This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/16/the-call-to-put-a-price-on-nature-can-be-appealing-but-it-misunderstands-whats-at-stake

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The call to put ‘a price on nature’ can be appealing – but it misunderstands what’s at stake The call to put ‘a price on nature’ can be appealing – but it misunderstands what’s at stake
(5 months later)
Free market mechanisms have been used for years to tackle the environmental crisis – with disastrous results. It’s time for some new ideasFree market mechanisms have been used for years to tackle the environmental crisis – with disastrous results. It’s time for some new ideas
“When [a] crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the idea that are lying around.”“When [a] crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the idea that are lying around.”
Nowhere has Milton Friedman’s dictum applied with more force than in respect of the environment. When scientists first raised the alarm about global warming in the late 1980s, the ideas “lying around” all pertained to neoliberalism. As a result, mainstream climate action has prioritised free market mechanisms, with disastrous results.Nowhere has Milton Friedman’s dictum applied with more force than in respect of the environment. When scientists first raised the alarm about global warming in the late 1980s, the ideas “lying around” all pertained to neoliberalism. As a result, mainstream climate action has prioritised free market mechanisms, with disastrous results.
Now, as the nations are meeting in Montreal for the Cop15 talks on biological diversity, 119 scientists and other experts have published an open letter warning against what they call “a neoliberal agenda hidden behind cheerful and meaningless keywords”.Now, as the nations are meeting in Montreal for the Cop15 talks on biological diversity, 119 scientists and other experts have published an open letter warning against what they call “a neoliberal agenda hidden behind cheerful and meaningless keywords”.
By that they mean, in particular, the phrase “nature positive”, a term promoted by the World Economic Forum, the European Commission, the WWF, lobby groups and many individual governments. In Australia, the rhetoric has found its way into the government’s new review of environmental legislation, a document entitled Nature Positive Plan: better for the environment, better for business.By that they mean, in particular, the phrase “nature positive”, a term promoted by the World Economic Forum, the European Commission, the WWF, lobby groups and many individual governments. In Australia, the rhetoric has found its way into the government’s new review of environmental legislation, a document entitled Nature Positive Plan: better for the environment, better for business.
No single definition of “nature positive” exists, with one study suggesting that 10 organisations using the term all define it differently.No single definition of “nature positive” exists, with one study suggesting that 10 organisations using the term all define it differently.
Yet it’s a slogan generally associated with a monetary valuation of the natural world – and that’s what worries the letter’s signatories.Yet it’s a slogan generally associated with a monetary valuation of the natural world – and that’s what worries the letter’s signatories.
The call to put “a price on nature” can appeal even to environmentalists, who hope it might force businesses that treat the Earth as worthless to register its degradation on their balance sheets.The call to put “a price on nature” can appeal even to environmentalists, who hope it might force businesses that treat the Earth as worthless to register its degradation on their balance sheets.
But that misunderstands what’s at stake.But that misunderstands what’s at stake.
To harness markets for nature, technocrats and economists must separate an ecology into its component parts and then assign values to the aspects deemed worthy of protection.To harness markets for nature, technocrats and economists must separate an ecology into its component parts and then assign values to the aspects deemed worthy of protection.
In a piece for The Conversation, the academic John Henneberry explains how when we price nature:In a piece for The Conversation, the academic John Henneberry explains how when we price nature:
.css-13b893w{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C74600;}We apply numbers to those features that we consider important, or that are measurable, or both, and we ignore or exclude other features that don’t meet these criteria. […] As a result of it, nature appears more fragmented because we have to slice it into categories and dice those categories into bits before we can value bits of those bits. The sum of these parts is far short of the whole and does not capture the interconnectedness and holism of nature.” We apply numbers to those features that we consider important, or that are measurable, or both, and we ignore or exclude other features that don’t meet these criteria. […] As a result of it, nature appears more fragmented because we have to slice it into categories and dice those categories into bits before we can value bits of those bits. The sum of these parts is far short of the whole and does not capture the interconnectedness and holism of nature.”
