if you build a dam here?"). You COULD put a price tag at best on a scale of the economy of a whole country or region, but that also shows, valuing ecosystems does work on a political scale and not for companies or individuals ("let muy buy this forest with my money").
Big scale makes sense to me as well. Valueing a single tree seems weird to me. The individual price of that tree could be anything, but it's valued via averages and that doesn't make too much sense to. A big old oak inside a city has a different ecosystem function to the same oak standing in an old growth forest. If anything valueing trees city wide would seem more sensible.
Putting a monetary value on nature is self defeating, once we adopt the logic and language of the market the argument is lost. As Oscar Wilde said, a cynic is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
You probably didn't watch the video to the end. The whole point of monetizing nature is to trick everyone into looking after nature, even if they don't actually care about it.
Since the electricity, natural gas, fuels for heating and transportation are the reason there is so much pollution, I think huge taxes on those products could be the best way to do that. Additional taxes on specific products, like single use plastics, would be another way to fund cleaning up the planet. Not just money for cleaning up the planet, but also paying for infrastructure changes needed due to climate change.
one thing we should do is put more emphasis on the fact that by destroying nature we are destroying humanity. like george carlin said ''the planet is fine, the people are fucked''. by saying we're saving the trees or the whales or the bees, we are distancing ourselves from the consequences of these flora and fauna dying out, so it looks like it does not really have an impact on us people. and we are a exceptional selfish species, we think of ourselves before anything else and so we should use that. also maybe we should actually punish companies that harm the environment? nobody is gonna care about a fine when they have so much money their next 5 generations wont be able to spend it all if they stopped making money now. and if you make so much money that a fine is just a day or even a month's worth of profit, why follow the rules if you can pay to make breaking the rules all better? if i drive recklessly there is a good chance my car and license will be taken away... how about we do this with companies? you are responsible for making sure your company does not cause ecological disasters and if you fail at this, you lose your company and don't get to start a new one.
Unfortunately the financial punishment for corporations that do harm to the environment is less than the profit they make from doing business that way, so one could say that it is in their best interest to not follow the law, especially since there is no actual punishment for the people making these decisions.
We already have a price tag on nature, and destroying our biosphere is cheaper in the moment than being sustainable. We need urgently true pricing that considers the environmental impact on all products and services.
I once attended a lecture where the speaker was talking about this with regards to putting a price on human lives. Eg. Quantifying the amount of damages that companies should be liable for when their pollution or other environmental impacts directly result in deaths in the communities around their factories. Obviously, the first reaction is that you can't put a price on the value of a human life, it's priceless. No matter how high of a number you choose, the more you really think about it the more icky it feels to assign a finite amount. The speaker acknowledged this, but said "although it feels fundamentally wrong to assign a value to human life, rest assured corporations are already doing that, and they're assigning it pennies if anything at all". That always stuck with me. As long as we are in a capitalist system, companies will not hesitate to destroy everything in their path just to make a profit. We therefore need to use whatever tools we can to ensure that human suffering and environmental destruction are not profitable.
I think it would be really difficult to put a price on an ecosystem without accidentally introducing perverse incentives that end up making it profitable to damage the ecosystem. It's really hard to think of everything at the beginning when you're first setting a system up. That's why so many laws and regulations have loopholes. I think prices like this might be one tool we can use, but relying on them entirely will probably mean we wake up one day and realise everything is gone. It seems like it'd be much simpler to just acknowledge how important the natural world is and drastically increase fines and jail time for damaging it. The fines shouldn't just pay for the damage, they should be big enough to really punish companies for causing that damage, so that it is not profitable for them to do it again
Carbon credit systems are never going to work. This is a terrible idea. Just regulate the companies harming the environment. Force them to stop. Do not force them to factor in the cost of the harm they want to do. Credits won't change ANYTHING.
Yes because all people understand these days is dollar signs. It is clear that nature does a lot of work that is not even possible for humans to do, and that we are dependent on that work for our very lives. In that sense the work is invaluable. But if we had to put a price on it, it would probably be in the quadrillions.
Very insightful and the cute little touches like at 9:08 are some nice comic relief is such a philosophic and quite frankly depressing subject matter! Wonderful!
the thing with the tree is, if you cut it it makes space for a new tree to grow, and it lets sun hit the grass which itself captures carbon. Is it factored in ? But I like the overall idea
Hey there! Obviously it is also important that the soil can capture carbon. However, currently there is way too much deforestation and that endangers ecosystems. If you are interested in the tool´s specific parameters, you can dive into their report on their underlying methods 👉 www.itreetools.org/documents/650/i-Tree_Methods_gtr_nrs200-2021.pdf
Maybe as a transition away from capitalism this could work. But ultimately, a degrowth economy including legal personhood is probably necessary if we want to preserve what's left of our global ecosystems.
@@falsificationism There are not enough for us to transition to a "green" economy in the timeframe that is needed. And there are not enough resources for us and the rest of the biosphere.
