Nature Loss "Dwarfs Bank Crisis"

[achilles]

By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website, Barcelona


Losses are great, and continuous, says the report


The global economy is losing more money from the disappearance of forests than through the current banking crisis, according to an EU-commissioned study.

It puts the annual cost of forest loss at between $2 trillion and $5 trillion.

The figure comes from adding the value of the various services that forests perform, such as providing clean water and absorbing carbon dioxide.

The study, headed by a Deutsche Bank economist, parallels the Stern Review into the economics of climate change.

It has been discussed during many sessions here at the World Conservation Congress.

Some conservationists see it as a new way of persuading policymakers to fund nature protection rather than allowing the decline in ecosystems and species, highlighted in the release on Monday of the Red List of Threatened Species, to continue.

Capital losses

Speaking to BBC News on the fringes of the congress, study leader Pavan Sukhdev emphasised that the cost of natural decline dwarfs losses on the financial markets.

"It's not only greater but it's also continuous, it's been happening every year, year after year," he told BBC News.
Teeb will... show the risks we run by not valuing [nature] adequately."
Andrew Mitchell
Global Canopy Programme


"So whereas Wall Street by various calculations has to date lost, within the financial sector, $1-$1.5 trillion, the reality is that at today's rate we are losing natural capital at least between $2-$5 trillion every year."

The review that Mr Sukhdev leads, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (Teeb), was initiated by Germany under its recent EU presidency, with the European Commission providing funding.

The first phase concluded in May when the team released its finding that forest decline could be costing about 7% of global GDP. The second phase will expand the scope to other natural systems.
Full Article:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7662565.stm

The ecological crisis is more severe, having a long term impact.

[Billy No Mates]

I haven't got any trees in my bank account so when it comes to the crunch i couldn't give two sh!ts about them .

[achilles]

I haven't got any trees in my bank account so when it comes to the crunch i couldn't give two sh!ts about them .

Sorry to tell you that, but the planet doesnt give two sh.its about your bank account.

[Billy No Mates]

Sorry to tell you that, but the planet doesnt give two sh.its about your bank account.

Exactly so why should i care about it? .

[Stonewall71]

Problem is that I cannot use a tree to pay my bills :|

I know that is an ugly thing to say ....thanks capitalism and speculators , hope you ALL burn in hell

[wilhelm]

Exactly so why should i care about it? .

Errrr..... because you live on it? And so will your children.

[Billy No Mates]

Errrr..... because you live on it? And so will your children.

I and my children are more concerned with actual money than theoretical ecological damage...aint i a stinker .

[Kilgor]

Unfortunately for the environment, people look at their wallet first.

Everyone knows nothing will be done until its too late.

Humanity will just have to adapt, ie learn to live in our own sh1t

[achilles]

Problem is that I cannot use a tree to pay my bills :|

I know that is an ugly thing to say ....thanks capitalism and speculators , hope you ALL burn in hell

Trees dont pay bills (unless you make trees your daily business) but obviously offer a great number of other services.

[BugHunt]

Exactly so why should i care about it? .


How much would you pay for air? Or water. Or not having your home flooded away yearly. Or having cheap food. Or just having food.

Having a stable "healthy" enviroment is costed into practically every transaction - infinitely more then say oil.... Just because most people are unaware of them doesnt mean they dont exsist.

Any widespread eco collapse is gonna be ALOT harder to take then any credit crunch.


For example by 2020 its thought Lake Meade which feeds the Hooover dam will have a 50% chance of not being at level which cant produce power. There are south American cities of millions which face becoming non-functional due to lack of water supplies as glaciers melt off.

Yeah those are "foreign" examples - but theyll be plenty of hardships coming OUR way too.

Credit crunch caused by weak regulatory authorities who didnt stem banks over lending and causing people to live beyond there means - which ulitmately ends up hurting all of us.

If the shopkeeper (regulartory authorities) is asleep or missing, how soon before the unscurplious rob the shop completely bare?

How much worse is a Eco-Crunch - humans living wastefully and unsustainably - with the added fun of there not even being a regulatory authority or even widespread acceptance its a issue.

[T3ngu]

I and my children are more concerned with actual money than theoretical ecological damage...aint i a stinker .

