Ecological Economics - Université du Québec à Rimouski · Ecological Economics ... S. Farber, B....
Transcript of Ecological Economics - Université du Québec à Rimouski · Ecological Economics ... S. Farber, B....
Ecological Economics:creating a sustainable and
desirable futureRobert CostanzaGordon and Lulie Gund Professor of Ecological Economics and Director, Gund Institute of Ecological EconomicsRubenstein School of Environment and Natural ResourcesThe University of VermontBurlington, VT 05405 www.uvm.edu/giee
Practical Problem SolvingRequires the Integration of:
• Visiona. How the world worksb. How we would like the world to be
• Tools and Analysisappropriate to the vision
• Implementationappropriate to the vision
Full World Full World AnthroposphereAnthroposphere
MarcImhoffBiosphericSciencesBranch
NASA
OIL AND GAS LIQUIDS 2004 ScenarioUpdated by Colin J. Campbell, 2004-05-15
Net Energy from Oil and Gas Liquids
Now
Atmosphere
Source: Stern review on the economics of climate change, 2006
What is “theeconomy” andwhat is it for?
Labor
Land
EconomicProcess
GoodsandServices
CulturalNorms andPolicy
IndividualUtility/welfare
Consumption(based on fixedpreferences)
Improvement
Education, Training,Research
Building
Investment(decisions about, taxesgovernment spending,education,science andtechnologypolicy, etc., basedon existing propertyrights regimes)
Property rights
Private Public
GNP
Manufacturedcapital
”Empty World" Model of the Economy
Perf
ect
Subs
titut
abilit
yBe
twee
n Fa
ctor
s
EmptyWorldEnergy
Planning?
Alabama Power’s motto:“Always on”
“With Electricity pricesat least 15% below thenational average, whynot?
Human Capital EconomicProductionProcess
GoodsandServices
EvolvingCulturalNorms andPolicy
Well Being(Individual andCommunity)
Consumption(based on changing,adaptingpreferences)
Education, training,research.
BuildingInvestment(decisions about, taxescommunity spending,education, science andtechnology policy, etc., basedon complex propertyrights regimes)
Individual Public
GNP
Wastes
Common
Ecologicalservices/amenities
having, being
- having,- being
negative impacts on all forms of capital
being, doing, relating
Restoration,Conservation Natural Capital
ManufacturedCapital
having
positive impacts on human capital capacity
doing, relatingComplex propertyrights regimes
SolarEnergy
SocialCapital
Lim
ited
Subs
titut
abilit
yBe
twee
n Ca
pita
l For
ms
“Full World” Model of the Ecological Economic System
Waste heat
Institutionalrules, norms, etc.
Materially closed earth system
From: Costanza, R., J. C. Cumberland, H. E. Daly, R. Goodland, and R. Norgaard. 1997. AnIntroduction to Ecological Economics. St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton, 275 pp.
Ecological Economics
Integrated Questions/Goals:• Ecologically Sustainable Scale • Socially Fair Distribution • Economically Efficient Allocation
Methods:• Transdisciplinary Dialogue • Problem (rather than tools) Focus • Integrated Science (balanced synthesis & analysis) • Effective and adaptive Institutions
oikos = “house”logy = “study or knowledge”nomics = “management”
Literally: management of the house(earth) based on study and knowledge ofsame
See: Costanza, R., J. C. Cumberland, H. E. Daly, R. Goodland, and R. Norgaard. 1997. An Introduction toEcological Economics. St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton, 275 pp.
Some key questions:•What are humanity’s shared goals?•What is quality of life (QoL) and how dowe achieve and sustain it?•How do natural, social, built and humancapital contribute to QoL?•How do cultures evolve?•What drives human behavior?•How do we manage human affairs toachieve our shared goals?
HumanNeedsSubsistenceReproductionSecurityAffectionUnderstandingParticipationLeisureSpiritualityCreativityIdentityFreedom
SubjectiveWell-Being(happiness,utility, welfare)for individualsand/or groups
Quality of Life
Opportunitiesto meet humanneeds, now andin the future(Built, Human,Social, andNatural Capitaland time)
PolicyEnvision-ing, evolv-ing socialnorms
How
Needs
are
Met
How
Need
Fulfillment
is Perceived
Quality of Life (QOL) as the interaction of human needs and thesubjective perception of their fulfillment, as mediated by the
opportunities available to meet the needs.
