SWBP: The Economics of Biodiversity Loss

SWBP: Solutions for the World's Biggest Problems, a book I'm reading,
2007, edited by Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center
Chapter 9, The Economics of Biodiversity Loss, by Dan Biller
Part of my ongoing series of "book reports" (lol)
A synopsis, a summary, and commentary

The Grim Reaper morphs into a frog, sometimes...(like a lion in Zion?)

I read this chapter outdoors on a sunny day, on the shaded deck of our house on Cobb mountain, as birds visited the water hole and hummingbird feeder...
Really, no topic is closer to my heart.

I know, it's a far cry from fishery stocks and genetic resources, but the principle is the same: nature is dying. In fact, the chapter says the rate of extinction is between 100 and TEN THOUSAND times more than the natural rate of extinction would be, without "human intervention."

Honestly, I know everything is in fact natural, as human beings are a part of nature, but still.
I don't want the natural world to be destroyed by our species' immature need to pave everything and show off status in a new maserati, ETC. (perhaps eating burgers is a better example). I have a thing against status symbols. Grow up, people. Wouldn't you feel better if you bought a simple, reliable car and gave all the extra money to any of the zillions of worth(ier) causes? I think you should. Be a part of the solution. Be good.

Also, you can say, well, everything dies eventually. Well, that's true, but let's postpone the deal for as many of us who enjoy life as possible for as long as possible, okay?

ANYway. "Only a few ecosystems around the world have not suffered from human intervention, but the full consequences of this intervention are minimally understood." Basically, we think we're smart, but we really don't have a clue, and can barely scratch the surface of the interdependence that we perceive in the web of nature, I think is the understanding, here.

Habitats and ecosystems (coral reefs, rainforests, fisheries, etc. ) are threatened, and "it is difficult to conceive a world without biodiversity that can sustain human life." Who can say how it all plays out. Maybe it's like the butterfly effect. With the loss of species x (say, the cuban metallic-gold colored ant), we could all be f---ed. I dunno. I'm not an ecologist. We like to say "God only knows", but I really don't. I say we prevent as much biodiversity loss as possible. Life is good, right?

What we do know is that nature can be immensely enjoyable, and, for me, at least, of incalculable value, even when "red in tooth and claw" (perhaps especially so). Biodiversity is under threat due to pressures, often anthropogenic, outside of the purview of policy, such as "destruction and degradation of natural habitat (through land use changes, urban expansion, deforestation, changes of use in the coastal zone, overuse of marine and riverine ecosystems), the introduction of non-indigenous species, overhunting/fishing, pollution (e.g. industrial, human, and animal waste discharges), and climate change.

Biodiversity is shorthand for all the world's biological resources, whether we currently use them or not.

The main point for policy-makers is "the consequences of losing even modest ecosystem areas could be large" so biodiversity loss has a potential large scale effect. We're dealing with uncertainty and irreversibility, so there is the utmost need to adopt the precautionary principle, and not relegate biodiversity concern to low/er or no priority simply because of lack of information or because it is a newer concern among development issues.

Mr. Biller proposes 4 solutions:
1. A certain minimum level of biodiversity needs to be recognized as necessary, as information is attained on the benefits of biodiversity conservation, and perhaps values can be assigned to areas of biodiversity for CBA (cost-benefit analysis).

Species and ecosystems need to be preserved. "The information stored over millions of years of evolution is at risk."

The argument for a moral duty to preserve species (how would we like it if aliens blew up the earth to make room for a space highway, like in Douglas Adams' Hitchiker's Guide to the Universe?) and the beauty of the richness of life clearly trumps, for me, this argument to preserve "information." But my life may depend on this information in the future, so what do I know.

2. Um, I don't actually know what he's saying on this one. He uses economic jargon, that while I understood the explanatory footnote, I can't and don't want to decipher his econo-speak, which says, "Bundle non-excludable attributes of biodiversity with its private goods and club goods and design economic instruments that take advantage of markets to deliver these attributes."

The only examples he gave were tradable fishing quotas, tradable hunting quotas, and subsidies (which unfortunately have the potential for rent-seeking). This guy works at the World Bank, not at the local high school, so I'll give him a break. Maybe it has something to do with privatized conservation, such as in the form of game parks, or like when Mexico paid an indigenous community to conserve a watershed.

3. No, that's option 3 (privatize the biodiversity that is feasible, and involve local communities).

4. Eliminate perverse incentives. 'Perverse' means environmentally harmful, in that they encourage environmental damage and biodiversity loss, such as pollution, urban sprawl, road infrastructure, and consumption of natural-resource intensive goods.

He says perverse incentives like direct subsidies to agriculture, govt. support for marine capture fisheries, and for coal production, deplete scarce government budgets, can be regressive in income (affecting the poor more than the rich), and discourage efficient markets through rent-seeking behavior (uncompensated transfer of goods/services as a result of a 'favorable' policy).

I think Dan Biller may have done this cause a disservice. Rent-seeking excludable club goods just doesn't get me like maybe a trip to the rainforest would, know what I mean?