Don't be so sure your concerns about money are the primary concern.... Mr Luddite.

[Supplanter]

Oh, so mother nature needs a favor? Well, maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys.

To quote Mr. Burns, I'm just kidding

[Billy No Mates]

Don't be so sure your concerns about money are the primary concern.... Mr Luddite.

Im not sure youve used the right description im probably the opposite of a Luddite....i cant feed my family on good intentions or warm fuzzy feelings anymore than anyone else can .

[Billy No Mates]

How much would you pay for air? Or water. Or not having your home flooded away yearly. Or having cheap food. Or just having food.

Having a stable "healthy" enviroment is costed into practically every transaction - infinitely more then say oil.... Just because most people are unaware of them doesnt mean they dont exsist.

Any widespread eco collapse is gonna be ALOT harder to take then any credit crunch.


For example by 2020 its thought Lake Meade which feeds the Hooover dam will have a 50% chance of not being at level which cant produce power. There are south American cities of millions which face becoming non-functional due to lack of water supplies as glaciers melt off.

Yeah those are "foreign" examples - but theyll be plenty of hardships coming OUR way too.

Credit crunch caused by weak regulatory authorities who didnt stem banks over lending and causing people to live beyond there means - which ulitmately ends up hurting all of us.

If the shopkeeper (regulartory authorities) is asleep or missing, how soon before the unscurplious rob the shop completely bare?

How much worse is a Eco-Crunch - humans living wastefully and unsustainably - with the added fun of there not even being a regulatory authority or even widespread acceptance its a issue.

Perhaps ive been needlessly provocative but im firmly of the opinion that anyone that says they care more about the enviroment than money is either a liar or a saint,i would love to be proved wrong by the MP.net green commando's but i doubt i will be .

[Macs.]

Perhaps ive been needlessly provocative but im firmly of the opinion that anyone that says they care more about the enviroment than money is either a liar or a saint,i would love to be proved wrong by the MP.net green commando's but i doubt i will be .

...and who says that money and caring about the enviroment can't go hand in hand ? :roll:

[Billy No Mates]

...and who says that money and caring about the enviroment can't go hand in hand ? :roll:

No one,but when people have to chose im pretty sure which way they will jump .

[achilles]

Perhaps ive been needlessly provocative but im firmly of the opinion that anyone that says they care more about the enviroment than money is either a liar or a saint,i would love to be proved wrong by the MP.net green commando's but i doubt i will be .

You have a very narrow view of "money", the "environment" and how the two can be well combined.

[Billy No Mates]

You have a very narrow view of "money", the "environment" and how the two can be well combined.

I have a very practical view,i work in construction so i have a good idea how much money in taxes we pay in the name of the enviroment but admitedly only a vague idea of how the money given actually benefits the 'enviroment' .

[achilles]

I have a very practical view,i work in construction so i have a good idea how much money in taxes we pay in the name of the enviroment but admitedly only a vague idea of how the money given actually benefits the 'enviroment' .

Thats a whole different issue. You are talking about the potential mismanagement of environmental funds. This is largely a political issue and i dont see how this suggests that money is, or should be, a priority higher than the environment.

Being practical means caring about the natural capital around us. And this is self-explanatory i believe.

[T3ngu]

Im not sure youve used the right description im probably the opposite of a Luddite....i cant feed my family on good intentions or warm fuzzy feelings anymore than anyone else can .

Perhaps i was unclear, i was simply inferring that as information improves about OUR environment, there is the part of society against information (or in terms of luddites, technology) forcing changes to our somewhat selfish lives.

[BillySing]

Oh, so mother nature needs a favor? Well, maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys.

To quote Mr. Burns, I'm just kidding

hahahahaha, Simpsons Quote! :-P

An Episode quite relevant to the current topic..........

Edit: damn man, here I was thinking I was the only one to get it from memory, and I discover invisible text after posting :(

[Billy No Mates]

Thats a whole different issue. You are talking about the potential mismanagement of environmental funds. This is largely a political issue and i dont see how this suggests that money is, or should be, a priority higher than the environment.

Being practical means caring about the natural capital around us. And this is self-explanatory i believe.

