By Jonathan L. Gelbard
UC Davis Chapter of the Society for Conservation Biology
Scientists, economists,
and communicators have illustrated means by which (1) corporations can boost
profits and productivity by reducing pollution (Romm 1994, Suzuki 1996); (2)
governmental agencies can cut costs and increase resource value by eliminating
environmentally harmful landuse practices that both threaten biodiversity and
waste billions of taxpayers’ dollars (US General Accounting Office (GAO) 1998,
Suzuki 1996); (3) local, state, and federal governments can cut costs by
eliminating subsidies that both encourage environmentally harmful business or
landuse practices and reduce revenue (Myers and Kent 1998), and (4) nations can
increase national security and, in turn, economic stability, by improving
environmental policies (Myers 1996).
Benefits to cities, businesses, and governments of improving forest
management and otherwise reducing habitat destruction:
Ø Limiting
use of environmentally-harmful logging methods that threaten native species and
ecosystem processes, such as clear-cutting also reduces the risk of massive
loss of forest resources to catastrophic wildfire and blow-downs, both of which
occur more frequently in fragmented forests due to increased exposure to
sunlight and wind near forest edges.
Ø Improving forest management also benefits the fishing industry. The Pacific Northwest has lost 79,000 fishing jobs, in part due to poor logging practices that have destabilized streamside soils, increasing erosion and sedimentation and thereby smothered salmon and steelhead spawning beds. Local solutions to dwindling salmon and trout populations, such as restoration of streamside vegetation, can benefit local communities by improving recreational opportunities and tourism. Taken together, the efforts of all local communities in a river system can benefit salmon and steelhead fisheries and help to support current and future fishing jobs.
Ø Improvements to logging practices that benefit biodiversity also protect municipal water supplies. After a severe storm in February 1996, many blamed deforestation when Oregon’s North Santiam River became so clogged with silt that the capital city of Salem was forced to shut its drinking water intake valve for several days.
Ø New York City found it cheaper to purchase and protect the forests within its municipal watershed ($1.5 billion) than to build and maintain a water filtration plant ($6-8 billion, plus annual maintenance expenses of $300-500 million). The city found that upstate New York’s forests do a more cost-effective job of water filtration than a human-built facility! Better for biodiversity, better for New York City’s budget!
Ø Forests provide an important buffer against floods that destroy homes, livelihoods, and businesses. As more trees are removed from a watershed, less rainwater is absorbed and more makes its way into streams and rivers. “Sustainable” forestry not only sustains a source of wood for future generations, but also sustains the ecosystem service of flood protection for human communities downstream. It benefits both the species that depend on forests for habitat and the human communities that depend on forests for flood protection (and future jobs!).
Ø Many of our most effective medicines, even cancer drugs, come from biodiversity: 25% of all prescriptions are of substances extracted from plants, another 13% come from tiny microorganisms, and 3% from animals. The Pacific Yew (a native of the Pacific Northwest’s old growth forests) was once considered a competitor to “merchantable” trees, but was later found to contain Taxol, now used in cancer treatments! Taking steps to protect the habitat that sustains biodiversity helps to protect plant species that could one day both bring drug companies $$$billions in profits and reduce human pain and suffering.
Benefits of combating global warming:
Ø One predicted consequence of global
warming—an increase in severe weather—could prove disastrous for the insurance
and airline industries if it results in an increase in insurance claims,
flight delays, and flight cancellations.
Thus, a major cause of global warming—use of fossil fuels as our main
energy source—threatens not only biodiversity, but the profits (and stock
prices) of some of the world’s largest corporations.
Benefits of
using clean, renewable (non-fossil fuel or hydropower) energy:
Ø Increasing
the production and use of clean, renewable energy sources, such as fuel cells,
microturbines, and wind and solar power are other actions that are both good
for the environment (by reducing air pollution and fossil fuel extraction and
their ecological impacts) and have potential to help companies and governments
cut costs (Pimentel et al. 1994). If purchasing a hybrid vehicle can save one person
more than $1,000 for every 15,000 miles of driving, just think how much it
could save a company or agency that pays gas costs for 1,000 or 10,000
vehicles!
Ø Increasing
the availability and use of clean, renewable energy sources may also benefit
economies and quality of life by increasing national security (Romm and Curtis
1996, Myers 1996). The more energy that we produce independent of the
power grid—in home and company-based fuel cells, solar cells, wind turbines, or
microturbines—the more we will reduce the potentially catastrophic economic and
health risks posed by terrorist attacks on major power generating
facilities. Better for environmental
quality, biodiversity, economic stability, and national security!
Ø Increasing use of alternative energy sources will provide jobs and investment opportunities and may lead to unforeseen technological advances (Ayres 2001).
Benefits of
conservation-oriented landuse planning:
Ø Where landuse plans both protect open space against
urban sprawl and provide recreational opportunities for a community, they may
improve not only quality of life, but also real estate values in surrounding
communities. Better for
maintaining species habitat, better for the real estate value of our homes and
land.
Further reading:
Books, popular press articles, and web
sites:
Ayres, R. U. 2001. How economists have misjudged global
warming. World Watch September/October
2001:12-21.
Daily, G. and K. Ellison.
2002. The New Economy of Nature: The
quest of make conservation profitable.
Island Press, Washington D.C.
Daily, G. C., S. Alexander,
P. R. Ehrlich, L. Goulder, J. Lubchenco, P. A. Matson, H. A. Mooney, S. Postel,
S. H. Schneider, D. Tilman, and G. M. Woodwell. 1997. Ecosystem Services: Benefits Supplied to Human Societies by
Natural Ecosystems. Issues in Ecology
Issue 2:1-18.
Hawken, P., A. B. Lovins,
and L. H. Lovins. 1999. Natural
Capitalism: the next industrial revolution.
Earthscan. 296 pp.
Myers, N.and J. Kent. 1998.
Perverse subsidies: tax $$ undercutting our economies and environments
alike.
International Institute for Sustainable
Development, Winnipeg, Manitoba. 230 pages.
Myers, N. 1996. Ultimate
security: the environmental basis of political stability. Island Press,
Washington D.C.
308 pages.
Romm, J. J. 1994. Lean and
clean management: how to boost profits and productivity by reducing pollution.
Kodansha International. New York. 220 pages.
Suzuki, D. 1996. Earth Time.
Island Press. Washington D.C.
287 pages.