Life definitely have a price tag on them, even human life have a price tag, which is determined in retribution in deaths caused by pollution in the court or the compensation given to the families of casualties in war. In all these cases, "worthless" means that governments and big companies don't need to pay anything for killing, which is obviously worse if they need to pay a large amount of money for the damages they cause
At some point the arguments were more geared toward carbon credits again, it is important to distinguish: 1. Valuing benefits of nature does not necessarily have to include the option to offset destruction with it. 2. This valuation should include many more services than carbon, allowing us to appreciate for example coastal protection, biodiversity or drinking water 3. We should not use it instead of a moral argument but as a complementary tool.
The problem also is, that there is no limit on amounth of money. Banking system can create more money and continue as usual. THere will be more "value" on the market so it will be really easy to make more money, devaule them and pay for the new value. Our economic system is about making profit. If you want to conserve the enviroment, you cant employ profit making invective and expect other results.
Thank you for referring me to this video! As an American expat and citizen of the world I have been frustrated by the arrogance of capitalism and its disregard for the natural world; the web of life for which we depend.
I've always thought a price on nature would be a good thing as a tree is seen to have no value until an axe (human effort) is put into it. My thoughts are to use some economic system, maybe not necessarily currency, which values nature in a model where the cost is based on what would be required to restore it to it's original natural state if it was removed.
This reminds me of the govenment of Portugal whose environmental organism ICNF has already cut 3750 cork trees and holm oaks, which are native fire resistant trees, to build solar power plants, and the environment minister says it's going to plant trees again, proving their understanding of how ecosystems work nears zero. Just greed. It's enraging and sad. Oh and they approved the culling of 540 wild animals to transform a plot of land into a solar power station.
Perhaps they weren't gorgeous to the Rite person(s). Alot of " green" vegans are NIMBYs as well. It's a fashion statement not a political one to alot of young women.🎉
Honestly this is exactly what I thought when you at the start of the video when we saw a small clip of asking people how much the tree was worth, my brain immediate thought that you'd have to determine so many variables it's incredibly difficult like beneficial psychological effects, shade, carbon captured, oxygen produced, location, effects on ecosystem ECT (I didn't think of water run off though unfortunately) and thought that what we determine a tree to be worth from a capitalistic point of view for timber isn't factoring the wider economy as a whole, our economy is built on the basis on boom and bust cycles, it doesn't have to be this way. Transitioning to a social democracy and making sustainable decisions is a must, when we only factor short term economic value were dooming ourselves to unforseen consequences, for example trees being chopped down could increase obesity, loneliness, induce a sedimentary lifestyle, depression ect, this is obvious in The USA with massive urban sprawl and urban suburbia. The only con of doing this is initial capital investment because it obviously costs more to evaluate how much something is truly worth because you have to use advanced computer models but the benefits are huge . (Edit) To be honest putting value on anything seems natural to me, it doesn't seem uncomfortable to put a value on a living organism, everything in the universe has an intrinsic value.
The idea is not to put a price on nature but acknowledge the value of nature. It seems ridiculous to price ecosystem services because of the myopia of our current economic system that takes nature simply as given or endowed and not as a productive asset. So its ongoing destruction and pollution in the form of **_biodiversity loss_** (separate but equal in magnitude to the more popular twin planetary crisis of climate change repeatedly mentioned in this video about nature) rages on. In mostly all accounting systems from company and household balance sheets to national GDP, no where do we acknowledge depreciation or appreciation of nature capital only produced capital and human capital. Please read the Dasgupta Review on _The Economics of Biodiversity_ (2021) that provides a different, much needed paradigm of our portfolio management of nature. Again, this will seem weird in our failing business as usual processes. Overall, as IPBES amd IPCC mentioned in their 2021 joint workshop report on the dual crises of biodiversity and climate, we need transformative change of a kind and scale never before attempted! This includes finance and governace and other human activities to truly value nature. Otherwise, the ongoing human-caused Sixth Mass Extinction will rage on!
I think we should not put a price on nature itself, on the material or the benefits (how ever those may be calculated). But we should estimate the price for what it takes if it had to be replaced, with all the implicate consequences. For example: Replace the cut tree, and the insects that live on an in it, and feed the insects that would feed from the tree, the birds that would eat the insects, but also count in the cost for pollenising by these insects, etc. etc. This would pretty fast become a pretty high price. However, of course it should be reduced by the benefits that come from the use of, for example, the wood of this tree, when, e.g., it is used to build a house...
If you want to speak with people, you have to speak with them in the language that they understand. I think anyone reading this understands nature language, but many people only understand language of MONEY.
We're running the numbers in the wrong direction 😔 we need to instead of just calculating how much value it's producing look at what the costs would be to not have it anymore! For example seagrass doesn't just sink carbon and encourage wildlife; it also prevents and mitigates other effects of climate change like flooding and wildfires and drought when you look at the long term whole system impacts. We've got to stop focusing on one aspect of this: carbon and look at the entire system
Legal oversight committees should be made by lawyers, to transition the old energy companies, to help them become the renewable companies that every nation needs today. This company regulation act should also put in laws, to stop and seize the assests of any company or companies anywhere, found engaging in any known anti environmental activities. Common people can never pay the environmental cost made by them, any longer.