From: Costanza, R., B. Fisher, S. Ali, C. Beer, L. Bond, R. Boumans, N. L. Danigelis, J. Dickinson, C. Elliott, J. Farley, D. E. Gayer, L.MacDonald Glenn, T. Hudspeth, D. Mahoney, L. McCahill, B. McIntosh, B. Reed, S. A. T. Rizvi, D. M. Rizzo, T. Simpatico, and R. Snapp.2006. Quality of Life: An Approach Integrating Opportunities, Human Needs, and Subjective Well-Being. Ecological Economics 61: 267-276
The key isdeveloping a
betterunderstanding
of theopportunities
to create asustainable
future with ahigh quality of
life
More realistic vision of human behavior
• Multiple motivations (personality types, culture, etc.)• Limited knowledge and “rationality”• Evolving preferences• Satisfaction based on relative, rather than absolute, consumption, plus a host of “non-consumption” factors• Central role of emotions in decision- making and evading social traps• Embedded in multiscale, complex, adaptive, systems
Phineas Gage
Well-being vs. GNPConvergence zone
Observed Life Satisfaction versus Predicted Life Satisfaction
R2 = 0.7241
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00
Predicted Life Satisfaction
Ob
se
rv
ed
L
ife
S
atis
fa
ctio
n
Ghana
China PhilippinesNigeria India
Bangladesh
LS = .78*HDI + .26*NCI + ?
From: Vemuri, A. W. and R. Costanza. 2006. The Role of Human, Social, Built, and Natural Capital inExplaining Life Satisfaction at the Country Level: Toward a National Well-Being Index (NWI). EcologicalEconomics (in press).
Predicted Life Satisfaction (LS)
Life Satisfaction Human Development Index(Index of Built and
Human Capital)
Natural Capital Index(based on value of
Ecosystem Services
No Social Capital Index
Goal
BasicFramework
Non-environmentallyadjusted measures
Environmentallyadjusted measures
AppropriateValuationMethods
___________
Marketed
value ofmarketed goods
and servicesproduced and
consumed in aneconomy
GNP(Gross National
Product)
GDP(Gross Domestic
Product)
NNP(Net National Product)
NNP’(Net National Product
including non-produced assetts)
Market values
EconomicIncomeWeak
Sustainability
1 + non-marketed goods
and servicesconsumption
ENNP(Environmental NetNational Product)
SEEA(System of
EnvironmentalEconomic Accounts)
1 + Willingnessto Pay BasedValues (see
Table 2)
___________
StrongSustainability
2 + preserveessential natural
capital
SNI(Sustainable National
Income)
SEEA(System of
EnvironmentalEconomic Accounts)
2 + ReplacementCosts,+
ProductionValues
Economic Welfare
value of the wefareeffects of income and
other factors(including
distribution,household work, loss
of natural capitaletc.)
MEW(Measure of Economic
Welfare)
ISEW(Index of SustainableEconomic Welfare)
3 +ConstructedPreferences
HumanWelfare
assessment ofthe degree towhich human
needs arefulfilled
HDI(Human
Development Index)
HNA(Human NeedsAssessment)
4 +ConsensusBuildingDialogue
A range of goals for national accounting and their corresponding frameworks,measures, and valuation methods
from: Costanza, R., S. Farber, B. Castaneda and M. Grasso. 2000. Green national accounting: goals and methods. Chapter in: Cleveland, C. J., D. I. Stern and R. Costanza (eds.) The nature of economics and the economics of nature. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, England (in press)
From: Costanza, R., S. Farber, B. Castaneda and M. Grasso. 2001. Green national accounting: goals and methods. Pp. 262-282 in:Cleveland, C. J., D. I. Stern and R. Costanza (eds.) The economics of nature and the nature of economics. Edward Elgar Publishing,Cheltenham, England
Column A: Personal Consumption ExpendituresColumn B: Income DistributionColumn C: Personal Consumption Adjusted for Income InequalityColumn D: Value of Household LaborColumn E: Value of Volunteer WorkColumn F: Services of Household CapitalColumn G: Services Highways and StreetColumn H: Cost of CrimeColumn I: Cost of Family BreakdownColumn J: Loss of Leisure TimeColumn K: Cost of UnderemploymentColumn L: Cost of Consumer DurablesColumn M: Cost of CommutingColumn N: Cost of Household Pollution AbatementColumn O: Cost of Automobile AccidentsColumn P: Cost of Water PollutionColumn Q: Cost of Air PollutionColumn R: Cost of Noise PollutionColumn S: Loss of WetlandsColumn T: Loss of FarmlandColumn U: Depletion of Nonrenewable ResourcesColumn V: Long-Term Environmental DamageColumn W: Cost of Ozone DepletionColumn X: Loss of Forest CoverColumn Y: Net Capital InvestmentColumn Z: Net Foreign Lending and Borrowing
