Continuing the discussion with Richard Tol, Eli Rabett looks at how FUND models the costs of ecosystem damage and finds that it has a catastrophic loss of bio-diversity in 40 years -- 99% of species going extinct, but this only costs $250 per person because the only cost counted is that it makes people feel bad.
- Log in to post comments
Max
Of course, all right thinking people know that we need neither biodiversity nor the environment. After all, in a sophisticated industrial society, we are freed from all such primitive needs. We can now simply get all our food from the shops, and endless clean water straight from the tap, And everyone knows that there is nothing that industrial society can do to impact the atmosphere that we breathe. We no longer need to worry about nasty dirty things like the soil, biodiversity, bugs, creepy crawlies, and the environment. Industry and the economy together can provide for all our wants and needs
So let us trim back the environment to a manageable state, remove all the wild, messy and threatening forests, heaths and grasslands, and replace them with ever more shops selling soulless materialistic tack, and enriching the lives of all. Never mind if a small emotional and aesthetic loss that will follow the death of mother nature, that can easily be replaced by watching old David Attenborough videos that we will have bought from the new shops.
It might be best to adopt a sarcastic intonation while reading this post!
>*So let us trim back the environment to a manageable state, remove all the wild, messy and threatening forests, heaths and grasslands, and replace them with ever more shops selling soulless materialistic tack...*
How are we going to get richer, and the poor to get rich, unless we build more shops?
@ himThere:
No need for trimming the virunment back, once we've finished logging all the trees (for timber to build the shops and the houses for all the shop workers and customers), dug up most of the remainder for coal, iron ore, uranium, bauxite and unobtanium (to power the shops, the shop workers, the...) and covered the rest with dams (for drinking water for the shop workers and the customers, and to prevent the shops - the ones we built with the timber and powered with the coal - from flooding), thereshouldn't be much left we can't trim with a pair of shears.
Ayn Rand would have paroxysms of joy.
Heh.
Brere Rabbet picked the same paper that I thought to start with. 'Cepting he did a much clearer job with sorting out the claw-counting.
Oh well, Tol has many more boxes for me to play with. Once more unto the breach...
Given that past mass extinctions have typically resulted in the die-off of 30-50% of species, any model that comes up with 99% in 40 years needs some serious explaining. I'm aware that we are in the midst of a human-driven mass extinction, but life is pretty tenacious.
Eli has it right: "needs a bit more work".
It bugs me that as far as some people are concerned, nature is nothing more than an expendable luxury. To quote Ronald Reagan, "...a tree is a tree, how many more do you need to look at?"
JamesA, I'm not sure how accurate the Reagan quote is (it has the ring of authenticity to it though...), but to use it in the modern 'virons, "...a human is a human, how many more do you need to look at?"
As I said in the Tolgate thread, if we were to lose, say, 50% of species diversity, then our species would be in big trouble. Lets say that of the 50% many were pollinators or nutrient cycling organisms in the soil, specdies which perform functions that are viable for plants to survive and reproduce. When these mutualists are lost, then we would see the collapse of primary production, taking everything up the food chain with them. I guess then the value of human life wouldn't be 250 dollars a head but zero, because we would not stand a chance.
Its dangerous talk to postulate the costs of losing biodiversity when we still don't know exactly *which* species and populations provide the most critical functions and services that permit human survival. The field of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning is still relatively in its infancy. The reason ecological systems have been able to withstand the human assault thus far, with some exceptions, is that there is functional redundancy built into the system that enables it to withstand some level of simplification without exceeding critical thresholds. In other words, there is in-built resilience. Its also worth pointing out that a species loses its economic and biological (= functional) value long before it goes extinct. Thus, viable populations need to be maintained at some critical abundance threshold in order for that species to contribute to vital ecosystem functions. Once its abundance falls below that threshold, then it no longer plays an important role.
Yes Jeff, but I'm sure Richard has an explanation, haven't you Richard?
Richard?
Richard can't summarise 20 years of postgrad work, 3 years of undergrad work and 12 years of schooling that led him to knowing that 99% of species are worth $250, zoot.
It's all one piece: the entirety of his education what grampa told him, and what his great friends in their gated communities all conclude to prove to him the SELF EVIDENT TRUTH of his statements.
Donald Oats: I think there's various versions of that quote floating around (I used the Snopes one). But regardless of its authenticity, it does nicely sum up a lot of peoples' attitudes.
Please note that the main discussion takes place at Eli's. I will respond to issues raised there.
For here, suffice it to note that Eli misread the equation and Tim here copies that error. The valuation is at the margin. $250/p/yr is the assumed value of an additional species lost when 99% are gone already. It is not the value of losing 99% of species.
