WEBVTT

NOTE The Common Pitfall of Valuing Ecosystems

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:11.000
My name is Tomohide Yasuda. I'm from the University of Massachusetts at Boston, Department of Environmental, Earth and Ocean Sciences.

2
00:00:13.000 --> 00:00:22.000
In 1997, the most prestigious science journal, Nature, published a paper by Costanza et al. titled

3
00:00:22.000 --> 00:00:38.000
It puts the value of the world's eco-sensitive services and natural capital, it puts the value of the entire biosphere at $16.54 trillion a year.

4
00:00:38.000 --> 00:00:50.000
This estimate has taken a life of its own, since its publication, and has appeared widely in the popular media.

5
00:00:50.000 --> 00:01:02.000
In academia, the paper still remains one of the most cited papers in environmental and ecology studies.

6
00:01:02.000 --> 00:01:17.000
At present, the citations are 1,257. Ten years after the publication, annual citations are still increasing.

7
00:01:17.000 --> 00:01:30.000
The Robert von Sander, the lead author of that article at the University of Vermont, is highly cited and highly funded research. I will talk about that later.

8
00:01:30.000 --> 00:01:40.000
The content of my talk today is that I will go over the article's fundamental flaws and why do we care?

9
00:01:40.000 --> 00:01:53.000
The Science Nature article has many, many flaws and dirty tricks, but I will focus on only three major problems.

10
00:01:53.000 --> 00:02:03.000
First, they assume value is an objective entity, but as we know, they are really a subjective entity.

11
00:02:03.000 --> 00:02:10.000
They claimed that they measured a consumer's willingness to pay for ecosystems, but what

12
00:02:10.000 --> 00:02:16.000
they did was actually calculating total replacement costs for these ecosystems.

13
00:02:16.000 --> 00:02:21.000
They also are committed to double counting.

14
00:02:21.000 --> 00:02:31.000
Simply put, what they did was to calculate the costs necessary to replace the 17 ecosystem

15
00:02:31.000 --> 00:02:57.000
Let me comment on the word service. Like value, service is again a subjective entity. I don't feel like I'm being served by the earth, the soil formation.

16
00:02:57.000 --> 00:03:10.360
As I said, they treat the value of the ecosystem as an objective entity that can be measured

17
00:03:10.360 --> 00:03:19.040
independent of individual human action, but thanks to Carl Menger, we have long known

18
00:03:19.040 --> 00:03:26.600
that value is a subjective entity, value should be recognized by human beings.

19
00:03:26.600 --> 00:03:37.600
This is a foundation of modern economics, but these authors of the article ignore this reality completely.

20
00:03:37.600 --> 00:03:46.600
What is a subjective entity? It means an ecosystem's value depends on how much people actually pay for it,

21
00:03:46.600 --> 00:03:52.600
how many people pay for it, how much these people can afford to pay.

22
00:03:52.600 --> 00:04:09.600
Also, an individual's valuation of an ecosystem is unique. Even if I put some of my own money on some unit of an ecosystem, it doesn't mean that somebody else like you would put the same amount of money on the same thing.

23
00:04:09.600 --> 00:04:23.600
This is a graph I took from DEXI. The demand curve is sloping to the right. It means they claim they are dealing with marginal utility.

24
00:04:23.600 --> 00:04:33.600
But as I said, they are calculating total replacement costs for these ecosystems using our current technology.

25
00:04:33.600 --> 00:04:41.440
So what they are actually doing, by the way, they claim that they are calculating the area of these two shaded areas,

26
00:04:41.440 --> 00:04:47.440
but what they are actually doing is this, because with our current technology, right,

27
00:04:47.440 --> 00:04:54.960
and we even don't know whether our current technology can replace these 17 persistent circles,

28
00:04:54.960 --> 00:04:58.800
it means the red area approaches infinity.

29
00:04:58.800 --> 00:05:05.040
In the paper, they claim that there are up above the estimate of 54 trillion dollars per year,

30
00:05:05.040 --> 00:05:10.880
it's three times as large as global GDP. Of course, you know, this approach is infinity.

31
00:05:11.920 --> 00:05:24.880
Well, what, you know, what are human, you know, our real human day-to-day economic activities

32
00:05:24.880 --> 00:05:33.880
are taking place in this tiny, tiny microscopic area, because this is their ground dealing with the entire Earth.

33
00:05:33.880 --> 00:05:41.880
So our activities are concerned about this. We are using their microscope.

34
00:05:41.880 --> 00:05:49.880
Different colors represent different individuals and different tiny units of different ecosystems,

35
00:05:49.880 --> 00:05:59.880
If human beings are facing choices between tiny, tiny incremental changes to different ecosystems to what we have now,

36
00:05:59.880 --> 00:06:12.880
the left side of the graph has no meaning. What does it mean if we use half of Earth's ecosystem surface if we are done for anyway?

37
00:06:12.880 --> 00:06:26.880
Well, also, the author, Costanza, and all the choice of these 17 ecosystem services is arbitrary and capricious, right?

38
00:06:26.880 --> 00:06:33.880
They claim that, how much do we need to pay to replace these 17 ecosystem services?

39
00:06:33.880 --> 00:06:41.880
But if we are going to lose all of these, why do we have to limit ourselves to these 17 ecosystems?