Genuine Progress Indicator (or ISEW) by Column
Additions
Subtractions
Built CapitalHuman CapitalSocial CapitalNatural Capital
US
40
90
140
1940 1960 1980 2000
UK
40
90
140
1940 1960 1980 2000
Germany
40
90
140
1940 1960 1980 2000
Austria
40
90
140
1940 1960 1980 2000
Netherlands
40
90
140
1940 1960 1980 2000
Sweden
40
90
140
1940 1960 1980 2000
Chile
40
90
140
190
240
1940 1960 1980 2000
Indices of ISEW(Index of SustainableEconomic Welfare)
and GDP(1970 = 100)
Gross Production vs. Genuine Progress for the US, 1950 to 2002 (source: Redefining Progress - http://www.rprogress.org)
TrumanEisenhower
Kennedy
Johnson
Reagan
G. H. W.Bush
NixonFord
Carter
ClintonG. W.Bush
The Commons“ refers to all the gifts we inherit or create together. Thisnotion of the commons designates a set of assets that havetwo characteristics:
they’re all gifts, andthey’re all shared.
A gift is something we receive, as opposed to something weearn.A shared gift is one we receive as members of a community,as opposed to individually.Examples of such gifts include air, water, ecosystems,languages, music, holidays, money, law, mathematics, parks,the Internet, and much more”.
Peter Barnes, Capitalism 3.0
Ecosystem Services: the benefitshumans derive from ecosystems
Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-View Sensor (SeaWiFS)data on marine and terrestrial plant productivity
Biosphere
Picture taken by an automatic camera located at an electrical generating facility on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway(GIWW) where the Route I-510 bridge crosses the GIWW. This is close to where the Mississippi River GulfOutlet (MRGO) enters the GIWW. The shot clearly shows the storm surge, estimated to be 18-20 ft. in height..
1839187019932020
Past and Projected Wetland Loss in the Mississippi Delta (1839 to 2020)
NEW ORLEANS
Coastal Louisiana
History of coastal Louisiana wetland gain and loss over the last 6000 years, showing historicalnet rates of gain of approximately 3 km2/year over the period from 6000 years ago until about100 years ago, followed by a net loss of approximately 65 km2/yr since then.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
-7000 -6000 -5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000
Years Before Present
Wetl
an
d A
rea (
sq
km
) 3 sq km/yr
Net wetland gain
65 sq km/yr
Net wetland loss
Global Storm Tracks 1980 - 2006
Figure 1. Typical hurricane swath showing GDP and wetland area used in theanalysis.
!
TDi = e" # gi
$1 # wi
$2 #GDPi
!
"TDi = e# $ gi
% 1 $ (wi &1)% 2 & wi
% 2( ) $GDPi
Predicted total damages from storm i
Avoided cost from a change of 1 ha of coastal wetlands for storm i
The value of coastal wetlands for hurricane protectionln (TDi /GDP i)= ! + "1 ln(gi) + " 2ln(wi) + ui (1)
Where:
TDi = total damages from storm i (in constant 2004 $US);
GDPi = Gross Domestic Product in the swath of storm i (in constant 2004 $US). The
swath was considered to be 100 km wide by 100 km inland.
gi = maximum wind speed of storm i (in m/sec)
wi = area of herbaceous wetlands in the storm swath (in ha).
ui = error
Figure 2. Observed vs. predicted relative damages (TD/GDP) for each of thehurricanes used in the analysis.
0.0001
0.0010
0.0100
0.1000
1.0000
0.0001 0.0010 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000 10.0000TD/GDP observed
TD
/GD
P p
red
icte
d
Opal 2005
Jeanne 2004 Andrew 1992
Fran 1996
Katrina 2005
Allen 1980
Hugo 1989
Isabel 2003
Elena 1985
Erin 1995
Bill 2003
Allison 1989
Charley 1998
Isidore2002
Dennis 1999
Alberto 1994
Bob 1991
Gloria 1985
Gaston 2004
Keith 1988
Jerry 1989
Irene 1999Danny 1997
Chantal 1989
Allison 2001
Floyd 1999
Bret 1999
Emilly 1993
Alicia 1983
Frances 2004
Lili 2002Bonnie 1998
Charley 2004
Ivan 2004
R2 = 0.60
Figure 3. Area of coastal wetlands (A) in the average hurricane swath vs. theestimated marginal value per ha (MVsw) and (B) in the entire state vs. the totalvalue (TVs) of coastal wetlands for storm protection.