Tol writes:
>*The valuation is at the margin. $250/p/yr is the assumed value of an additional species lost when 99% are gone already. It is not the value of losing 99% of species.*
Richard [once again I ask](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/tolgate.php#comment-3127511):
>Tol, how much does your models assume is the cost (WTP) for the loss of the first 99% of species?
[*offtopic rant deleted*]
No need to save up that $250, Homo sapiens will be one of the 99%.
13. Richard Tol:
> $250/p/yr is the assumed value of an additional species lost when 99% are gone already. It is not the value of losing 99% of species.
Once 99% of species are gone there will be no money, no economy, no humans.
What a bizarre and, frankly, obscene demonstration of monetising life.
P.S. Couldn't place the name - but [your Wikipedia entry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Tol#Climate_Change) provides all the explanation needed - especially the fact that you're chums with the Danish Denier. 'Richard Tol': not credible.
@ all
Richard Tol's entry on Wikipedia somehow neglects to mention his association with the GWPF (Global Warming Policy Foundation). Many of the names on that page will be familiar as prominent AGW denialists.
I'm sure that Richard will get right on that Wiki oversight, given his level of activity in and around his profile there.
And even if this
> North of a line drawn from Paris to Munich, people would benefit, e.g., from reduced energy bills.
were true, this:
> However, south of it, people would be overall "losers" of climate change.
would mean all those people from South of that line moving where the advantages are which would negate any benefit and piss off all those who complain about Mexicans coming over the border, since they'll be doing the same...
I've long thought that economists would benefit from a basic ecology course, especially one with a hefty dose of population dynamics. It might curb the enthusiasm many seem to have for the notion that things can increase for ever.
I expect Tol is right. If all whales go extinct, it only deprives me of my favorite whale sushi, a delicacy I can easily do without.
I just hope that beluga sturgeon does not go extinct too soon, caviar prices are already scandalous at $5K/Kg.
All that matters is the point at which Apis mellifera becomes extinct, as the cost per species becomes infinity due to the complete collapse of human agriculture.
I'm betting that this will occur quite a long way before 99%.
[Richard Toll: "The valuation is at the margin. $250/p/yr is the assumed value of an additional species lost when 99% are gone already".](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/the_great_fund_die_off.php#comm…)
I expect this view doesn't raise so much as an eyebrow with thpse nutters involved in the GWPF. Unless they consider it an over valuation, of course.
Now I know the main discussion is over at Eli's place, but humour me. I'm by no means an economist, so I'd like some advice re interpretation. $250 at the margin. Does this literally mean that if I were sitting at home in some dystopian future where 99% of species had gone extinct, and I had the option of spending some hard earned cash to prevent the next one to go, then I (as the average Joe) would value that option as about as much say as a refurbished compaq laptop? Economists? Help?
http://tinyurl.com/4jc9kma
Ah but jody, don't forget Richard is talking about per person, which must be like, wow, literally trillions of dollars, which sounds like a heck of a lot, so that's all right.
The idea that concerns over loss of natural ecosystems and species extinction are primarily about people feeling bad looks like another prong of the proliferating attacks on environmentalism; non-commercial species have no economic value and only the rise of Greenism is causing sensible people to want to stop progress to save them. Good old growth timber can't be sawn into tables and chairs, farms can't expand into unused areas, land prices are inflated because areas suitable for development are being locked away to protect useless plants and animals. I disagree and know that there are good reasons beyond feeling bad for wanting our natural capital to survive. Whilst there have been a lot of well meaning attempts to slow this extinction serious underlying and fundamental issues - like climate change - are not being addressed in any meaningful way.
I think we are going to see much more public money spent getting the Australian export coal industry back to full and expanding production than laying the groundwork for a shift to low emissions energy.
I agree with CTG (comment 22). Wipe out the bees and we are pretty well stuffed. Google 'colony collapse disorder' and it makes for pretty sobering reading.
i disagree. i'm sure that magnitude of loss is worth [at least US$270](http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1924#comic).
then again, i always was a bit of a softie.
Don't know what everyone's so worried about. We can always rely on the invisible hand of the market to correct any imbalance in species numbers.
Surely the only value economists have is as raw material for Soylent Green.
> We can always rely on the invisible hand of the market to
give us the invisible finger...
I take it that by the time 99% of all species will be extinct we'd need to be the Borg, so wouldn't we Borg not be more than willing to see the final 1% pop their tiny clogs by default, anyway? Would Borg have pockets to carry $250 around in, or do they pick up pocket money from the queen every week (perhaps a bit more for the more efficient)? Sadly, though, I imagine we'd save up for a new fancy arm, not to save some pesky invertebrate.
If whatever the hell Richard Tol is goes extinct, you can deduct that $250 from my share.