Arguably a human life should be harder to measure and insurance companies and such use QALYs all the time to put a price tag on a life. I don't why it's harder on other species
WOW this was way better that I thought it would be!. I was just haveing this disscusion yesterday, and this adresses the issue on all the levels. Didn´t think of the value of nature only when it dead. I can see the benefits of it form a sanctions stand point, but ones you put a tag on something, there will be some one willing to claim property over them, cus there is always someone with the recources to buy it, and thats a problem too. (in addition to perpetuating bad buisness practices) This will keep me thinking for various days.
when we actually start to value all life as important, not as how they serve us but simply as their own right to exist on this their planet their home we can say we have evolved - but if we are valuing based on contribution to this planet - well the price tag on the human species is well in the negative imo.
The focus should be about making the necessary changes to CUT GHG emissions; the price tag we should be talking about is the price of pollution that big companies and fossil fuel industries need to pay. When it hurts their profit, THEN they will change. And this only will happen when people start electing representatives that adress the issue. To do so, we need to keep raising awareness about the problem. Here in Brazil it's a huge challenge. Bolsonaro is out, but Lula isn't the biggest fan of environment, he's just less worse, and the majority of the congress elected is worst than ever, they are all about greed. It just show us how climate change is a social problem, a political problem. If we focus on that, then we have a chance. We need to increase the preasure against authorities, even more than against companies.
If we think nature is priceless, at least we should drastically lower or stop our consumption of animal products. This is the easiest and most effective way to lower our individual impact on the environment.
If only it were that simple. Rain forests are demolished for plant-based food products as much as they are for grazing land. The problem is how we source our food, not what kind of food it is. Banana plantations are planted where once diverse rainforest used to be, and pristine wetlands are turned into rice paddies. If we can grow meat in a lab more efficiently than the wasteful process we currently have, and if we started to grow crops on wasted surfaces such as on rooftops of skyscrapers. There are 100s of solutions but none of them are easy.
@@terrafirma5327 Have a look at our world in data / environmental impact of food production. I guess you're just not aware how big of an issue animal agriculture really is.
@@ab-td7gq No, its an issue. I never said it was. I am saying your crusade against it is going to not solve anything when there are many issues to tackle at once.
@@ab-td7gq Environmental science is my job, and its not as simple as Gen Z crusaders think it is. It if it were easy, we would have done it already. It takes a concentrated cultural shift on many fronts.
@@ab-td7gq Did you know there are millions of people who can't break down non-meat products? Meat is the easiest thing for our stomachs to break down and people have serious diseases that prevent them from eating anything else, in an affordable manner. Yeah, they can eat weird medical supplements but that costs a lot of money and people just can't afford that. Also, poor communities like the suburbs of California can't afford non-meat products more often than not. Highly processed food is all they can afford. I know you wish the world was black and white so you could be on the winning side without any real effort, but its not. Its shades of gray and there are factors that don't even occur to you. That is why there is an entire field of study related to environmental impact and science. Its not a simple issue.
your question was right your report, sadly, poor. Grown trees should be priced after a manmade technical equivalent like an air-conditioning incl the power on its lifetime running. such execution I was desperately missing on this video... sad
Life is easy when we just pick our daily bread only. This principle was damaged by almost all of our modern livelihood philosophy, including the church teachings.
If someone is trying to teach me about a value of the nature, but cannot tell one of the most common trees you can find in the european nature... sorry, but at this moment the whole video lost its credibility for me...
We should introduce a tax on extracting or importing combustible materials (fossil or not), along carbon taxes. We should tax the production of fuels and exploitation of resources, not the emissions.
Seeking harmony in nature has human historical integrity. Why do people suppose philosophy is useless? Because philosophy (wisdom) can't be bought? Do we really suppose that hiring a millionaire itself promises wisdom and its results? I embellish this rhetoric to say socialists have more lawfulness than capitalists, on the national layer of humanity, whereas capitalists have clearly more stable direction when it comes to modernizing feudal empires (still the "old world," so to speak). Can't just buy knowledge, but actually have to (1) learn reality; (2) with one's own mind; and (3) be tested by other minds (all largely based on correspondence theory of true reality where language corresponds to reality, rather than ideas conforming to language idealism). We have to eliminate popular cynicism. Or else hope cynicism can very hardly or poorly subsist humanity.
if physicists can calculate the elements in the universe, they can absolutely calculate the value of the environment over the value of tyrant oligarchs
The market is not evil, it brought millions out of poverty and brought us our prosperity. There is no big bad entity, the only bad thing is too much power in one place. A big government is just as bad as big corporations.