$100
$1,000
$10,000
$100,000
$1,000,000
1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000
Area of coastal wetlands in average swath (ha)
An
nu
al exp
ecte
d m
arg
inal valu
e p
er a
verag
e s
wath
MV
sw
($/h
a/y
r)
North Carolina Texas
Florida
Louisiana
South Carolina
New York
Rhode Island
Delaware
ConnecticutAlabamaPennsylvania
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Virginia
GeorgiaNew Jersey
Maryland
Maine
y = 0.0093xR2 = 0.5788
$10
$100
$1,000
$10,000
$100,000
1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
Total Area of Coastal Wetlands (ha)
To
tal A
nn
ual V
alu
e o
f C
oasta
l W
etl
an
ds (
TV
s M
illio
n$
/yr)
Louisiana
Florida
Texaas
New York
Delaware
North Carolina
South Carolina
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Alabama
PennsylvaniaNew Hampshire
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Virginia
Georgia
New Jersey
Maryland
Maine
A B
•A loss of 1 ha of wetland in the model corresponded toan average $33,000 (median = $5,000) increase in stormdamage from specific storms.
•Taking into account the annual probability of hits byhurricanes of varying intensities, the annual value ofcoastal wetlands ranged from $250 to $51,000/ha/yr, witha mean of $8,240/ha/yr (median = $3,230/ha/yr)
• Coastal wetlands in the US were estimated to currentlyprovide $23.2 Billion/yr in storm protection services.
2nd most cited article inthe last 10 years in theEcology/Environmentarea according to theISI Web of Science.
NATURE |VOL 387 | 15 MAY 1997 253
article
The value of the world’s ecosystemservices and natural capitalRobert Costanza*†, Ralph d’Arge‡, Rudolf de Groot§, Stephen Farberk, Monica Grasso†, Bruce Hannon¶,Karin Limburg#I, Shahid Naeem**, Robert V. O’Neill††, Jose Paruelo‡‡, Robert G. Raskin§§, Paul Suttonkk& Marjan van den Belt¶¶* Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies, Zoology Department, and † Insitute for Ecological Economics, University ofMaryland, Box 38, Solomons,Maryland 20688, USA‡ Economics Department (emeritus), University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 82070, USA§ Center for Environment and Climate Studies, Wageningen Agricultural University, PO Box 9101, 6700 HB Wageninengen,The NetherlandskGraduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260, USA¶ Geography Department and NCSA, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA# Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, New York, USA** Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St Paul, Minnesota 55108, USA†† Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831, USA‡‡ Department of Ecology, Faculty of Agronomy, University of Buenos Aires, Av. San Martin 4453, 1417 Buenos Aires,Argentina§§ Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California 91109, USAkkNational Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, Department of Geography, University of California at SantaBarbara, Santa Barbara, California 93106,USA¶¶ Ecological Economics Research and Applications Inc., PO Box 1589, Solomons, Maryland 20688, USA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The services of ecological systems and the natural capital stocksthat produce them are critical to the functioning of theEarth’s life-support system. They contribute to human welfare, both directly and indirectly, and therefore representpart of the total economic value of the planet.We have estimated the current economic value of 17 ecosystem servicesfor 16 biomes, based on published studies and a few original calculations. For the entire biosphere, the value (most ofwhich is outside the market) is estimated to be in the range of US$16–54 trillion (1012) per year, with an average ofUS$33trillion per year. Because of the nature of the uncertainties, thismust be considered a minimum estimate. Globalgross national product total is around US$18 trillion per year.
