A brief review in Nature of an excellent article that attempts to value the ecological benefits and costs as a result of the economic activity around the world between 1960 and the year 2000. It speaks to most of the issues that we have been discussing. Read this review in nature and then read the actual study, in order to become familiar with the specific results. Again the combination of the original and review is more demanding than a simple normal blog post and so double credit will be assigned to this post (this means that we will not have a blog post next week)
*******************************************************************************
Environmental economics: To the rich man the spoils
Top of page
Abstract
Global
economic growth during the past century has lifted many into lives of
unprecedented luxury. The cost has been the degradation of vital
ecosystems — a cost borne disproportionately by the world's poor.
Through
our rapacious exploitation, ecosystems and the benefits they bring to
us are disappearing at an unprecedented and alarming rate. Qualitative
evidence suggests that the rich world is profiting from this process,
whereas poorer countries are bearing the brunt of the resulting
environmental degradation. Srinivasan et al.1, writing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
provide a quantitative basis for that claim, calculating the
distribution of costs and benefits over a range of indicators of
ecosystem change. The results might, in an ideal world, lead to a
radical reassessment of who is in debt to whom.
Measured
in terms of gross domestic product (GDP), the size of the world's
economy has doubled almost three times since 1950. But the proposition
that aggregate economic growth alone is the most important and powerful
force for human progress and poverty reduction has increasingly been
questioned2, 3.
Economic growth fuelled by international trade relies on the
consumption of heavily advertised and marketed goods and services.
Poorer people and the natural world, marginalized by the market economy,
lose out.
Besides basic economic needs, a high
quality of human life must include satisfactory human relationships,
communities, freedoms and opportunities4, 5.
Well-functioning ecosystems are even more fundamental. The buzz-word is
'ecosystem services': the favours such as food and fuel; protection
from storms, disease and solar radiation; regulation of water and
climate; creation of soils; and inspiration for art, literature,
religion and culture that the natural world bestows on us. Current
economic models undervalue this provision, because many ecosystem
services are 'public goods', historically provided for free. This leaves
them prone to overexploitation, a trend exacerbated by global
population growth: 15 of the 24 ecosystem services identified in the
seminal Millennium Ecosystem Assessment initiated by the United Nations
in 2001 were found to be in decline at the global scale6.
The
current political focus on climate change has brought this pressure on
our ecological support systems into sharper relief. Sustaining ecosystem
processes is all the more difficult because many change abruptly and
nonlinearly when pressed beyond a certain threshold. Qualitative or
context- and case-specific evidence indicates that poorer countries bear
most of this pressure7.
An example is the widespread conversion of tropical mangrove forests to
shrimp aquaculture. These farms supply Europe and North America with
cheap shrimp, but nearby residents must pay the costs: the loss of the
storm regulation, fish nurseries, and fuel and fibre sources that the
mangrove forests provided8.
This type of unequal exchange has been termed an 'ecological debt' owed by rich countries to the poor7.
As raw materials — whether they be shrimp, palm oil, or crude oil and
gas — become scarcer, and exploitation of them advances into new
territories, this debt will probably increase. The prices at which
exports are sold do not include compensation for the goods' local — or
sometimes global — environmental costs. That problem is exacerbated by
rich countries' disproportionate use of environmental sinks, such as the
atmosphere, to take up their higher carbon emissions.
Srinivasan et al.1
present for the first time a global-scale quantitative analysis of the
distribution of major environmental costs across nations in three income
groups: low (representing 32% of the world's population), middle (50%)
and high (18%). The timescale of the study is 1961–2000, and it covers
six categories of environmental change: climate change; stratospheric
ozone depletion; agricultural intensification and expansion;
deforestation; overfishing; and mangrove conversion. In the case of
climate change, the authors calculate that nations in the low, middle
and high income groups were responsible for 13%, 45% and 42% of
greenhouse-gas emissions, respectively. The resulting climate damages
were estimated to be distributed 29%, 45% and 25%. The same pattern of
cost transfer to the poorest nations is observed for ozone depletion,
overfishing and aquaculture. In the case of agricultural change and
deforestation, the authors find that arguably the costs were largely
generated and borne within nations.