To me it is good idia to monetized wild animals For examples let assume there are 1000 Silverback gorillas left in wild if we put value on each gorillas say $100,000 and pay out $100 million dollars to the villagers it would be in their best interest to protect the gorillas since their income source depends on the number of gorillas in wild, in addition When a new gorillas born they get additional $ 100,000 dollars, on the other hand if they lose one gorillas then they would lose $ 100,000 if this scheme implemented no poacher would have afforded to pay them this much ..
1. Planet of the Apes is an American science fiction media franchise consisting of films, books, television series, comics, 2. Rampage is a 2018 American science fiction action adventure monster film 3. King Kong is a fictional giant monster resembling a gorilla, who has appeared in various media since 1933. 4. National Geographic Magazine 5. Zoo around the world 6. Gorilla Tape is a brand of adhesive tape sold by Sharonville, Ohio based Gorilla Glue Inc. 7. Many other etc All the above benefited f1rom Gorillas images but they never supported the real Gorillas in wild Can we imagine if the name Gorillas protected like Coca-Cola brand name ... I understand to enforce gorilla brand name all I am saying is all beneficiaries voluntary even not give away but invest 10% of their profits where the poor villagers can benefited simple examples is set up American science school on those village and volunteers can come and teach, hospitals etc other invest too If it is my way I would make it free trade zone where any international business set up their business like lodge and other utilities companies so that the village supported economically Hallala Kella Resort Is one good example even local Ethiopian Pm initiate can make big difference protecting wildlife
Nature is the precondition to the market, it cannot be a market. You cannot own nature, because it is not divisible, and decomposes if (re)moved. Applying the price mechanism is basically meaningless, because it reflects only one small aspect of one dimension of value: exchange. Value arrises from human production and consumption, but nature has value when we leave it alone, it is intrinsic. Economics is not a science, it is an ideology with the social function of a religion. Science advances by being tested for validity, it can be falsified. Surely a global market in equilibrium that provokes planetary catastrophe akin to the end of the world has qualified as a failure? Yet, somehow, the wise priesthood of economists advise governments to expand their utopian political project. It is the vain attempt to rationalize the world through capital markets that is the problem. They will sacrifice nature to preserve capitalism until it kills us all. They already have.
I think only cryptocurrency could perhaps be dynamic enough to reflect the fluctuations in species, succession in habitats and changes in ecosystem services over a long period of time.
In parts of New York there are fines for doing things that actually help wooded areas; such as, removing dead wood. By removing the dead wood from the area it decreases the chances of forest fires. Those forest fires can also put people and their homes in danger. They do this while claiming to be protecting the wooded areas. I have a great respect for the planet, and I don’t want to see the effects of their policies biting them in their rears.
Fires are actually an important part of forest ecosystems. The reason they are so damaging now is BECAUSE of our forest "management" practices. If homes have to be destroyed for ecosystems to function properly so be it.
What do you think about putting a price on nature?
this is absolutely essential and all country in the world should do it
a ridiculous pipe dream and vulnerable to all sorts of the same dirty tricks and loop holes that break "ideal market conditions" we are all taught to venerate (but are as common as unicorns). capitalism is systematically flawed, you cannot solve the problems it creates from within that system. you need to abandon the system.
good, I d also like to put a tag on life and everything and make the law in such a manner that let's say someone steals 1000 usd and someone steals 10.000.000 usd,. so , one should get 1 month of jail and the other, 10000 months, something like that is my dream for the world.
The ecosystem existed before the economy
How would they enforce it though, they can't even stop illegal tree cutting
I've worked a while for the UN in a project valuing ecosystem services (SEEA-EEA) and the consense was NOT to put price tags in money value on those services, but rather in tons of resources or percentages of certain political goals, if at all. Exactly because of the sheer complexity of ecosystems, the calculation ends up completely different, depending on the perspective. And it depends on the dimensions. If you cut down one tree - oh, well. But if you cut down a whole forest, you lose soil due to erosion, water due to lack of capturing it, you might even lose tourism - just to name a few. Valuing ecosystem services usually works at a big scale and I consider it as a tool for helping politicians and decision makers with their strategies ("will you get to X% increase or decrease of Y, like you promised?"), or sometimes with "smaller" decisions ("what will you get and what will lose, if you build a dam here?"). You COULD put a price tag at best on a scale of the economy of a whole country or region, but that also shows, valuing ecosystems does work on a political scale and not for companies or individuals ("let muy buy this forest with my money").
Yes their policy is very macro, but the subsurface of the forest (fungal network or microbes) is not accounted for
Big scale makes sense to me as well. Valueing a single tree seems weird to me. The individual price of that tree could be anything, but it's valued via averages and that doesn't make too much sense to. A big old oak inside a city has a different ecosystem function to the same oak standing in an old growth forest. If anything valueing trees city wide would seem more sensible.
Putting a monetary value on nature is self defeating, once we adopt the logic and language of the market the argument is lost. As Oscar Wilde said, a cynic is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Thank you for that! Printed paper can not represent resources, energy or nature itself.
