Click on the article you would like to read.

Ecology and Capitalism: An Unlikely Partnership? By Ted Nichols

The Ecology of Environmentalism By Sam Vaknin

Ecology and Capitalism: An Unlikely Partnership? By Ted Nichols

What is the value of the Earth? With the recent events in Asia, the world has been reminded of the sheer, destructive potential of nature. The enormous damage to life and property has perhaps put into perspective the relative value of things, and reminded us that what we hold dear in this material world may so easily cease to exist. In an age where the environment is valued as merely a means of production, where the media incessantly warns and reminds us of the finite nature of our resources, perhaps it is worthwhile to just put the value of the earth into perspective.

Obviously putting a price tag on the earth would be extremely difficult for several reasons. How do you value it? What do you value it against? In economics it is very difficult to give monetary value to something that is too valuable, scarce or unique to trade actively in markets, so a primary assumption could be that the earth is essentially priceless. There are however a few interesting methods that one might use to put the value of our planet into perspective.

The first and possibly most obvious way would be to determine the value of life for every living thing on the planet – natural capital. Natural capital refers to the natural resources of the earth’s biosphere when viewed as a means of production of essential commodities such as oxygen and water. The term is often associated with Paul Hawken, author of a book by that name and originator of the Natural Capitalism economic model. This would require a continent-by-continent valuation of natural capital in order to see if there is systematic inflation of the price of life on some compared to others. The relative value of commodities in a given environment would make this difficult as errors of over valuation and under-valuation would inevitably occur. “natural capital” as a concept, suggests that the savings rate of an economy is a poor measure of how much the country is actually saving, as it measures only investment in man made capital. In the end, the ecosystem itself provides the basis of valuation for much of our man made capital; valuation of land, availability and cost of energy, fertility of land, and value of real estate. Land is after all a necessary ingredient in the production of even man made capital. Yet would our natural resources still be as valuable if an earth-like planet existed close enough for human beings to travel to it or be in competition with it? If such a planet existed, we would have to include transport costs in deciding the value of our own planet’s resources.

Another method of determining the value of the earth would be to estimate the cost of replacing the earth itself. This could be estimated in one of two ways: Identifying the costs of Terraforming, or estimating the cost of insuring against a worst-case scenario, global natural disaster. Terraforming – literally “earth shaping” is an incredibly complex operation and in theory could be done on a planetary scale or more realistically a smaller scale of reproducing a given ecosystem. Such a thing was attempted in the Biosphere 2 project. The aim of this ambitious and costly project was to recreate an environment that could support eight human beings for two years. The ultimate failure of the project demonstrates the extreme difficulty (and at $240 million, the significant expense) of terraforming. Yet by multiplying the cost of the project by the ratio between the earth’s population and that of the smaller Biosphere habitat, economists may be able to derive a very rough minimum value of terraformation on a grander scale. That cost is roughly $200 million billion (that is “200” with15 zeros after). Of course this is a crude estimate and based only on today’s technology, and due to the failure of Biosphere 2, we can assume it would cost a great deal more to actually make it work.

The replacement by insurance method is a little less accurate as a means by which to value the earth because this would have to take into account not only natural capital (difficult enough to value) but would also have to consider capital in the form of property and it seems inaccurate to consider such artificial wealth in valuing natural resources. Basically, the averted insurance payments can be thought of as a yield, and we can use the total cost of insurance as a way of measuring the value of the earth’s productivity for as long as these averted failures do not occur.

A final way of determining the planet’s value is rather more subjective than the others. In the end we must consider how much we would be willing to pay in order to avert the destruction of our planet or to ensure our survival as individuals. The best way to decide this is to imagine a case in which our resources have become so depleted that the supply is too low and the demand too high and thus the expenses of securing them become astronomical. If in such a case Humans were forced to resort to conflict in order to secure and protect what little is left, we would need to consider the additional costs we would be willing to pay for national and personal security.

Of course all these attempts to value the earth are largely theoretical and speculative. If we were to put an estimate on the value of the earth –whatever method we use to arrive at it – it would be at least hundreds of quadrillions of US dollars. With all the money in the world (literally, in this case) it is doubtful that we could find the expertise and knowledge required to replace the earth. It is certainly worth keeping in mind that preserving the ecosystem works to our advantage – economically and in terms of our quality of life. Most money is made by manipulating natural resources and the environment for some advantageous purpose, whether directly through rent and exploitation of resources, or indirectly by utilising the resources thereof for profit. A healthy environment and sustainability are essential to the success of Capitalism as an economic model. Let us hope that it should never come to it that we are forced to actually measure the value of our planet, by the exponential scarcity of resources.

The Ecology of Environmentalism By Sam Vaknin

The concept of "nature" is a romantic invention. It was spun by the likes of Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the 18th century as a confabulated utopian contrast to the dystopia of urbanization and materialism. The traces of this dewy-eyed conception of the "savage" and his unmolested, unadulterated surroundings can be found in the more malignant forms of fundamentalist environmentalism.

At the other extreme are religious literalists who regard Man as the crown of creation with complete dominion over nature and the right to exploit its resources unreservedly. Similar, veiled, sentiments can be found among scientists. The Anthropic Principle, for instance, promoted by many outstanding physicists, claims that the nature of the Universe is preordained to accommodate sentient beings - namely, us humans.

Industrialists, politicians and economists have only recently begun paying lip service to sustainable development and to the environmental costs of their policies. Thus, in a way, they bridge the abyss - at least verbally - between these two diametrically opposed forms of fundamentalism. Still, essential dissimilarities between the schools notwithstanding, the dualism of Man vs. Nature is universally acknowledged.