No its intrinsically linked the 'enviroment' is to often a stick to beat cash out of people regardless of the potential for it to do any good,i have never suggested that money should be more important than the enviroment ive merely pointed out that for practical purposes for most people money comes first .

[T3ngu]

No its intrinsically linked the 'enviroment' is to often a stick to beat cash out of people regardless of the potential for it to do any good,i have never suggested that money should be more important than the enviroment ive merely pointed out that for practical purposes for most people money comes first .

When i worked for the state government here, some ever so smart public servant types did a survey which found exactly that.

People are concerned about the environment, but don't want it to effect their cash flow, hence wont pay more for sustainable good. In the long run this is bad.

Oi billy, see Don Bourke is your mate now.

[notherhen40]

Problem is that I cannot use a tree to pay my bills :|

I know that is an ugly thing to say ....thanks capitalism and speculators , hope you ALL burn in hell

But you do use trees to pay your bills. The billing statements are printed on paper, the money you use is paper, and so on and so on.......p-)

[vryhpyammoadded]

I’m sorry but Mr. Black will have to take a back seat for the moment as the loss of financial capital takes precedent as it has a much more immediate and direct effect on humanity. He needs to also address the total biosphere capital value, that it’s quite huge and a loss of a few trillion a year is a drop in the bucket of what’s left.

I agree that those resources should be used more wisely but now is not the time for much in the way of ecological regulation/legislation. To enact crushing gween regulation to stymie humans from living decently would be akin to increasing taxes during this economic downturn. I say a five year ecologic legislation/regulation and tax increase hiatus is more in order till we ride this through.

Once the adjustment bottoms out and nations get their economic acts back together we can then bring back focus on gween issues. I should hope the gweens don’t attempt to shield the rampaging masses all after some manner of life support, or they might just find themselves trampled.
Best figure out a way to work with the masses than attempt to road block them and lose it all because short term family survival now tops save the biosphere every time.

[SBL]

I reckon nature will be a lot worse-off the longer the economy stays in the toilet. Look at the worst parts of West Africa, for example.

[Laworkerbee]

People need to harden the **** up, nature laughs at all of you.

[Connaught Ranger]

I never knew Dwarfs had their own banks,

Tolkein never mentioned where they invest their money:|:|

[2Sheds_Jackson]

It puts the annual cost of forest loss at between $2 trillion and $5 trillion.

The figure comes from adding the value of the various services that forests perform, such as providing clean water and absorbing carbon dioxide.


I don't know what kind of fancy-ass gold plated trees these Europeans are using, but over here we can go down to Home Depot and get a whole vanload of illegals who can do clean water and absorb carbon for like $2 a day.

[brainplay]

I want to know what fancy ass gold plated trees the UK is talking about. Over here we have a large replantation program which is often tied to the logging companies. Those guys understand that deforestation will kill their business and have taken the appropriate steps to re-plant heavily. Some newly re-planted areas have more trees than before they were cut down.

Have they ever considered putting some of their budget to one of those programs? No? I didn't think so. That would make it more difficult to whine.

[achilles]

I want to know what fancy ass gold plated trees the UK is talking about. Over here we have a large replantation program which is often tied to the logging companies. Those guys understand that deforestation will kill their business and have taken the appropriate steps to re-plant heavily. Some newly re-planted areas have more trees than before they were cut down.

Have they ever considered putting some of their budget to one of those programs? No? I didn't think so. That would make it more difficult to whine.


There are also moves towards reforestation. By the year 2000 the UK's woodland cover was the lowest in Europe ( just 5%) and Devon is one of the least wooded counties (with only 2.2% ancient woodland cover). A number of local and national initiatives has now increased the UK's woodland cover to about 10%http://www.stewardwood.org/woodland/tree_loss.htm

Especially Scotland is a model of forest and wildlife management, mainly thanks to the privately owned large estates.

[BugHunt]

I want to know what fancy ass gold plated trees the UK is talking about. Over here we have a large replantation program which is often tied to the logging companies. Those guys understand that deforestation will kill their business and have taken the appropriate steps to re-plant heavily. Some newly re-planted areas have more trees than before they were cut down.

