The bounties of nature are free...
...............May be that's why we don't value them.

Economics of Nature

There is an excellent article on importance of biodiversity here.

One of the point it mentions is that the benefits of nature to us are free.

By and large, we do not pay for any of this: our economics does not, for the most part, include paying for nature. But we pay when it is lost(biodiversity). Less fertile soils make it harder to grow crops. Dirtier water is more expensive to make fit for human consumption. The collapse of fisheries leads to unemployment. The loss of mangroves increases the impact of tsunamis. The loss of animal species increases the risk that humans will catch diseases such as Lyme disease. Again, the list goes on.

We do not pay for what nature provides. The gifts of nature are free. We start paying only when we loose some gift of nature. We pay for the bottled water because there is no clean drinking water left. We pay for the AC in living rooms because there is no clean air in our cities. We do not value the bounties of nature when we have them in plenty.

The modern living has distanced humans from nature. We live in a sealed compartment where technology has created a layer between us and the natural world. Our direct dealings with the natural world are increasingly rare.

We pay for art. Nature is the most stunning peace of art. It is as beautiful as anything can be. It is full of magnificent sights and sounds . And it is free.

Our economics is based on the model of human activity and ownership. We pay for things where human labour or ownership is involved. Nature belongs to us all.

As technology has made us less dependent on vagaries of nature we have become aloof to our natural surroundings. Instead of taking advantage of what technology has provided us, our greed has made us indifferent to the diversity that exists around us.

Avoid the Unmanageable, Manage the Unavoidable

NY Times has an excellent debate on whether climate change had a role to play in the recent duststorms in Australia .

On Economics of Growth

"There is room in the world, no doubt, and even in old countries, for a great increase of population, supposing the arts of life to go on improving, and capital to increase. But even if innocuous, I confess I see very little reason for desiring it. The density of population necessary to enable mankind to obtain, in the greatest degree, all the advantages both of cooperation and of social intercourse, has, in all the most populous countries, been attained. A population may be too crowded, though all be amply supplied with food and raiment. It is not good for man to be kept perforce at all times in the presence of his species. A world from which solitude is extirpated, is a very poor ideal. Solitude, in the sense of being often alone, is essential to any depth of meditation or of character; and solitude in the presence of natural beauty and grandeur, is the cradle of thoughts and aspirations which are not only good for the individual, but which society could ill do without. Nor is there much satisfaction in contemplating the world with nothing left to the spontaneous activity of nature; with every rood of land brought into cultivation, which is capable of growing food for human beings; every flowery waste or natural pasture ploughed up, all quadrupeds or birds which are not domesticated for man's use exterminated as his rivals for food, every hedgerow or superfluous tree rooted out, and scarcely a place left where a wild shrub or flower could grow without being eradicated as a weed in the name of improved agriculture. If the earth must lose that great portion of its pleasantness which it owes to things that the unlimited increase of wealth and population would extirpate from it, for the mere purpose of enabling it to support a larger but not a better or a happier population, I sincerely hope, for the sake of posterity, that they will be content to be stationary, long before necessity compels them to it.

It is scarcely necessary to remark that a stationary condition of capital and population implies no stationary state of human improvement. There would be as much scope as ever for all kinds of mental culture, and moral and social progress; as much room for improving the Art of Living, and much more likelihood of its being improved, when minds ceased to be engrossed by the art of getting on. Even the industrial arts might be as earnestly and as successfully cultivated, with this sole difference, that instead of serving no purpose but the increase of wealth, industrial improvements would produce their legitimate effect, that of abridging labour. . . . Only when, in addition to just institutions, the increase of mankind shall be under the deliberate guidance of judicious foresight, can the conquests made from the powers of nature by the intellect and energy of scientific discoverers, become the common property of the species, and the means of improving and elevating the universal lot.""There is room in the world, no doubt, and even in old countries, for a great increase of population, supposing the arts of life to go on improving, and capital to increase. But even if innocuous, I confess I see very little reason for desiring it. The density of population necessary to enable mankind to obtain, in the greatest degree, all the advantages both of cooperation and of social intercourse, has, in all the most populous countries, been attained. A population may be too crowded, though all be amply supplied with food and raiment. It is not good for man to be kept perforce at all times in the presence of his species. A world from which solitude is extirpated, is a very poor ideal. Solitude, in the sense of being often alone, is essential to any depth of meditation or of character; and solitude in the presence of natural beauty and grandeur, is the cradle of thoughts and aspirations which are not only good for the individual, but which society could ill do without. Nor is there much satisfaction in contemplating the world with nothing left to the spontaneous activity of nature; with every rood of land brought into cultivation, which is capable of growing food for human beings; every flowery waste or natural pasture ploughed up, all quadrupeds or birds which are not domesticated for man's use exterminated as his rivals for food, every hedgerow or superfluous tree rooted out, and scarcely a place left where a wild shrub or flower could grow without being eradicated as a weed in the name of improved agriculture. If the earth must lose that great portion of its pleasantness which it owes to things that the unlimited increase of wealth and population would extirpate from it, for the mere purpose of enabling it to support a larger but not a better or a happier population, I sincerely hope, for the sake of posterity, that they will be content to be stationary, long before necessity compels them to it.