Modern physics - notably the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics - has abandoned the classic split between (typically human) observer and (usually inanimate) observed. Environmentalists, in contrast, have embraced this discarded worldview wholeheartedly. To them, Man is the active agent operating upon a distinct reactive or passive substrate - i.e., Nature. But, though intuitively compelling, it is a false dichotomy.

Man is, by definition, a part of Nature. His tools are natural. He interacts with the other elements of Nature and modifies it - but so do all other species. Arguably, bacteria and insects exert on Nature far more influence with farther reaching consequences than Man has ever done.

Still, the "Law of the Minimum" - that there is a limit to human population growth and that this barrier is related to the biotic and abiotic variables of the environment - is undisputed. Whatever debate there is veers between two strands of this Malthusian Weltanschauung: the utilitarian (a.k.a. anthropocentric, shallow, or technocentric) and the ethical (alternatively termed biocentric, deep, or ecocentric).

First, the Utilitarians.

Economists, for instance, tend to discuss the costs and benefits of environmental policies. Activists, on the other hand, demand that Mankind consider the "rights" of other beings and of nature as a whole in determining a least harmful course of action.

Utilitarians regard nature as a set of exhaustible and scarce resources and deal with their optimal allocation from a human point of view. Yet, they usually fail to incorporate intangibles such as the beauty of a sunset or the liberating sensation of open spaces.

"Green" accounting - adjusting the national accounts to reflect environmental data - is still in its unpromising infancy. It is complicated by the fact that ecosystems do not respect man-made borders and by the stubborn refusal of many ecological variables to succumb to numbers. To complicate things further, different nations weigh environmental problems disparately.

Despite recent attempts, such as the Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) produced by the World Economic Forum (WEF), no one knows how to define and quantify elusive concepts such as "sustainable development". Even the costs of replacing or repairing depleted resources and natural assets are difficult to determine.

Efforts to capture "quality of life" considerations in the straitjacket of the formalism of distributive justice - known as human-welfare ecology or emancipatory environmentalism - backfired. These led to derisory attempts to reverse the inexorable processes of urbanization and industrialization by introducing localized, small-scale production.

Social ecologists proffer the same prescriptions but with an anarchistic twist. The hierarchical view of nature - with Man at the pinnacle - is a reflection of social relations, they suggest. Dismantle the latter - and you get rid of the former.

The Ethicists appear to be as confounded and ludicrous as their "feet on the ground" opponents.

Biocentrists view nature as possessed of an intrinsic value, regardless of its actual or potential utility. They fail to specify, however, how this, even if true, gives rise to rights and commensurate obligations. Nor was their case aided by their association with the apocalyptic or survivalist school of environmentalism which has developed proto-fascist tendencies and is gradually being scientifically debunked.

The proponents of deep ecology radicalize the ideas of social ecology ad absurdum and postulate a transcendentalist spiritual connection with the inanimate (whatever that may be). In consequence, they refuse to intervene to counter or contain natural processes, including diseases and famine.

The politicization of environmental concerns runs the gamut from political activism to eco-terrorism. The environmental movement - whether in academe, in the media, in non-governmental organizations, or in legislature - is now comprised of a web of bureaucratic interest groups.

Like all bureaucracies, environmental organizations are out to perpetuate themselves, fight heresy and accumulate political clout and the money and perks that come with it. They are no longer a disinterested and objective party. They have a stake in apocalypse. That makes them automatically suspect.

Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist", was at the receiving end of such self-serving sanctimony. A statistician, he demonstrated that the doom and gloom tendered by environmental campaigners, scholars and militants are, at best, dubious and, at worst, the outcomes of deliberate manipulation.

The situation is actually improving on many fronts, showed Lomborg: known reserves of fossil fuels and most metals are rising, agricultural production per head is surging, the number of the famished is declining, biodiversity loss is slowing as do pollution and tropical deforestation. In the long run, even in pockets of environmental degradation, in the poor and developing countries, rising incomes and the attendant drop in birth rates will likely ameliorate the situation in the long run.

Yet, both camps, the optimists and the pessimists, rely on partial, irrelevant, or, worse, manipulated data. The multiple authors of "People and Ecosystems", published by the World Resources Institute, the World Bank and the United Nations conclude: "Our knowledge of ecosystems has increased dramatically, but it simply has not kept pace with our ability to alter them."

Quoted by The Economist, Daniel Esty of Yale, the leader of an environmental project sponsored by World Economic Forum, exclaimed:

"Why hasn't anyone done careful environmental measurement before? Businessmen always say, ‘what matters gets measured'. Social scientists started quantitative measurement 30 years ago, and even political science turned to hard numbers 15 years ago. Yet look at environmental policy, and the data are lousy."

Nor is this dearth of reliable and unequivocal information likely to end soon. Even the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, supported by numerous development agencies and environmental groups, is seriously under-financed. The conspiracy-minded attribute this curious void to the self-serving designs of the apocalyptic school of environmentalism. Ignorance and fear, they point out, are among the fanatic's most useful allies. They also make for good copy.

About The Author. Sam Vaknin is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He is a columnist for Central Europe Review, PopMatters, and eBookWeb , a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory Bellaonline, and Suite101 .

Click here to return to Eco Living Main Page

PLEASE NOTE: Natural-Earth.com does not necessarily endorse any of the treatments and therapies in the natural health, natural medicine and lifestyles directory. The material on this web site has been provided for your information and we urge you to be discriminating in making your choice of complementary or alternative therapy. We wish you Good Luck... and Good Health.