Have they ever considered putting some of their budget to one of those programs? No? I didn't think so. That would make it more difficult to whine.



You guys are plain fukking dangerously ignorant.

Sure you can replant a large number of fast growing logging trees - but that still doesnt change the fact that the forest eco system goes from a rich diverse tertiary forest to a much much poorer artifically planted wood. With many sub species gone for decades or for good.

By your logic a rainforest is exactly the same as a garden lawn. Afterall there might be the same number of green plants per square meter so ergo they are infact the same. WRONG.


A little bit like Hitler looking at a unit designation on a map in 1945 and thinking because there were 3000 under equipped children and old men in a Volks brigade they equalled a 3000 man Panzer division.

Learn a bit about biology and ecosystems before you try and extrapolate kindergarden logic to areas your unaware off.

[achilles]

You guys are plain fukking dangerously ignorant.


x2....................

[shocker1]

You guys are plain fukking dangerously ignorant.

Sure you can replant a large number of fast growing logging trees - but that still doesnt change the fact that the forest eco system goes from a rich diverse tertiary forest to a much much poorer artifically planted wood. With many sub species gone for decades or for good.

By your logic a rainforest is exactly the same as a garden lawn. Afterall there might be the same number of green plants per square meter so ergo they are infact the same. WRONG.


A little bit like Hitler looking at a unit designation on a map in 1945 and thinking because there were 3000 under equipped children and old men in a Volks brigade they equalled a 3000 man Panzer division.

Learn a bit about biology and ecosystems before you try and extrapolate kindergarden logic to areas your unaware off.
Good post, we have huge tracts of white pine forests where hardwood used to thrive. In those forests it is a lifeless silence. No birds, no deer, no animals at all, no hardwoods to change color in the fall and no diversity.

[T3ngu]

You guys are plain fukking dangerously ignorant.

Sure you can replant a large number of fast growing logging trees - but that still doesnt change the fact that the forest eco system goes from a rich diverse tertiary forest to a much much poorer artifically planted wood. With many sub species gone for decades or for good.

By your logic a rainforest is exactly the same as a garden lawn. Afterall there might be the same number of green plants per square meter so ergo they are infact the same. WRONG.


A little bit like Hitler looking at a unit designation on a map in 1945 and thinking because there were 3000 under equipped children and old men in a Volks brigade they equalled a 3000 man Panzer division.

Learn a bit about biology and ecosystems before you try and extrapolate kindergarden logic to areas your unaware off.


x2....................

Two areas as you rightly pointed out Bughunt 1. reduction in biodiversity through the destruction of natural areas of vegetation and 2. carbon storage via plantations.

Replanting trees can act as a carbon sink when the trees are used for something at the end of their growth cycle i.e. construction. However, the reduction in biodiversity is probably what scares me the most. The removal of old growth forrests and replacing these with forrests is not the same as before but it is better than nothing. The big area of concern is the large scale devastation of the amazon, or indonesian rainforrests where afterwards you can farm the land for a few years before all of the nutrients in the soil are gone, as the rainforrests cannot replenish it anymore as its gone.

[akd]

If there are no trees left, what will we do when the time comes to start burning the global warming heretics? :-(

[vryhpyammoadded]

I’m slashing and burning about three acres of prime, snake infested, Florida jungle tomorrow morning. Hopefully it won’t grow back in a week like it normally does. Dam vines nearly took the guest house out for good last time I attempted clearing that crap. My new plan is to sick a few goats on it once it’s all tore up. Then again, any biomass for the Butonal reactor is good biomass to keep the car going.
Don’t worry; the 600 year old oaks are safe although one has already gone down to pay for my swimming pool, privacy fence and a rebuilt bush hog; dam the demon vine! The guy who hauled the oak off is going to give me a few finished boards back that I’ll later turn into wonderful cabinetry in my wood shop.
Next project, reclaiming five acres of old pasture land from the demon vines…

[shocker1]

I’
Next project, reclaiming five acres of old pasture land from the demon vines…
The goats worked well here controlling that damn kudzu. that stuff grows over a foot in one night. Try those and if you breed them you can earn some pocket money.

[brainplay]

You guys are plain fukking dangerously ignorant.

