Comments on: Some Perspective http://hugeasscity.com/2008/10/16/some-perspective/ > so much wonderful packaged in such a mess Sat, 31 Jul 2010 01:09:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Dan Staley http://hugeasscity.com/2008/10/16/some-perspective/comment-page-1/#comment-1908 Dan Staley Fri, 17 Oct 2008 19:06:05 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/10/16/some-perspective/#comment-1908 Speaking of natural capital, Costanza recently wrote an essay at <a href="http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4645#more" rel="nofollow">The Oil Drum</a>, writing about this topic. The key, in my mind: <blockquote>Our current market allocation system excludes most non-marketed natural and social capital assets and services that are huge contributors to human well-being. The current economic model ignores this and therefore does not achieve real economic efficiency. A new, sustainable ecological economic model would measure and include the contributions of natural and social capital and could better approximate real economic efficiency. </blockquote> Also, <a href="http://tinyurl.com/5f5hpz" rel="nofollow">Farley, J and Daly H 2001</a>. The Failure of the Free-Market on a Full Planet. IN: Fifth International Conference of the International Society for Ecological Economics (ISEE) Moscow, Russia, September 26-29, 2001. Speaking of natural capital, Costanza recently wrote an essay at The Oil Drum, writing about this topic. The key, in my mind:

Our current market allocation system excludes most non-marketed natural and social capital assets and services that are huge contributors to human well-being. The current economic model ignores this and therefore does not achieve real economic efficiency. A new, sustainable ecological economic model would measure and include the contributions of natural and social capital and could better approximate real economic efficiency.

Also,

Farley, J and Daly H 2001. The Failure of the Free-Market on a Full Planet. IN: Fifth International Conference of the International Society for Ecological Economics (ISEE) Moscow, Russia, September 26-29, 2001.

]]> By: Matt the Engineer http://hugeasscity.com/2008/10/16/some-perspective/comment-page-1/#comment-1907 Matt the Engineer Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:33:03 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/10/16/some-perspective/#comment-1907 On that invaluable note: A recent <a href="http://daily.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2008/10/16/we-are-so-fat" rel="nofollow">Sightline post</a> had me considering my mass impact on the planet - how much of me there is compared to wild animals (answer: 8 pounds of me for every 1 pound of wild land vertebrate). I asked the question how would one help build up the wild number, and I think the only answer is to actively build open space (bury roads? bulldoze buildings?). Try calculating costs with that in mind. On that invaluable note: A recent Sightline post had me considering my mass impact on the planet – how much of me there is compared to wild animals (answer: 8 pounds of me for every 1 pound of wild land vertebrate). I asked the question how would one help build up the wild number, and I think the only answer is to actively build open space (bury roads? bulldoze buildings?). Try calculating costs with that in mind.

]]> By: Andrew http://hugeasscity.com/2008/10/16/some-perspective/comment-page-1/#comment-1906 Andrew Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:13:07 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/10/16/some-perspective/#comment-1906 I think it's probably undervaluing the forests, especially old-growth ones. First, from a replacement cost stand-point, since there is no replacement for old-growth forests, they are invaluable from a replacement cost standpoint. Second, we don't even know all the services the forests perform, so basing it only on clean air and clean water, etc. we're discounting the information we haven't yet discovered know. Similarly, there are uses the forests have that can only be partially measured in dollars: ecotourism, movie sets, whatever. All I mean is that we can't quanitfy all their uses. Finally, it can't take into account all the costs of destroying the forests. Floods, biodiversity lose, etc. can't be easily measured. I $2 trillion is a big number, but I'm not sure it's big enough! I think it’s probably undervaluing the forests, especially old-growth ones.

First, from a replacement cost stand-point, since there is no replacement for old-growth forests, they are invaluable from a replacement cost standpoint.

Second, we don’t even know all the services the forests perform, so basing it only on clean air and clean water, etc. we’re discounting the information we haven’t yet discovered know. Similarly, there are uses the forests have that can only be partially measured in dollars: ecotourism, movie sets, whatever. All I mean is that we can’t quanitfy all their uses.

Finally, it can’t take into account all the costs of destroying the forests. Floods, biodiversity lose, etc. can’t be easily measured.

I $2 trillion is a big number, but I’m not sure it’s big enough!

]]>