In a context in which we don’t even know how many unique species exist on the planet (estimates range from 5.3 million to 1 trillion, with only 1.6 million of them identified and named), the author Adrienne Buller describes as an extraordinary fantasy the notion that “the biosphere can be readily segmented and ‘unbundled’ into discrete units which can subsequently be individually valued, speculated upon, and exchanged, abstracted entirely from the specifics of time and place.”In a context in which we don’t even know how many unique species exist on the planet (estimates range from 5.3 million to 1 trillion, with only 1.6 million of them identified and named), the author Adrienne Buller describes as an extraordinary fantasy the notion that “the biosphere can be readily segmented and ‘unbundled’ into discrete units which can subsequently be individually valued, speculated upon, and exchanged, abstracted entirely from the specifics of time and place.”
It’s a point also made in the open letter, which insists:It’s a point also made in the open letter, which insists:
.css-13b893w{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C74600;}The monetary values being produced do not represent the value of nature’s ecological functions, not even a proxy. Yet misleading figures are not better than nothing but worse than nothing, as they can lead to wrong policy decisions with irreversible consequences. The monetary valuation of nature’s ecological functions can also give a dangerous and misleading illusion of substitutability between critical ecosystemic functions, where one assumes incorrectly that as long as the total monetary value remains stable, nature is in good shape.” The monetary values being produced do not represent the value of nature’s ecological functions, not even a proxy. Yet misleading figures are not better than nothing but worse than nothing, as they can lead to wrong policy decisions with irreversible consequences. The monetary valuation of nature’s ecological functions can also give a dangerous and misleading illusion of substitutability between critical ecosystemic functions, where one assumes incorrectly that as long as the total monetary value remains stable, nature is in good shape.”
Substitutability is invariably the point of environmental pricing: by transforming the unique components of a biosphere into abstractions as exchangeable as dollars or Euros, it facilitates processes like offsetting, so that destruction in one place can be “compensated” by investment elsewhere.Substitutability is invariably the point of environmental pricing: by transforming the unique components of a biosphere into abstractions as exchangeable as dollars or Euros, it facilitates processes like offsetting, so that destruction in one place can be “compensated” by investment elsewhere.
Marketisation also has consequences for governance, taking environmental decisions away from the public and trusting them instead to the market’s invisible hand.Marketisation also has consequences for governance, taking environmental decisions away from the public and trusting them instead to the market’s invisible hand.
“[T]he idea that finance would have a key role to play [in respect of the environment],” says the letter, “is a very specific political framing that empowers private finance actors – who can then negotiate dearly their participation – while downplaying the power of governments to set up appropriate regulations.”“[T]he idea that finance would have a key role to play [in respect of the environment],” says the letter, “is a very specific political framing that empowers private finance actors – who can then negotiate dearly their participation – while downplaying the power of governments to set up appropriate regulations.”
Given the glaring relationship between profit and extinction (think of the logging firms clearing the Amazon), you might wonder at the mental gymnastics required to present financialisation as an alternative to immediate government regulation.Given the glaring relationship between profit and extinction (think of the logging firms clearing the Amazon), you might wonder at the mental gymnastics required to present financialisation as an alternative to immediate government regulation.
Think of Tanya Plibersek’s pledge to create in Australia a “Green Wall Street” based on the trading of “nature credits”. To many people, entrusting fragile and irreplaceable ecosystems to international commerce seems bizarre.Think of Tanya Plibersek’s pledge to create in Australia a “Green Wall Street” based on the trading of “nature credits”. To many people, entrusting fragile and irreplaceable ecosystems to international commerce seems bizarre.
As George Monbiot once put it, by integrating the environment into the world market, “you are effectively pushing the natural world even further into the system that is eating it alive.”As George Monbiot once put it, by integrating the environment into the world market, “you are effectively pushing the natural world even further into the system that is eating it alive.”
Yet political theorist Philip Mirowski reminds us in Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, one of the great commandments of neoliberalism holds that any perceived problems thrown up by markets can and must be resolved by further markets.Yet political theorist Philip Mirowski reminds us in Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, one of the great commandments of neoliberalism holds that any perceived problems thrown up by markets can and must be resolved by further markets.
Cop15 ends on Monday. Yet irrespective of what it decides, we can’t base our response on ideas that happen to be lying around. We need ideas that work.Cop15 ends on Monday. Yet irrespective of what it decides, we can’t base our response on ideas that happen to be lying around. We need ideas that work.
That means recognising that genuine environmental solutions depend on the decommodification of nature, not its opposite.That means recognising that genuine environmental solutions depend on the decommodification of nature, not its opposite.
Jeff Sparrow is a Guardian Australia columnistJeff Sparrow is a Guardian Australia columnist