Summary of global values of annual ecosystem services (From: Costanza et al. 1997)
Value
per ha
($/ha/yr)
577
252 4052
22832 19004 6075 1610
804
969 2007
302 232
14785 9990
19580 8498
92
Global
Flow Value
(e12 $/yr)
20.9
8.4 12.6
4.1 3.8 0.3 4.3
12.3
4.7 3.8 0.9 0.9 4.9 1.6 3.2 1.7
0.1
33.3
Biome
Marine
Open OceanCoastal
Estuaries Seagrass/Algae Beds Coral Reefs Shelf
Terrestrial
ForestTropical Temperate/Boreal
Grass/RangelandsWetlands
Tidal Marsh/Mangroves Swamps/Floodplains
Lakes/RiversDesertTundraIce/RockCroplandUrban
Total
Area
(e6 ha)
36,302
33,200 3,102
180 200 62
2,660
15,323
4,855 1,900 2,955 3,898
330 165 165 200
1,925 743
1,640 1,400
332
51,625
Problems with the Nature paper(as listed in the paper itself)1. Incomplete (not all biomes studied well - some not at all)2. Distortions in current prices are carried through the analysis3. Most estimates based on current willingness-to-pay or proxies4. Probably underestimates changes in supply and demand curves
as ecoservices become more limiting5. Assumes smooth responses (no thresholds or discontinuties)6. Assumes spatial homogeneity of services within biomes7. Partial equilibrium framework8. Not necessarily based on sustainable use levels9. Does not fully include “infrastructure” value of ecosystems10. Difficulties and imprecision of making inter-country
comparisons11. Discounting (for the few cases where we needed to convert from
stock to flow values)12. Static snapshot; no dynamic interactions
Solving any of these problems (except perhaps 6 whichcould go either way) will lead to larger values
http://www.nj.gov/dep/dsr/naturalcap/
Degradation of ecosystem servicesoften causes significant harm to
human well-being
– The total economic valueassociated with managingecosystems more sustainably isoften higher than the valueassociated with conversion
– Conversion may still occurbecause private economicbenefits are often greater forthe converted system
(From: Balmford, A., A. Bruner, P. Cooper, R. Costanza, S. Farber, R. E. Green, M.Jenkins, P. Jefferiss, V. Jessamy, J. Madden, K. Munro, N. Myers, S. Naeem, J. Paavola,M. Rayment, S. Rosendo, J. Roughgarden, K. Trumper, and R. K. Turner 2002.Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297: 950-953)
Costs of expanding andmaintaining the current global reservenetwork to one covering 15% of theterrestrial biosphere and 30% of themarine biosphere
Benefits (Net value* of ecosystemservices from the global reservenetwork)
*Net value is the difference between the value ofservices in a “wild” state and the value in themost likely human-dominated alternative
=
=
Economic Reasons for Conserving Wild Nature
$US 45 Billion/yr
$US 4,400-5,200 Billion/yr
Benefit/Cost Ratio = 100:1
From: R. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of AmericanCommunity NewYork: Simon and Schuster, 2000).
Social Capital index by State
• Can be used as a Consensus Building Tool in an Open, Participatory Process
• Multi-scale in time and space
• Acknowledges Uncertainty and Limited Predictability
• Acknowledges Values of Stakeholders
• Multiple Modeling Approaches, Cross- Calibration, and Integration
• Evolutionary Approach Acknowledges History, Limited Optimization, and the Co-Evolution Human Culture and Biology and the Rest of Nature
Integrated Modelingof Humans Embeddedin Ecological Systems
Project GoalsOutcome 1. A suite of dynamic ecological economic
computer models specifically aimed at integratingour understanding of ecosystem functioning,ecosystem services, and human well-being across arange of spatial scales.
Outcome 2. Development and application of newvaluation techniques adapted to the public goodsnature of most ecosystem services and integratedwith the modeling work
Outcome 3. Web-based delivery of the integratedmodels & results to a broad range of potential users.
Ecosystem services: Dynamics, Modeling and Valuation to Facilitate Conservation
Project funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundationhttp://www.uvm.edu/giee/?Page=events/ecosystemconference/index.html
Major Accomplishments:
•Global network of collaborators (> 100, 14 countries)•Collaborative development of models (MIMES)including biophysical dynamics and valuation•Initial results and ongoing applications at calibrationsites (Global, Vermont, Amazon, PNW, Mexico, Marine)•Web sites for collaboration, education, and model delivery•Publication of results in multiple venues•Commitments for applications to multiple sites aroundthe world
Collaborative Model Development
EcoServices classified according to spatial characteristics1. Global-Non Proximal (does not depend on proximity)
1&2. Climate RegulationCarbon sequestration (NEP)Carbon storage
17. Cultural/Existence value2. Local Proximal(depends on proximity)
3. Disturbance Regulation/ Storm protection9. Waste Treatment10. Pollination11. Biological Control12. Habitat/Refugia
3. Directional Flow-Related: flow from point of production to point of use4. Water regulation/flood protection5. Water supply6. Sediment regulation/Erosion control8. Nutrient regulation
4. In situ (point of use)7. Soil formation13. Food production/Non-timber forest products14. Raw materials
5. User movement related: flow of people to unique natural features15. Genetic resources16. Recreation potential17. Cultural/Aesthetic
LocationBiosphere
Earth Surfaces
NutrientCycling
Hydrosphere Lithosphere Atmosphere
Anthroposphere
Cultures
Biodiversity
EcosystemServices
Water by
Reservoir
Geological Carbon
Ores
Earth Energy
Gasses
ExchangesBetweenLocations
Social Capital
Human Capital
Economie
MIMESMulti-scale Integrated Models of Ecosystem Services
MIMES Multiscale Integrated Models of Ecosystem Services)
Location: from local to globalBiosphere
Anthroposphere
Hydrosphere
Atmosphere
EcosystemServices
Lithosphere
Earth Surfaces
Ability to select specific areas to model at variable spatial andtemporal resolution, in their global and regional context
A range ofcalibrationsites used byproject partnersto test modelapplicability andperformance.These include inthe first phase:Amazon, Pacificnorthwest,Winoskiwatershed,Vermont, andGlobal
Three complementary and synergistic ways to include humansin models and modeling:
1. As “stakeholders” and active participants in the model conceptualization,development, construction, testing, scenario development, and implementationprocesses.