When the figures
for the six categories are aggregated and adjusted for different
currency purchasing power, the low-income group of nations bears 20% of
the total costs, the middle-income group 60% and the high-income group
20%. Taking into account equity weighting (the fact that a unit of
income is not the same to a poor as to a rich person, making costs a
heavier burden to shoulder) the percentages are 45%, 52% and 3%. A
significant proportion of the cost burden of the low-income group is
caused by the activities of the other groups: looking at climate-change
damage alone, rich countries might already have imposed costs on poor
countries greater than the poor countries' existing foreign debt. The
people bearing these costs include the one billion or so who already
lack daily access to safe drinking water, electricity, secure food
supplies and basic education.
Several caveats are
needed to put these striking results into context. First, any study is
only as good as the available data. Globally robust data sets on
environmental externalities are incomplete, and therefore the results
are indicative, not absolute. Some significant environmental changes
have been omitted: the destruction of coral reefs, the dispersal of
persistent pollutants and the costs of biodiversity loss. The authors
are up-front about these limitations. But they justly suggest that the
omissions indicate that their estimates of ecological debts are
conservative.
Furthermore, the study does not look at
the benefits of increased trade to material wealth and human health.
But it is unlikely that this would change the balance of the results:
the available, albeit partial, evidence indicates that, despite some
gains by poorer countries through the liberalization of trade and
finance, the number of people living in poverty has increased or stayed
the same during the past 25 years, and the gains of economic
globalization have been heavily skewed towards wealthy nations2 (Fig. 1). One of the most detailed studies on global inequality concludes9
that income divergence between rich and poor nations has "at best ...
decelerated after 1950, but [has] not reversed". Large areas of Central
and South America, and almost all of sub-Saharan Africa, have been left
behind.
Figure 1: Inequality in economic growth.
a,
Although gross world product and the value of exports throughout the
world rose steadily during the period 1981–2001 (values relative to 1990
= 100), the number living below the US$2 per day poverty line has
increased slightly10. b,
Whereas in 1820 the difference between the mean incomes of the poorest
60% of countries and of the richest 10% was fourfold, by 1992 the
disparity was tenfold (value of mean income of poorest countries in 1820
= 1)9.High resolution image and legend (33K)
Srinivasan and colleagues' work1
should raise the scientific profile of issues vital to human
well-being, including research into ecosystem services and the effects
of large-scale ecosystem conversion, and how such changes both create
and alleviate poverty. We must better understand the complex
interactions between our economic, social and ecological systems, and
the biological diversity that supports them. Scientists and society as a
whole need to ask of our current economic paradigms in an era of
globalization: why do they produce such inequities; who pays the costs;
and are they ecologically and socially sustainable?
The original article : http://www.pnas.org/content/105/5/1768.full.pdf+html?sid=dac4179a-95bf-4803-8637-a3a214fbfe15
10 comments:
Currently, most societies behave as if we live in a world with infinite resources, however, it is clear now more than ever how finite our resources really are. Fishing can be done in such a way that it can be both sustainable and one can earn a livable income. However, for years fisheries that are generally open-access resources have been abused and overfished in what is commonly referred to as ‘tragedy of the commons’. The global population reached 7 billion in 2012, and this number is expected to reach 9 billion before there is any decline. Taking this exponential population growth into consideration, we must realize we cannot proceed with the harvesting practices that have been traditionally employed, as future generations will soon have empty fisheries and food options will become more limited.
The blog brought up a relevant term "ecological debt", the unequal exchange in which developed countries are abusing the resources of developing countries, such as shrimp harvesting, and this debt is likely to increase. When goods are sold on the market, the goods do not include the environmental costs at both a local and global level. This ever increasing problem is exaggerated due to developed countries, aka rich countries, disproportionate use of waste sinks, such as the atmosphere to absorb their CO2 emissions, or rivers to collect agricultural runoff.