40
00:06:41.880 --> 00:06:45.880
Why don't we include one hundred and thirty bells?

41
00:06:45.880 --> 00:06:47.880
Or for example, Earth's rotation.

42
00:06:47.880 --> 00:06:53.880
I'm not saying that what would happen if we didn't stop its rotation completely,

43
00:06:53.880 --> 00:06:57.880
but even if the Earth slows down a little,

44
00:06:57.880 --> 00:06:59.880
if the rotation wouldn't happen,

45
00:06:59.880 --> 00:07:05.880
our day to day and night cycle will be altered,

46
00:07:05.880 --> 00:07:09.880
and then that would have a kind of economic impact on our life.

47
00:07:09.880 --> 00:07:17.880
and also how about the moon? If the moon gets a little closer to the Earth, what would happen?

48
00:07:17.880 --> 00:07:27.880
Well, tides and tidal cycles would be dramatically changed and of course fisheries would be affected

49
00:07:27.880 --> 00:07:36.880
and of course homes would be dramatically affected by that. Why they don't include that?

50
00:07:36.880 --> 00:07:59.880
You can come up with your own examples to add to this list, but my point is that they chose these seven ecosystems on the assumption that we human beings are going to use these seven ecosystems services in the near future, because of human feelings.

51
00:07:59.880 --> 00:08:12.880
That's why they showed, I suspect, they showed these symptoms of systems, but in reality we are giving this, as I said, tiny, tiny incremental changes to what we have at works.

52
00:08:14.880 --> 00:08:16.880
Let's look at this list carefully.

53
00:08:16.880 --> 00:08:23.880
They commit double counting. Well, I don't really understand what's the difference between gas regulation and climate regulation.

54
00:08:23.880 --> 00:08:31.880
What's the difference between water regulation and water supply? Soil formation, nutrient cycling, waste treatment, they're all over.

55
00:08:31.880 --> 00:08:36.880
Well, they also include pollination and food production.

56
00:08:36.880 --> 00:08:50.380
But when we buy honey and different kinds of fruit and all kinds of plant products, the final prices you pay include the cost of information.

57
00:08:50.380 --> 00:08:54.880
They are committing double-counting. Also, information causes allergies, right?

58
00:08:54.880 --> 00:09:03.880
In other words, they don't deduct that figure, you know. Anyway, they commit double-counting.

59
00:09:03.880 --> 00:09:21.880
This is apparently bad economics. Why do we care? Why am I singing to the choir? Why am I giving this talk to a professor client who wrote an introduction to Carl Menger's seminar work?

60
00:09:21.880 --> 00:09:26.880
Because they are not going to leave us alone.

61
00:09:26.880 --> 00:09:38.080
Well, these 13 authors were cited in the other most prestigious science journals of science.

62
00:09:38.080 --> 00:09:44.680
Assigned, societies need to overhaul their environmental and economic policies,

63
00:09:44.680 --> 00:09:51.880
for example, by taxing the loss of weapons to avoid facing a spree of this money.

64
00:09:51.880 --> 00:09:56.880
They want to tax us, based on their exaggerated estimate.

65
00:09:57.880 --> 00:10:05.880
By the way, the legal author Robert Ostrander lifetime funded, styling 21 million dollars.

66
00:10:06.880 --> 00:10:11.880
90% of that figure, or the amount, came from government, of course tax.

67
00:10:13.880 --> 00:10:16.880
Why do we need to criticize?

68
00:10:16.880 --> 00:10:29.880
I know that Austrians are busy criticizing bailout, but the journal Nature decided not to publish any follow-up to the Constantin L. article.

69
00:10:29.880 --> 00:10:37.880
It means the readers of the journal scientists have not been exposed to the article's criticism.

70
00:10:37.880 --> 00:10:45.880
There is a lack of communication between scientists and real economists.

71
00:10:45.880 --> 00:11:00.720
Let me conclude my presentation with two major consequences of their political use of their

72
00:11:00.720 --> 00:11:04.880
exaggerated and wrong essence.

73
00:11:04.880 --> 00:11:25.880
If we tax people based on their wrong estimates, these taxes would take away resources from individuals who are facing real choices in their lives, including managing their surrounds.

74
00:11:25.880 --> 00:11:37.880
And they are letting you, we are going to pay our own money to deal with a specific environmental problem,

75
00:11:37.880 --> 00:11:42.880
a specific ecosystem from which our lives are dependent.

76
00:11:42.880 --> 00:11:50.880
And in the course of that, we will invest our money on certain specific technologies.

77
00:11:50.880 --> 00:11:59.640
And the technology will be developed, and costs to deal with some issues will be reduced in the future.

78
00:11:59.640 --> 00:12:15.280
So therefore, in the long run, as our technology is developed, the cost to deal with, even if we're losing some of these ecosystem services, the cost will be lower.

79
00:12:15.280 --> 00:12:20.360
So it's meaningless to calculate the total cost now.

80
00:12:20.360 --> 00:12:40.360
So, if we or they do not tax us based on their wrong estimates, these taxes will create, first, coercive allocation of individual resources away from the ecosystems they really value.

81
00:12:40.360 --> 00:12:47.360
Second, these taxes will prevent our technological development.

82
00:12:47.360 --> 00:12:49.360
Thank you very much, praxeology.

83
00:12:50.360 --> 00:12:52.360
Thank you very much.