Thermidore
16-08-2005, 17:25
Ok firstly I did read the FAQ and no. 23, but didn't see anywhere a point about why not to change a UN category as opposed to propose new ones.
Ok I originally posted this in the UN forum but I got no mod response so I'd like your view:
posted originally on the 5th/Aug/2005
I'm just a little dismayed at the narrowness of scope in the environmental category
Is it not a complete generalisation to say that any activity to improve the environment automatically penalises industry
Some recommendations that help the environment may simply require a change in behaviour: such as companies all required to sell in recyclable material with less packaging and not in "convenience" sizes people will either purchase the larger sizes or they'll get something else, but the money will stay circulating - also while for the business there's less of the convenience market there's also less overhead.
Secondly where is this economic penalty taking into account the amount you save by not screwing up ecosystems -
A) there's a lot of talk of the environment as an economic externality - i.e. something that can't be measured financially, but this is utter rubbish, as there are many ways e.g. the wetland you're converting to farmland currently acts as a carbon sink, a nutrient regulator, a system of flood control, a haven for crop pollinators and wild types of your crop (important genetic resources that increase diversity and therefore adaptability,e.g. to a disease). You can measure how much this wetland is then worth by comparing the economic gain of the farmland over the conversion cost, the supplementation of fertilisers, pollinators and the damage costs from floods and pest damage.
B) An intact environment is often more valuable in the long run than a short term gain from exploiting it. This is a basic premise of sustainability. Where is this in such a category?
IMO I think the environment category is way too simplistic and I think many people are put off by environmental proposals because they believe (rightly) that they only penalise their economy, when they need not (in the short term) and definitely do not in the long term
Ok I originally posted this in the UN forum but I got no mod response so I'd like your view:
posted originally on the 5th/Aug/2005
I'm just a little dismayed at the narrowness of scope in the environmental category
Is it not a complete generalisation to say that any activity to improve the environment automatically penalises industry
Some recommendations that help the environment may simply require a change in behaviour: such as companies all required to sell in recyclable material with less packaging and not in "convenience" sizes people will either purchase the larger sizes or they'll get something else, but the money will stay circulating - also while for the business there's less of the convenience market there's also less overhead.
Secondly where is this economic penalty taking into account the amount you save by not screwing up ecosystems -
A) there's a lot of talk of the environment as an economic externality - i.e. something that can't be measured financially, but this is utter rubbish, as there are many ways e.g. the wetland you're converting to farmland currently acts as a carbon sink, a nutrient regulator, a system of flood control, a haven for crop pollinators and wild types of your crop (important genetic resources that increase diversity and therefore adaptability,e.g. to a disease). You can measure how much this wetland is then worth by comparing the economic gain of the farmland over the conversion cost, the supplementation of fertilisers, pollinators and the damage costs from floods and pest damage.
B) An intact environment is often more valuable in the long run than a short term gain from exploiting it. This is a basic premise of sustainability. Where is this in such a category?
IMO I think the environment category is way too simplistic and I think many people are put off by environmental proposals because they believe (rightly) that they only penalise their economy, when they need not (in the short term) and definitely do not in the long term