Sure you can replant a large number of fast growing logging trees - but that still doesnt change the fact that the forest eco system goes from a rich diverse tertiary forest to a much much poorer artifically planted wood. With many sub species gone for decades or for good.

By your logic a rainforest is exactly the same as a garden lawn. Afterall there might be the same number of green plants per square meter so ergo they are infact the same. WRONG.


A little bit like Hitler looking at a unit designation on a map in 1945 and thinking because there were 3000 under equipped children and old men in a Volks brigade they equalled a 3000 man Panzer division.

Learn a bit about biology and ecosystems before you try and extrapolate kindergarden logic to areas your unaware off.

Please go re-read the original post, the link on the article, learn about reforestation projects, and then hang yourself for the troll you are. Its a money grab article for global warming.

Setting up well ordered lanes of logging trees in areas that were never really forested in the first place is to alleviate the need to cut down whole swathes of old tree growth and destroying diverse ecosystems. It makes it easier for logging companies to obtain wood by their own means without the need for hard fought licenses and issues with eco-groups and most of all politicians. Its meant as a substitute instead of a full replacement.


Thanks for the Nazi comparison. I appreciate it.

What the hell has gotten into you Bugkill. You've stepped up personal attacks. Your posts in general have become angrier. And you've become a more disagreeable person in recent weeks. Did someone pee in your cheerios?

[T3ngu]

What the hell has gotten into you Bugkill. You've stepped up personal attacks. Your posts in general have become angrier. And you've become a more disagreeable person in recent weeks. Did someone pee in your cheerios?

Lack of *** (with other people) perhaps?

[BugHunt]

Thanks for the Nazi comparison. I appreciate it.

What the hell has gotten into you Bugkill. You've stepped up personal attacks. Your posts in general have become angrier. And you've become a more disagreeable person in recent weeks. Did someone pee in your cheerios?



Nazi's had good dress sense.


Pretend your Audiem until i get around to rereading the thread and figuring what i was ranting about ;)

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/picture.php?albumid=229&pictureid=5451




Lack of *** (with other people) perhaps?

Your mama dun broke up with me again T3ngu :(

[Ed Hewer]

Please go re-read the original post, the link on the article, learn about reforestation projects, and then hang yourself for the troll you are. Its a money grab article for global warming.

Setting up well ordered lanes of logging trees in areas that were never really forested in the first place is to alleviate the need to cut down whole swathes of old tree growth and destroying diverse ecosystems. It makes it easier for logging companies to obtain wood by their own means without the need for hard fought licenses and issues with eco-groups and most of all politicians. Its meant as a substitute instead of a full replacement.


Thanks for the Nazi comparison. I appreciate it.

What the hell has gotten into you Bugkill. You've stepped up personal attacks. Your posts in general have become angrier. And you've become a more disagreeable person in recent weeks. Did someone pee in your cheerios?

I don't think this is a fair assault on BugHunt.

He/she was replying specifically to someone posting about reforestation OFTEN tied up with Logging companies. It is pretty obvious to me he was replying about that.

I have walked through some of the worlds biggest man made forests which were surprisingly in New Zealand and and it is a pretty sterile environment because they are processing the trees for pulp primarily on a very regular basis. (NZ can grow a harvestable pine tree within 8 years.)

Also as a kid walked through Scott Paper plantations in Washington State. It is very different to an established forest. This is one of the reasons I am for selective tree felling even in areas where harvesting hasn't occured. Doing this we can possibly eliminate these plantations or get more natural activity occuring there. It makes for better timber anyway.

Another example of why this thread title is pretty relevant is how we have invested so heavily in weather reporting/prediction - some of the worlds most powerful computers work soley on predicting weather.

If you live in the right area or are able to fix certain soils you can invest in growing trees and have a valuable assett both for the world and your wallet. Wallnut, if you can grow this timber it is a very valuable wood.

Only one paragraph out of five on topic, not bad for me!

[achilles]

NZ can grow a harvestable pine tree within 8 years.

Interesting. Through the use of fertilizers etc, right?

[achilles]

Very interesting article on the relation between economy and the environment.

http://www.ecoiq.com/dc-products/prod_conflict.html