Dollars and Sense
Putting a price tag on ecosystems may be the key to protecting them
David Suzuki


Sometimes it seems dire predictions about the future of the planet’s ecosystems come out almost every day.

Then the headlines fade, and so does the sense of urgency.

As a recent editorial in the journal Nature points out, “In too many cases, however, that leaves scientists positioned only to track the loss of these systems. So far, researchers have been less effective at achieving the level of impact on policy decisions needed to implement actual conservation measures.”

Standard appeals for conservation arguably aren’t doing very well. By most measurements, society is failing to conserve the diversity of life on Earth, as well as the natural systems that provide many important services to humanity.

If standard appeals aren’t working, how do we best appeal to policy-makers to make the changes necessary to achieve sustainability?

Well, one way that is receiving increasing support is to stress the economic value of ecosystems.

If policy-makers only understand dollars and cents, and if natural services are valued at zero, then those services will continually be overused and damaged by those who make the economic decisions.

Natural services are economically valuable, and when we reduce their capacity to function we lose out — both in terms of dollars and quality of life. Research shows, for example, that the terrible loss of life and property resulting from the tsunami last year could have been lessened if mangrove forests along the Sri Lankan coast had been protected.

In Canada, too, we rarely put a value on nature or the services it provides. In Ontario alone smog costs at least $1 billion every year in health-care expenses and lost workdays — and that number is increasing.

These are actual hard costs to society, yet we don’t internalize the costs to polluters. Instead, we let polluters off without paying the bill, and society as a whole has to pick up the tab.

Some even suggest that taxes on gasoline should be reduced, further removing responsibility from the most polluting industries and individuals. This makes no sense from an environmental or economic perspective. As the respected magazine The Economist points out, “Petrol taxes are there to capture and charge motorists and others for the externalities they create, such as pollution and congestion... To cut fuel taxes when oil prices rise is bad economics as well as bad politics.”

Once you factor in the external cost of degrading natural systems, it’s often a better economic investment to protect some ecosystems rather than exploit them.

For example, Canada’s huge boreal forest is one of the world’s most important carbon sinks. It’s incredibly valuable in helping to reduce global warming. If we attach a dollar value to this service we can see why it makes sense to protect large areas of this forest.

The recent United Nations-sponsored Millennium Ecosystem Assessment told us that 60 per cent of the planet’s ecosystem services are currently being degraded by human activities, and focusing on the economic value of these services may well be the only hope we have of protecting them.

Take the Nature Challenge and learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.