要估算地球上自然资源的价值，就需要为无价的东西定价。联合国(UN)的一份报告就是这样做的：研究表明，破坏自然环境每年造成的损失在2万亿美元到4.5万亿美元之间。
数字不是关怀大自然的唯一原因，但它们确实抓住了珍视多样性的一个理由。上周，生物多样性公约(Convention on Biological Diversity)第十次缔约方大会在日本名古屋召开。然而，对大自然对人类生存所做贡献的更广泛认可，并不只是环境部长和环保主义者的问题。
在印度经济学家帕万•苏克德夫(Pavan Sukhdev)所做的这份联合国报告中，估测数值相差达2.5万亿美元，即使正确也几乎毫无意义。不过，它们虽然不够完美，但仍聊胜于无。我们应当欢迎衡量人类活动对自然资本造成多少损耗的尝试。其他形式的资本，如人力资本、社会资本、智力资本，如今在政策分析中占据了中心位置。我们必须用数值来表示自然资源的减损，才能让它们在政治考量中占据一定的分量。
即使以估算值为基础，也能做出合理的决策。长远来看，保护生态系统的成本也许能降级，此外，相比于耗尽生态系统资源，我们还能更长久地享受其好处。
与气候变化不同，这个问题不需要等待政府间协议的艰难达成。例如，1996年，纽约市决定控制卡茨基尔山集水区土地的使用，而不是建造供水净化系统，因此节省了逾45亿美元。
此外，计算人类活动的代价也能让我们更理性地规划行动重点。这份新报告估计，过度捕捞每年造成的经济机会损失高达500亿美元，而珊瑚礁每年产生的经济效益在300亿美元到1720亿美元之间。虽然有人会对这些数据持有异议，但人类白白浪费的资源从数字中就可见一斑。
和所有的环境议题一样，问题在于如何实施改变。自然资源的好处一般由社会共享，但必须有人承担成本。这正是单靠市场之力很难解决环境问题的原因。政府必须引入激励机制，鼓励个人和团体直面环境破坏的真正成本。
由于监管不善和缺乏规章，我们每年都会有数十亿的浪费。即使不是环保主义者也能看出破坏环境的经济后果。
译者/何黎
http://www.ftchinese.com/story/001035158
To value the natural resources of the planet requires pricing the priceless. However a report by the United Nations has done just that: damaging the natural environment costs between $2,000bn and $4,500bn per year, the study says.
Numbers are not the only reason to care about nature but they do capture one reason to value diversity. This week sees the 10th Convention on Biological Diversity in Nagoya, Japan. The wider recognition of nature’s contribution to our livelihood, however, is not just an issue for environment ministers, green groupies and tree-huggers.
The estimates in this report, by Indian economist Pavan Sukhdev, vary by $2,500bn – so much as to be almost meaningless, even if they are correct. Imperfect as they must be, they are still better than nothing. We should welcome attempts to measure how much natural capital depreciates through human activity. Other alternative forms of capital – human, social, intellectual – are now central to policy analyses. We must put some number on degrading our natural assets to give them a value in political calculations.
Sensible decisions can be made on the basis even of estimates. In the long term, protecting an ecosystem may cost less, and allow us to reap its benefits for longer, than depleting its resources.
Unlike in the case of climate change, there is no need to wait for hard-fought intergovernmental deals. In 1996, for example, New York City saved more than $4.5bn by deciding to control land use in the Catskill Mountains’ watersheds instead of building filtration systems to clean water supplies.
Pricing the toll of human activity also allows us to prioritise our actions more rationally. The new report estimates that overfishing costs $50bn a year in lost economic opportunities, and that coral reefs provide between $30bn and $172bn annually in economic benefits. Some will disagree with these numbers – but they do highlight what we may be throwing away.
The problem, as with all environmental issues, is how to implement change. The benefits of natural resources are typically diffused across society but someone must take on the costs. That is why the market is so bad at solving environmental problems on its own. Governments must introduce incentives for individuals and organisations to face the true cost of environmental damage.
We waste billions every year through bad regulation and lack of rules. You don’t have to be a tree-hugger to see the economic sense in costing the earth.
没有评论:
发表评论