Inspired by the writings of Charles Eisenstein (Sacred Economics, for example), you could summarise the problem of monetary valuation of nature as follows: money is designed for a single purpose only: to extract value from the environment so it can be transferred into someone's possession. The moment you put a monetary value on nature, it becomes framed as something one can extract value from. Even more, because we also have an economy that can only sustain itself by constant growth, at some point that extraction become inevitable. In other words: the moment you put a price on anything, someone will feel compelled to cash in on that price. And that always reduces the original 'value' of the untouched thing.
"The moment you put a monetary value on nature, it becomes framed as something one can extract value from." ... "the moment you put a price on anything, someone will feel compelled to cash in on that price. And that always reduces the original 'value' of the untouched thing."
These are really important points, Bard - many thanks for that!
As the "lungs of the planet" we cannot put a price on the ability to breath, as we continue to decimate large tracts of nature to accommodate human expansion and agricultural production, we are really producing an unsustainable balance sheet where the benefits are immensely outweighed by the devastating impact of such activities.
With a multiple year turnaround to replenish natural habitats, will we have enough time at our disposal to ward off climate change events which are being accelaerated by such valuation efforts?
"With a multiple year turnaround to replenish natural habitats, will we have enough time at our disposal to ward off climate change events which are being accelaerated by such valuation efforts?" painfully important question, Robert. I can only _hope_ that the answer will be 'Yes', but there's no guarantee at all that that will be so, is there? :-|
My belief is that the latter is the current scenario, where large corporations are turning their back on ESG to protect corporate profits and greenwashing any required reporting to appear compliant with ESG legislation.
In the U.S., Goldman Sachs paid a $4 million fine in November for failing to comply with ESG policies and procedures. In May, BNY Mellon paid $1.5 million for “misstatements and omissions” around its ESG-related claims. These cases, brought by a freshly formed SEC ESG task force, indicate there could be a major crackdown on the horizon, the only problem is the fines are nothing but a slap on the wrist for these large corporations.
As you put it - "the only problem is the fines are nothing but a slap on the wrist for these large corporations" - then there's no real disincentive at all. It's probably not until we get Chinese levels of risk - company-directors put in front of a firing-squad - that we'll start to see any real change. And in most countries, for in-most-other-contexts-fortunately-good reasons, that ain't likely to be happening soon - or anything like soon-enough, anyway.. Oh well, again.
But we continue to do what we can about bringing on more viable alternatives to the current mess, yes?
Great article, Tom.
Inspired by the writings of Charles Eisenstein (Sacred Economics, for example), you could summarise the problem of monetary valuation of nature as follows: money is designed for a single purpose only: to extract value from the environment so it can be transferred into someone's possession. The moment you put a monetary value on nature, it becomes framed as something one can extract value from. Even more, because we also have an economy that can only sustain itself by constant growth, at some point that extraction become inevitable. In other words: the moment you put a price on anything, someone will feel compelled to cash in on that price. And that always reduces the original 'value' of the untouched thing.
"The moment you put a monetary value on nature, it becomes framed as something one can extract value from." ... "the moment you put a price on anything, someone will feel compelled to cash in on that price. And that always reduces the original 'value' of the untouched thing."
These are really important points, Bard - many thanks for that!
Hi Tom,
Great topic for your article.
As the "lungs of the planet" we cannot put a price on the ability to breath, as we continue to decimate large tracts of nature to accommodate human expansion and agricultural production, we are really producing an unsustainable balance sheet where the benefits are immensely outweighed by the devastating impact of such activities.
With a multiple year turnaround to replenish natural habitats, will we have enough time at our disposal to ward off climate change events which are being accelaerated by such valuation efforts?
"With a multiple year turnaround to replenish natural habitats, will we have enough time at our disposal to ward off climate change events which are being accelaerated by such valuation efforts?" painfully important question, Robert. I can only _hope_ that the answer will be 'Yes', but there's no guarantee at all that that will be so, is there? :-|
My belief is that the latter is the current scenario, where large corporations are turning their back on ESG to protect corporate profits and greenwashing any required reporting to appear compliant with ESG legislation.
In the U.S., Goldman Sachs paid a $4 million fine in November for failing to comply with ESG policies and procedures. In May, BNY Mellon paid $1.5 million for “misstatements and omissions” around its ESG-related claims. These cases, brought by a freshly formed SEC ESG task force, indicate there could be a major crackdown on the horizon, the only problem is the fines are nothing but a slap on the wrist for these large corporations.
So, the answer appears to remain "No"
That's very, very scary. Oh well... :-|
As you put it - "the only problem is the fines are nothing but a slap on the wrist for these large corporations" - then there's no real disincentive at all. It's probably not until we get Chinese levels of risk - company-directors put in front of a firing-squad - that we'll start to see any real change. And in most countries, for in-most-other-contexts-fortunately-good reasons, that ain't likely to be happening soon - or anything like soon-enough, anyway.. Oh well, again.
But we continue to do what we can about bringing on more viable alternatives to the current mess, yes?