You probably didn't watch the video to the end. The whole point of monetizing nature is to trick everyone into looking after nature, even if they don't actually care about it.
True words
Since the electricity, natural gas, fuels for heating and transportation are the reason there is so much pollution, I think huge taxes on those products could be the best way to do that. Additional taxes on specific products, like single use plastics, would be another way to fund cleaning up the planet. Not just money for cleaning up the planet, but also paying for infrastructure changes needed due to climate change.
thank you! Taxes would solve the problem of effortless environmental destruction.
one thing we should do is put more emphasis on the fact that by destroying nature we are destroying humanity.
like george carlin said ''the planet is fine, the people are fucked''.
by saying we're saving the trees or the whales or the bees, we are distancing ourselves from the consequences of these flora and fauna dying out, so it looks like it does not really have an impact on us people.
and we are a exceptional selfish species, we think of ourselves before anything else and so we should use that.
also maybe we should actually punish companies that harm the environment? nobody is gonna care about a fine when they have so much money their next 5 generations wont be able to spend it all if they stopped making money now. and if you make so much money that a fine is just a day or even a month's worth of profit, why follow the rules if you can pay to make breaking the rules all better?
if i drive recklessly there is a good chance my car and license will be taken away... how about we do this with companies? you are responsible for making sure your company does not cause ecological disasters and if you fail at this, you lose your company and don't get to start a new one.
Unfortunately the financial punishment for corporations that do harm to the environment is less than the profit they make from doing business that way, so one could say that it is in their best interest to not follow the law, especially since there is no actual punishment for the people making these decisions.
We already have a price tag on nature, and destroying our biosphere is cheaper in the moment than being sustainable. We need urgently true pricing that considers the environmental impact on all products and services.
I have a feeling all this would do is consolidate certain industries
Nature is so valuable that no amount of money will reach its value
I once attended a lecture where the speaker was talking about this with regards to putting a price on human lives. Eg. Quantifying the amount of damages that companies should be liable for when their pollution or other environmental impacts directly result in deaths in the communities around their factories. Obviously, the first reaction is that you can't put a price on the value of a human life, it's priceless. No matter how high of a number you choose, the more you really think about it the more icky it feels to assign a finite amount. The speaker acknowledged this, but said "although it feels fundamentally wrong to assign a value to human life, rest assured corporations are already doing that, and they're assigning it pennies if anything at all". That always stuck with me. As long as we are in a capitalist system, companies will not hesitate to destroy everything in their path just to make a profit. We therefore need to use whatever tools we can to ensure that human suffering and environmental destruction are not profitable.
Thank❤🌹🙏 you, DW Planet A team😊! Greedy capitalist system understands no other language than money... 😢😢😢
I think it would be really difficult to put a price on an ecosystem without accidentally introducing perverse incentives that end up making it profitable to damage the ecosystem. It's really hard to think of everything at the beginning when you're first setting a system up. That's why so many laws and regulations have loopholes. I think prices like this might be one tool we can use, but relying on them entirely will probably mean we wake up one day and realise everything is gone.
It seems like it'd be much simpler to just acknowledge how important the natural world is and drastically increase fines and jail time for damaging it. The fines shouldn't just pay for the damage, they should be big enough to really punish companies for causing that damage, so that it is not profitable for them to do it again
Carbon credit systems are never going to work. This is a terrible idea. Just regulate the companies harming the environment. Force them to stop. Do not force them to factor in the cost of the harm they want to do. Credits won't change ANYTHING.
Yes because all people understand these days is dollar signs. It is clear that nature does a lot of work that is not even possible for humans to do, and that we are dependent on that work for our very lives. In that sense the work is invaluable. But if we had to put a price on it, it would probably be in the quadrillions.
What app are you using to determine the value of a tree 🌳?
Hey there! It is this one: www.itreetools.org/
Very insightful and the cute little touches like at 9:08 are some nice comic relief is such a philosophic and quite frankly depressing subject matter! Wonderful!
the thing with the tree is, if you cut it it makes space for a new tree to grow, and it lets sun hit the grass which itself captures carbon. Is it factored in ? But I like the overall idea
Hey there! Obviously it is also important that the soil can capture carbon. However, currently there is way too much deforestation and that endangers ecosystems. If you are interested in the tool´s specific parameters, you can dive into their report on their underlying methods 👉 www.itreetools.org/documents/650/i-Tree_Methods_gtr_nrs200-2021.pdf
Maybe as a transition away from capitalism this could work. But ultimately, a degrowth economy including legal personhood is probably necessary if we want to preserve what's left of our global ecosystems.
Hey there! We are going to publish a video on degrowth soon! Subscribe to be notified!
Rich people will not like degrowth because it would require redistribution of resources
@@DWPlanetA That's fantastic! Very much looking forward to it! Thanks for doing what you do.
@@annibjrkmann8464 Good thing there are more than enough resources to go around.
