Group A Fourth Subject

Hi. Because you have 2 weeks for this one I thought I'd give you an article to listen to and then discuss. Here is the link to the article:
Put a value on Nature
Click the link and watch the clip - the script is available if you have difficulty understanding - Your discussion can go anywhere you wish. Have fun!

Hi,
In his speech, Paven Sukhdev talk about the economic invisibility of nature. He gives a monetary value to the benefits of the nature. It is true that we tend to forget all that the nature can bring us. People forgets that nature can bring to the economy. For instance, the insect-based pollination represents 190 billion dollars. Few people know that.

We live in a consumer society where profusion is the key word. People always want more, always consume more. People are happy as long as they have for what they look. They don't care about the intensive fishing or the conditions of breeding. In the united states, there are farm which produce up to 250 000 liters of milk a day. These farm pollute so much that a megapolis!

To sum up, the man damages the ecosystem. Intensive fishing, deforestation, productivism, pollution are damage which affect everybody but in lesser measures. Poor people are more touched by this. Because they use that the nature offers us (they fish to feed their family). Furthermore, deforestation lead to a loss of the biodiversity, a worsening of natural disasters and the global warming. The nature has a big natural capital and we have to protect him.

In this report Pavan Sukhdev talks about economic invisibility.
It means that nobody is bearing the cost of natural assets.
Such as rainforest and insects.
The poorest population are even more affected by deforastation and contaminated ocean, because they live from fish products and farm products.
Paven encourages companies to calculate their externalities in the interests of tanparancy. This would allows consumers and investors compare the social performance of different businesses.
Many ecosystems are in danger, like the Thai mangroves. Shrimp farms are built on those areas, to make quick profits. But the cost of restauration of the land are not taken into account . The cause of climate changing either, wich is also a cost.
Recording natural assets can also prevent companies from the risks linked to natural catastrophes
For example dryness and flooding caused by the Yangtze river in china have generated financial loss in the construction industry. Deforestation and costs due to loss of topsoil were not calculated to set the price of timber in China.
Pavan argues that poverty reduction goes through the preservation of nature.
The main idea is that a price must be given to nature in order to protect it.

I think is a good topic which approches many subjects about whom we do not think necessarily immediately like the economic invisibility of nature. Moreover I think its subject couldn’t come at the better time. As the countries have to make drastic ecological decisions. Indeed everybody saw it, climate change. Purpose today is to reduce our foot print on the world. Things are put in place, but these do not allowed to reduce in a consequent way the pollution in every sens. Moreover we concentrate only on what we already know as says Pavan Sukhdev and not the hidden face of the iceberg (like the Brown carbon market).
Lot of people take advantage of what gives them the nature. But we know that these ressources are not eternal. And so « we were losing natural capital ». The problem is : « who has to pay, to whom and in which purpose ? ». If fonds are used in ecological purposes OK. But we know that this is going to be very difficult to set up. Almost all the products hold a natural part or use a raw material stemming from the nature. I m for a green carbon market. I think we have to help the green industries and those which want to become green. Nevertheless, that does not have to be the same system than the right to pollute. Because this one favor the rich companies which buy rights to continue to pollute.

In his speech, Pavan Sukhdev spoke about the economic invisibility of nature
He also discussed a project called TEEB was launched by a group of environment ministers of the G8 + 5 for the purpose of economic use for the conservation of nature. But it's not that simple because of the complexity and diversity of biology
According to Pavan, nature is important and valuable asset for humans. In addition, nature provides benefits, free services and economic resources for humans and does not require payment
However, instead of the conservation and preservation of long-term public interest, humans destroy nature because of the individual economic interests. They can earn huge short-term personal gain, but in the long run, the cost and common benefit that spent to restore the natural destruction are more important. To prove his point, Pavan gave the example of deforestation in China in 1997, which led to the drying of the Yellow River and causes severe damage to agricultural production. Another example given is the destruction of mangroves to build shrimp farms in Thailand and cost required to restore the lands of the shrimp farm back to productive use
At the end of his speech, Pavan gave the example of the protection of the environment, the project that was initiated by governments, such as REDD Plus - a scheme for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation with contributions from Norway of a billion dollars. However, he said, the economy can not solve all problems, consciousness and morality plays a more important role in the protection of nature and I completely agree with this idea. People need to change the consciousness and thought in protecting Mother Nature, protecting ecosystems of the Earth. We must pay attention to long-term benefits for future generations, rather than seeking short-term economic interests

The economic value of nature to man. A new and attractive theme introduced with self-confidence way, sense of humor and combined with evidence of Pavan Sukhdev.