The blog post proceeded to present a study that was conducted between 1961 and 2000. In the study, a first time quantitive analysis on a global-scale, of the distribution of environmental costs and what income group was impacted the most. Unsurprisingly, the lowest income group (approx. 32% of the world's population), bore the brunt of most of the environmental impacts such as climate change, over fishing, deforestation, mangrove conversion etc. One particular example resonated with me in regards to this issue, and that was shrimp farming. In developing countries in recent years, there has been a widespread conversion of mangroves to shrimp farms. These farms supply north America and Europe with cheap shrimp, but locals suffer as a result of lack of storm protection that the mangroves once provided, loss of fish nurseries, and loss of fuel and fibre resources that the mangroves once provided. This example stuck with me as there are constantly commercials on TV for Applebees and Red Lobster advertising very cheap shrimp, such as 30 shrimp for only $11!! It made me wonder if people realize the environmental impacts of enjoying shrimp that is so cheap, as it is most likely from developing countries who are suffering the environmental brunt of us enjoying this popular meal. Most people however, order these meals of shrimp with little regard for where it is from, or who it is impacting. However, it is time developed countries became more aware of where there food is coming from and the environmental impacts associated with it, or our ecological debt is going to ever increase to developing countries.
This article is a perfect example of the thoughts emphasized by Georgescu Rogen. Some of Georgescu’s thoughts were that man only cares for the fate of only its immediate descendants and no one beyond their great grandchildren. Poor countries are becoming more and more polluted and destitute because of the action of the superpowers. The little they have is being utilized to provide food for the wealthier. We as Americans should try to internalize the problem. I know, I wouldn’t want to be flooded on a constant bases because my buffer zones were being removed to provide food for other countries. More so, I wouldn’t want to ship food other places while I and my neighbors are starving. We should all benefit from our relationships with others, but we shouldn’t gain at the expense of others.
I really enjoyed how the authors mention all of the ecosystem services and public goods that nature affords humanity. They mention how some of these services include the production of food and fuel, as well as protection from storms, but they also mentioned how nature affects our culture, religion and the arts. There are so many ecosystem services that the earth so graciously gives the human race to sustain our bodies, but nature also helps rejuvenate our spirit. Whether it is going for a cool refreshing swim in the ocean on a hot summer day, or painting a picture of a beautiful landscape, or just taking a nice walk through a park. Nature gives humanity so much, the least we can do is respect it and not deplete natural resources. Also, the term “ecological debt” is new to me, and it is completely unfair how more developed countries are taking advantage of other developing nations. Also, the chart comparing the mean income of the poorest nations to the wealthiest nations is shocking. The fact that the difference between the two groups has widen so much over the hundred years is ridiculous.
I do not think developed countries will ever really understand the importance of our planet. We are built in such a society where producing and consuming is so important to supporting our economy, that without it, we will crumble. In order to keep this from happening, we degrade the environment even further and push the brunt onto other developing countries at an accelerating rate. This rate will only continue to increase unfortunately because of the vicious cycle we have created. We produce more at a cheaper rate so people will buy more, pollute more, create more problems, increase our taxes to fix the problems, have less money, therefore producing more at a cheaper rate so people will keep buying more; and this is all so our economy consisting of luxury and self success does not crumble. Little do we realize, this system will not work and is in no way sustainable. Our current system definitely does not benefit developing countries but instead harms them and it doesn't even benefit us because it will fail indefinitely and will do more harm to us than we could ever imagine. I always wonder how within one species, only some will live superior to others. I mean its not like half of the deer in the world live better than the other half, it is equal for the most part. But when it comes to humans, not only do we conquer other species but we even conquer our own. Developing nations only live the way they do because they have a place to generate power from and a place to discard waste; this place being developing countries and the environment. Not only are we killing our fellow species but we are killing the environment that supports our species living. The services that our earth provides for us are one of a kind and without them we will slowly die off. In other words, we are killing ourselves and don't even know it. We're depleting our atmosphere and forests and oceans and water systems just to name a few. The consequences of this depletion will only affect the developing, low income societies in the beginning; it is only a matter of time before it reaches the source of the problem. We've already passed the tipping point however, so who knows just what will happen, although population control and new economic systems will definitely be necessary.