@@falsificationism There are not enough for us to transition to a "green" economy in the timeframe that is needed. And there are not enough resources for us and the rest of the biosphere.
Life definitely have a price tag on them, even human life have a price tag, which is determined in retribution in deaths caused by pollution in the court or the compensation given to the families of casualties in war. In all these cases, "worthless" means that governments and big companies don't need to pay anything for killing, which is obviously worse if they need to pay a large amount of money for the damages they cause
At some point the arguments were more geared toward carbon credits again, it is important to distinguish:
1. Valuing benefits of nature does not necessarily have to include the option to offset destruction with it.
2. This valuation should include many more services than carbon, allowing us to appreciate for example coastal protection, biodiversity or drinking water
3. We should not use it instead of a moral argument but as a complementary tool.
The problem also is, that there is no limit on amounth of money. Banking system can create more money and continue as usual. THere will be more "value" on the market so it will be really easy to make more money, devaule them and pay for the new value. Our economic system is about making profit. If you want to conserve the enviroment, you cant employ profit making invective and expect other results.
price tag on nature could've help put fine to those responsible for man made distaster. but other than that, nature is priceless.
Thank you for referring me to this video! As an American expat and citizen of the world I have been frustrated by the arrogance of capitalism and its disregard for the natural world; the web of life for which we depend.
This, to me, feels like getting the right answer with the wrong method.
I've always thought a price on nature would be a good thing as a tree is seen to have no value until an axe (human effort) is put into it. My thoughts are to use some economic system, maybe not necessarily currency, which values nature in a model where the cost is based on what would be required to restore it to it's original natural state if it was removed.
This reminds me of the govenment of Portugal whose environmental organism ICNF has already cut 3750 cork trees and holm oaks, which are native fire resistant trees, to build solar power plants, and the environment minister says it's going to plant trees again, proving their understanding of how ecosystems work nears zero. Just greed. It's enraging and sad. Oh and they approved the culling of 540 wild animals to transform a plot of land into a solar power station.
Three large trees were just cut down in my street... for no reason! They were healthy and gorgeous.
Perhaps they weren't gorgeous to the Rite person(s). Alot of " green" vegans are NIMBYs as well. It's a fashion statement not a political one to alot of young women.🎉
Honestly this is exactly what I thought when you at the start of the video when we saw a small clip of asking people how much the tree was worth, my brain immediate thought that you'd have to determine so many variables it's incredibly difficult like beneficial psychological effects, shade, carbon captured, oxygen produced, location, effects on ecosystem ECT (I didn't think of water run off though unfortunately) and thought that what we determine a tree to be worth from a capitalistic point of view for timber isn't factoring the wider economy as a whole, our economy is built on the basis on boom and bust cycles, it doesn't have to be this way. Transitioning to a social democracy and making sustainable decisions is a must, when we only factor short term economic value were dooming ourselves to unforseen consequences, for example trees being chopped down could increase obesity, loneliness, induce a sedimentary lifestyle, depression ect, this is obvious in The USA with massive urban sprawl and urban suburbia. The only con of doing this is initial capital investment because it obviously costs more to evaluate how much something is truly worth because you have to use advanced computer models but the benefits are huge .
(Edit)
To be honest putting value on anything seems natural to me, it doesn't seem uncomfortable to put a value on a living organism, everything in the universe has an intrinsic value.
The idea is not to put a price on nature but acknowledge the value of nature. It seems ridiculous to price ecosystem services because of the myopia of our current economic system that takes nature simply as given or endowed and not as a productive asset. So its ongoing destruction and pollution in the form of **_biodiversity loss_** (separate but equal in magnitude to the more popular twin planetary crisis of climate change repeatedly mentioned in this video about nature) rages on. In mostly all accounting systems from company and household balance sheets to national GDP, no where do we acknowledge depreciation or appreciation of nature capital only produced capital and human capital. Please read the Dasgupta Review on _The Economics of Biodiversity_ (2021) that provides a different, much needed paradigm of our portfolio management of nature. Again, this will seem weird in our failing business as usual processes.
Overall, as IPBES amd IPCC mentioned in their 2021 joint workshop report on the dual crises of biodiversity and climate, we need transformative change of a kind and scale never before attempted! This includes finance and governace and other human activities to truly value nature. Otherwise, the ongoing human-caused Sixth Mass Extinction will rage on!
2:15 Imagine being a highly educated journalist and not being able to tell an oak tree 😭
Loop hole 🕳️ in our educational systems....😊
If it helps the Nature then yes
I think we should not put a price on nature itself, on the material or the benefits (how ever those may be calculated). But we should estimate the price for what it takes if it had to be replaced, with all the implicate consequences. For example: Replace the cut tree, and the insects that live on an in it, and feed the insects that would feed from the tree, the birds that would eat the insects, but also count in the cost for pollenising by these insects, etc. etc. This would pretty fast become a pretty high price.