It is scarcely necessary to remark that a stationary condition of capital and population implies no stationary state of human improvement. There would be as much scope as ever for all kinds of mental culture, and moral and social progress; as much room for improving the Art of Living, and much more likelihood of its being improved, when minds ceased to be engrossed by the art of getting on. Even the industrial arts might be as earnestly and as successfully cultivated, with this sole difference, that instead of serving no purpose but the increase of wealth, industrial improvements would produce their legitimate effect, that of abridging labour. . . . Only when, in addition to just institutions, the increase of mankind shall be under the deliberate guidance of judicious foresight, can the conquests made from the powers of nature by the intellect and energy of scientific discoverers, become the common property of the species, and the means of improving and elevating the universal lot."

John Stuart Mill

Source :NYTimes :Dot Earth

On Climate Change

One of the highlights of Clinton's visit to India was India's stern no to any legally binding emission cuts. India's position is that India's per capita emissions are among the lowest among the world, and even with current growth rate of GDP, they are not going to rise significantly. If millions of Indians have to be lifted out of poverty India needs high GDP growth rate and any restrictions placed on India as a result of climate change pacts or protocols is only going to hinder India's growth. Consequently the poor are going to suffer. Secondly it is the developed countries who are solely responsible for this mess. So they have to do be the main agent of change.

Some experts have suggested that instead of using per capita emissions as a parameter, emissions per GDP (or GDP per emission) could be considered. This could be the right strategy which should be accepted by the developing as well as developed countries. Whatever nations or people say the fact remains that climate change is a real threat and something needs to be done about it sooner. The ill effects of climate change are going to be felt across the world and they are not limited to one region or country.

Carbon emissions per GDP is supposed to measure the efficiency of an economy, where as carbon emissions per capita is more a measure of industrialization than anything else. In modern economy energy use is high. Virtually all the economic activities depend on some kind of energy source , whether electrical or mechanical. Most of this energy is derived from fossil fuels which are the chief emitter of carbon. Thus emissions per GDP measure the kind of technology being used to fuel the economy. For eg, by having tougher emission standards, carbon emissions by vehicles can be controlled. Similarly for coal fired power plants (coal is less cleaner fuel than petrol when it comes to carbon emissions), by using effcient technology and techniques such as carbon capturing we can reduce the carbon emissions. Adoption of new and efficient technology will also fuel GDP growth. Moving towards renewable sources like solar and wind will create new jobs and help in cleaner GDP growth.

Let us compare the ratio of GDP to CO2 emissions for some countries.(source: wikipedia)

Sweden 6.591

France 5.373

Italy 3.842

UK 3.670

Germany 3.390

US 1.936

Kuwait 0.596

India 0.497

China 0.450

Iran 0.372

The higher the ratio the better it is. The value for UK is almost double that of US. So though both the countries have developed economies, UK's economy is much more carbon efficient than US. This is generally true for all major European economies. Most of the developing countries fare poorly on this front. India is slightly better than China. As can be seen developed countries in general are much better placed in the list. Also the gulf countries where petroleum is available in plenty are performing pretty poorly.

I am not sure how the carbon emissions are calculated. I assume that these emissions are calulated on the basis of fossil fuels burnt plus the carbon emissions by the industries which are of non fossil fuel origin such as by cement industry. Livestock are also major cause of carbon emissions. Cows emit methane which is 20 times as potent than CO2 in absorbing heat.

So it can be clearly seen that there is large variation of emissions per capita across countries. It can be clearly established that developing countries lag far behind the developed ones. The clean technology transfer from developed to developing countries can mitiagate this difference. This is something the diplomats should look at. There is large scope of cooperation between the countries on clean energy front. The other trend is the variation among the developed countries. This may be because that European countries have done much more than US on this front. For eg petrol is cheaper in US than in Europe. This is reflected in the petroleum consumption per capita. US consumes around 24.8 thousand barrels(bbl) per year per capita whereas the same for UK is 10.9 and France is 11.9.Bigger cars are more popular in US than in Europe. This is also a lifestyle thing. One of the reasons for bankruptcy of US carmakers was the increasing market share of Japanese car manufactureres like Toyota and Honda whose small cars are becoming more popular than SUV's like Hummer. Another example is of trains. High speed trains are very popular in Europe for long distance travel. On the other hand people in US rely mainly on airways for the same. Energywise railways are more efficient than the airways.

One more important factor is the role that forests play in fighting climate change. The role played by forests in maintainig the ecological balance of the planet is well established. By absorbing carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen they help in maintaing the balance of gases in air. So if we have to fight climate change effectively the treaties related to climate change should give adequate incentives to preserve forests. The forests world over are facing the wrath of increasing population. A case in point is that of Brazil. The large Amazon forests of Brazil are being cut to make way for farms. In recent years Brazil has become a large exporter of foodgrains. This has brought prosperity to many Brazilians. But it has come at a heavy cost. Each year large tracts of Amazon forests are being cleared to make way for farms. Any efforts to stop deforestation brings opposition from local people and govt.

Read more »

Colours

Magic of Mountains

Flowers

CoCoNut

Light on Leaves