The U.S., China, and India along with other countries have one thing in common, and that is not caring about our earth. We constantly produce goods that are useful and useless. In the long run we are killing our environment and we don’t mind much attention to that. Our society seems to believe that we have infinite sources that the second law of thermodynamics does not exist. Our society’s goal is to learn how to produce something at little cost so that our economy will buy it. For instance a cheap car, China manufactures a cheap car and then sells it to the U.S. People with low income can now afford that car and can now attribute to polluting the earth even more. It is a vicious cycle we have put ourselves into and we need to have some sort of austerity system to bring it back to normal and healthy once again. The study was very interesting to me especially about the shrimp case. It made me think about what is going on with tuna and how it is being farmed for mass consumption. I cannot make out whether farming is a good tactic. Yes we don’t fish out the ocean, but it seems that we pour a lot of other resources into these farming plots. With Tuna, they are on the brink of being extinct and because people love sushi and tuna steak, there needs to be some alternative so that we don’t run out. This proves the theory that we really think that there are unlimited resources in this world. I feel the people closest to these farming areas take the hit like locals. These locals must cope with our increasing demands everyday and the ecosystem that they love gets more and more destroyed. I always vacation in Cape Cod, Mass and I could not imagine going there and seeing something of this sort it would ruin my memories. I can’t imagine how these locals feel seeing it every day.
Nicholas Brodeur
Pace University
This article was very interesting to read. It covers what we have been studying in class for the past few weeks. It is common to see resources being overused and abused for monetary gains. Rich countries often find themselves causing the most harm to the environment. The exploitation of resources is what fuels these countries success and advancement. It is explained in the article that while rich countries experience prosperity developing countries suffer the consequences of an unequal distribution of environmental cost. Although poor countries contribute a much lower rate towards the damaging of the ecosystem they usually are the ones who bare the larger part of the cost. In addition, the authors continue to explain that these developed countries owe an “ecological debt”. In other words the richer nations that operate at the cost of developing nations should have an obligation to pay or come to an agreement with the nations they harm. It is necessary to find a way in which poor and rich nations both benefit from resources while protecting them from being depleted. Nations should not prosper at the cost of others.
The articles were very interesting, as they describe the “ecological debt,” as being this unequal exchange of resources. It is not unusual to see that the developed countries exploit the developing countries for their resources and leave them with basically nothing in return. These countries already face enough economic debt in the world and instead of taking a load off them and helping them out, developed countries are simply taking from them at cheaper prices, because the developing world sees it as at least getting something rather than nothing. The Western civilization has already begun to destroy their environmental resources, and is now finding ways to tap into the untouched resources of the rest of the world. The trades offered are never fair, and the less developed countries do not gain the ability to decrease their poverty through these trades, and so they are simply losing resources.
When reading the review, it stated "Qualitative evidence suggests that the rich world is profiting from this process, whereas poorer countries are bearing the brunt of the resulting environmental degradation." This makes sense because better off countries would take the resources from the countries that are not well off. For example, if USA pays Brazil to grow strawberries, it's USA that profits because they are able to purchase it at a cheap price from Brazil then sell it to the American consumers at a high price. This affects Brazil because the land will not be used for it's own country which means that Brazil will have less resources for it's citizens to use. When reading "The debt of nations and the distribution of ecological impacts from human activities", the article clearly stated that there are serious environmental externalities that are due to human activities such as climate change, depletion of the ozone layer, deforestation etc. This is a huge problem because we are destroying our ecosystem by over consuming. This relates to the first article because the rhinos are being killed more than they can repopulate winch is going to lead them to extinction. This goes back to the second law of thermo dynamics, the more we use, the less we will have and by the rate at which we are consuming, there will be little for the future generations.
Being an environmental studies major, I wasn't surprised to learn that the poor countries suffer the most environmental damages even though the wealthier nations are the main causes of these damages. However, it is unfortunate that there isn't a way for people to measure environmental costs. Rich nations are just getting away with their actions when they should be in debt towards poorer nations. The less developed nations are trying to get by on as little as possible while having to deal with these environmental damages, while rich nations are taking advantage of the developing nations' resources and using them for their own good. Developed nations have to understand the impacts their actions have on other countries and start acting in ways that will benefit the common good because it is an absolute travesty that developing nations are burdened with the greatest environmental impacts, when it is not their fault.
This article explains a simple but unfortunate truth. Life just is not fair for the poor. The poor have to pay a higher cost than the rich when it comes pollution, hunger, education, making higher pay and other aspects of their well being. The poor have little control over how much welfare costs increase. The poor must depend on the government to step in and define property right and provide the assistance needed but when the whole country is poor they have no where to turn to ask for help. Also these countries might be held back because the pollution is getting in the way of progress; killing crops and making people sick.
Post a Comment