However, of course it should be reduced by the benefits that come from the use of, for example, the wood of this tree, when, e.g., it is used to build a house...
and we want politicans, paying for each of their lies
We here in rich countries have to face the facts and start living with less stuff we can live without please
Hey there! You could be interested in our video tackling climate reparations. Check it out here 👉 ua-cam.com/video/KGOvRn5_QRg/v-deo.html
If you want to speak with people, you have to speak with them in the language that they understand. I think anyone reading this understands nature language, but many people only understand language of MONEY.
We're running the numbers in the wrong direction 😔 we need to instead of just calculating how much value it's producing look at what the costs would be to not have it anymore! For example seagrass doesn't just sink carbon and encourage wildlife; it also prevents and mitigates other effects of climate change like flooding and wildfires and drought when you look at the long term whole system impacts. We've got to stop focusing on one aspect of this: carbon and look at the entire system
Not that the nature shpuld have a price, that price should be included into the price of ANYTHING we buy.
Legal oversight committees should be made by lawyers, to transition the old energy companies, to help them become the renewable companies that every nation needs today. This company regulation act should also put in laws, to stop and seize the assests of any company or companies anywhere, found engaging in any known anti environmental activities. Common people can never pay the environmental cost made by them, any longer.
Let us make a list of businesses that have to go now.
Arguably a human life should be harder to measure and insurance companies and such use QALYs all the time to put a price tag on a life. I don't why it's harder on other species
WOW this was way better that I thought it would be!. I was just haveing this disscusion yesterday, and this adresses the issue on all the levels. Didn´t think of the value of nature only when it dead.
I can see the benefits of it form a sanctions stand point, but ones you put a tag on something, there will be some one willing to claim property over them, cus there is always someone with the recources to buy it, and thats a problem too. (in addition to perpetuating bad buisness practices)
This will keep me thinking for various days.
when we actually start to value all life as important, not as how they serve us but simply as their own right to exist on this their planet their home we can say we have evolved - but if we are valuing based on contribution to this planet - well the price tag on the human species is well in the negative imo.
The focus should be about making the necessary changes to CUT GHG emissions; the price tag we should be talking about is the price of pollution that big companies and fossil fuel industries need to pay. When it hurts their profit, THEN they will change. And this only will happen when people start electing representatives that adress the issue. To do so, we need to keep raising awareness about the problem. Here in Brazil it's a huge challenge. Bolsonaro is out, but Lula isn't the biggest fan of environment, he's just less worse, and the majority of the congress elected is worst than ever, they are all about greed. It just show us how climate change is a social problem, a political problem. If we focus on that, then we have a chance. We need to increase the preasure against authorities, even more than against companies.
If we think nature is priceless, at least we should drastically lower or stop our consumption of animal products. This is the easiest and most effective way to lower our individual impact on the environment.
If only it were that simple. Rain forests are demolished for plant-based food products as much as they are for grazing land. The problem is how we source our food, not what kind of food it is. Banana plantations are planted where once diverse rainforest used to be, and pristine wetlands are turned into rice paddies. If we can grow meat in a lab more efficiently than the wasteful process we currently have, and if we started to grow crops on wasted surfaces such as on rooftops of skyscrapers. There are 100s of solutions but none of them are easy.
@@terrafirma5327 Have a look at our world in data / environmental impact of food production. I guess you're just not aware how big of an issue animal agriculture really is.
@@ab-td7gq No, its an issue. I never said it was. I am saying your crusade against it is going to not solve anything when there are many issues to tackle at once.
@@ab-td7gq Environmental science is my job, and its not as simple as Gen Z crusaders think it is. It if it were easy, we would have done it already. It takes a concentrated cultural shift on many fronts.
@@ab-td7gq Did you know there are millions of people who can't break down non-meat products? Meat is the easiest thing for our stomachs to break down and people have serious diseases that prevent them from eating anything else, in an affordable manner. Yeah, they can eat weird medical supplements but that costs a lot of money and people just can't afford that. Also, poor communities like the suburbs of California can't afford non-meat products more often than not. Highly processed food is all they can afford. I know you wish the world was black and white so you could be on the winning side without any real effort, but its not. Its shades of gray and there are factors that don't even occur to you. That is why there is an entire field of study related to environmental impact and science. Its not a simple issue.
should it have a price tag? should? it HAS a price tag, in todays economy, in todays currencies. The thing is we take it for granted, which it is NOT.
Right, so it doesn't have a price tag. Valuable TO us all, but but valued by us all.
There's a difference between a price tag and price.
The DW👍
Good idea
Extrem überfälliges Konzept für behördliche Zulassungsverfahren
your question was right your report, sadly, poor.
Grown trees should be priced after a manmade technical equivalent like an air-conditioning incl the power on its lifetime running. such execution I was desperately missing on this video... sad
i think we should over price the nature so its non profitable for firms that profits from it.
Life is easy when we just pick our daily bread only.
This principle was damaged by almost all of our modern livelihood philosophy, including the church teachings.
If someone is trying to teach me about a value of the nature, but cannot tell one of the most common trees you can find in the european nature... sorry, but at this moment the whole video lost its credibility for me...