This is the first time I heard an assumption of value of nature. Currently, natural resources are viewed as available, free of charge and we tried to use/devastate. The immediate economic benefits is very small, compared with the cost incurred to restore the lost natural resources as well as the consequences that humanity will face in the future (floods, polluted environment, the animals disappeared directly affect livelihood of poor groups in society…), so let us consider Mother Nature is a finite source, and then use it in an optimal way.

I just want to focus on a point of his speech : bees. It’s a perfect exemple of the economic invisibility of nature.

Indeed, for most of people, bees are simple insect. Since 2006 beekeepers have been noticing that their bees populations have been dying off with an increasingly rapid rates. In reality, bees are a critical part of the food chain. Moreover, flower plant depend on insects for pollination, and bees are the most effective. It pollinates 90 commercial crops in worldwide and it including most fruit and vegetables like apples, carrots, cotton, etc. A world without bees would mean a diet of rice and cereals, no cotton for textiles, and decimation among birds and animals in the bee food chain.

Newsweek reported that honeybees migrate (in USA) to various regions of the country to pollinate an estimated $40 billion of agricultural produce each year. Also, 1/3 of food we eat comes as the result of bees and other pollinators. Like say Pavan Sukhdev, bees are worth something like 190 billion dollars to the global economy and "it's completely passes below the radar screen".

hi,
In fact, Pavan Sukhdev talk about the economic invisibility of nature.
it is a hot topic because he concerns global populationin the world.
many people, especially large industrial contribute to a massive polution.
the deforestation of rainforest, the industrial polution, the flue kerozene ....
all that contribute to destroying the ozone layer and increase the greenhouse effect!!
it's an alarming problem but we live in a society where only profit is important no matter the consequences!!
yet the EU member states and every countries except china and USA have to sign KYOTO Protocol for to limit greenhouse effects. hope that in future the two giants will sign the agreement in order to preserve our beautiful planet!

Julien R wrote:I just want to focus on a point of his speech : bees. It’s a perfect exemple of the economic invisibility of nature.

Indeed, for most of people, bees are simple insect. Since 2006 beekeepers have been noticing that their bees populations have been dying off with an increasingly rapid rates. In reality, bees are a critical part of the food chain. Moreover, flower plant depend on insects for pollination, and bees are the most effective. It pollinates 90 commercial crops in worldwide and it including most fruit and vegetables like apples, carrots, cotton, etc. A world without bees would mean a diet of rice and cereals, no cotton for textiles, and decimation among birds and animals in the bee food chain.

Newsweek reported that honeybees migrate (in USA) to various regions of the country to pollinate an estimated $40 billion of agricultural produce each year. Also, 1/3 of food we eat comes as the result of bees and other pollinators. Like say Pavan Sukhdev, bees are worth something like 190 billion dollars to the global economy and "it's completely passes below the radar screen".

Great example.

Paven Sukhdev talks about the economic invisibility of nature. It’s a subject that I don’t think however, thanks to this video, I agree that is an important topic because it concerns all the population in the world.

We live in a consumer society where make profits is the most important, many people, for example the big companies contribute to a massive pollution. Like Julien Deshais says, the problem is that USA and China don’t sign the Kyoto protocol to limit the greenhouse effect, from that point, the planet can’t be protected because it’s the poor people who are more touched by Intensive fishing, deforestation, productivism, pollution… So, if ALL countries and companies don’t work together in the same direction, we continue to degrade our planet.

Boudreault Kevin wrote:Paven Sukhdev talks about the economic invisibility of nature. It’s a subject that I don’t think however, thanks to this video, I agree that is an important topic because it concerns all the population in the world.

We live in a consumer society where make profits is the most important, many people, for example the big companies contribute to a massive pollution. Like Julien Deshais says, the problem is that USA and China don’t sign the Kyoto protocol to limit the greenhouse effect, from that point, the planet can’t be protected because it’s the poor people who are more touched by Intensive fishing, deforestation, productivism, pollution… So, if ALL countries and companies don’t work together in the same direction, we continue to degrade our planet.

But the Kyoto agreement is anti-capitalism isn't it?