We should introduce a tax on extracting or importing combustible materials (fossil or not), along carbon taxes. We should tax the production of fuels and exploitation of resources, not the emissions.
Seeking harmony in nature has human historical integrity. Why do people suppose philosophy is useless? Because philosophy (wisdom) can't be bought? Do we really suppose that hiring a millionaire itself promises wisdom and its results? I embellish this rhetoric to say socialists have more lawfulness than capitalists, on the national layer of humanity, whereas capitalists have clearly more stable direction when it comes to modernizing feudal empires (still the "old world," so to speak).
Can't just buy knowledge, but actually have to (1) learn reality; (2) with one's own mind; and (3) be tested by other minds (all largely based on correspondence theory of true reality where language corresponds to reality, rather than ideas conforming to language idealism). We have to eliminate popular cynicism. Or else hope cynicism can very hardly or poorly subsist humanity.
if physicists can calculate the elements in the universe, they can absolutely calculate the value of the environment over the value of tyrant oligarchs
What exactly is your point?
@@anxiousearth680 about what? I don't mind answering, if I know what you are referring to, if anything.
@@philosophy-of-science-and-law The entirety of your comment if you don't mind. Because it's all jargon and disconnected concepts to me.
@@anxiousearth680 what words don't you understand? say all of it, please, thank you!
The market is not evil, it brought millions out of poverty and brought us our prosperity. There is no big bad entity, the only bad thing is too much power in one place. A big government is just as bad as big corporations.
Why did you need to create this AI abomination of a whale for your thumbnail?! Thats stuff for nightmares!
To me it is good idia to monetized wild animals
For examples let assume there are 1000 Silverback gorillas left in wild if we put value on each gorillas say $100,000 and pay out $100 million dollars to the villagers it would be in their best interest to protect the gorillas since their income source depends on the number of gorillas in wild, in addition When a new gorillas born they get additional $ 100,000 dollars, on the other hand if they lose one gorillas then they would lose $ 100,000 if this scheme implemented no poacher would have afforded to pay them this much ..
1. Planet of the Apes is an American science fiction media franchise consisting of films, books, television series, comics,
2. Rampage is a 2018 American science fiction action adventure monster film
3. King Kong is a fictional giant monster resembling a gorilla, who has appeared in various media since 1933.
4. National Geographic Magazine
5. Zoo around the world
6. Gorilla Tape is a brand of adhesive tape sold by Sharonville, Ohio based Gorilla Glue Inc.
7. Many other etc
All the above benefited f1rom Gorillas images but they never supported the real Gorillas in wild
Can we imagine if the name Gorillas protected like Coca-Cola brand name ... I understand to enforce gorilla brand name all I am saying is all beneficiaries voluntary even not give away but invest 10% of their profits where the poor villagers can benefited simple examples is set up American science school on those village and volunteers can come and teach, hospitals etc other invest too
If it is my way I would make it free trade zone where any international business set up their business like lodge and other utilities companies so that the village supported economically
Hallala Kella Resort Is one good example even local Ethiopian Pm initiate can make big difference protecting wildlife
Honey, new tragedy of the commons just dropped.
✔
Nature is the precondition to the market, it cannot be a market. You cannot own nature, because it is not divisible, and decomposes if (re)moved. Applying the price mechanism is basically meaningless, because it reflects only one small aspect of one dimension of value: exchange. Value arrises from human production and consumption, but nature has value when we leave it alone, it is intrinsic. Economics is not a science, it is an ideology with the social function of a religion. Science advances by being tested for validity, it can be falsified. Surely a global market in equilibrium that provokes planetary catastrophe akin to the end of the world has qualified as a failure? Yet, somehow, the wise priesthood of economists advise governments to expand their utopian political project. It is the vain attempt to rationalize the world through capital markets that is the problem. They will sacrifice nature to preserve capitalism until it kills us all. They already have.
EArth
It's hard to take someone seriously who's all tatted up like that
Perhaps there is a price for everything? Couldn't resist. I hate tattoos as well and they should be earned not bought.
Aha
Black Bear Marking Trees and bar code numbers 666 gives some knowledge that humans are holders of number of the beast.
And some people think that people who babble about Satans and such are not mentally well.
I think only cryptocurrency could perhaps be dynamic enough to reflect the fluctuations in species, succession in habitats and changes in ecosystem services over a long period of time.
You should see someone who is good working with brains.
In parts of New York there are fines for doing things that actually help wooded areas; such as, removing dead wood. By removing the dead wood from the area it decreases the chances of forest fires. Those forest fires can also put people and their homes in danger. They do this while claiming to be protecting the wooded areas. I have a great respect for the planet, and I don’t want to see the effects of their policies biting them in their rears.
Fires are actually an important part of forest ecosystems. The reason they are so damaging now is BECAUSE of our forest "management" practices. If homes have to be destroyed for ecosystems to function properly so be it.
Snore.