2. As “players” of the models where the model is used as both a decision aidand as a research tool to better understand human behavior in complexvaluation and decision processes.
3. As “agents” programmed into the model based on better understanding oftheir goals and behavior gleaned through 1 and 2.
Land use
Soildrainage
type
Waterregulation
Land Use
Soil Drainage type
Water Regulation
Oceans
Ecosystems (% Area)
Croplands Wetlands
Urban
Forests
Tundra
1990 economic production in $ PPP by country
Agriculture
Households
Tourism
Transportation
Fisheries
Research
Ecosystem Services
Climate Regulation
Biological Regulation
Natural Hazard Mitigation
Cultural Heritage
Genetic Information
Inorganic Resources
Next Steps:1. Further development and testing of MIMES
2. Application to a large number of sites around theworld in support of conservation, PES systems,carbon trading, national accounting, etc. incollaboration with local partners (including those inthe Moore portfolio)
3. make MIMES the most widely used and trustedsystem for ecosystem service modeling andevaluation in the world
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Temperature Anomaly (ºC) Human Population (billions) GWP index (1960=1) Fraction land (x10) Water Withdrawls (1000km3) CO2 (d260ppm/20) Methane (d400ppb/180) SE Asian
Monsoon (-d18O+5))
Ye
ars
be
fore
Pre
se
nt
(Lo
g s
ca
le)
5
50
500
5000
50000
Agriculture
Roman Empire
Biologially modern humans orgainzed in small hunter/ gather bands
Greece
Egypt
Start of Great Acceleration
WWII
WWI
Industrial Revolution
paleo-Indian migration to Americas
Maize bred first Sumerian cities
first Peruvian cities
Vikings visit NA
"Black death"Columbus
Collapse of Maya
Pilgrims land
HumanPopulation
(Billions)GWPIndex
(1960=1)TempAnomaly
(ºC)
2006
2001
1996
1956
1906
1506
1006
3006 BC
8006BC
48006BC
88006BC
AD
BC2006
LittleIce
Age
FractionForest (x10)
FractionCropland(x10)
WaterWith-drawals
Olmecs at peak
Writing
Hsia
ShangChouHan
Tang
Sung
Ming
Ch'ingTokugawaShogunate
AztecsIncas
Printing press
Domestication of Cereals, Sheep, and Goats
Potery
Iron Age starts
Paper
Windmills
Mechanical LoomAmerican Revolution
Internal Combustion Engine
ENIAC
Internet
AppleII
TelevisionFraction 3 Largest Polities(x10)
CO2
Methane
SE AsianMonsoon
Collapse of Soviet Union
Methane
Kyoto Climate treaty entered into force
Collapse of Enron
Hurricane Katrina destroys New Orleans
35,000 die in European heat wave
1788-95 ENSO
Mt. Pinatubo eruption
Peak of British Empire
Peak of Mongol Empire
Peak of Islamic Caliphate
Peak of Roman Empire
Domestication of Dogs
Sedentism
migration of modern humans out of Africa
Integrated
History and future
Of
People on
EarthFrom: Costanza, R. L. Graumlich, W.Steffen, C. Crumley, J. Dearing, K.Hibbard, R. Leemans, C. Redman, andD. Schimel. 2007. Sustainability orCollapse: What Can We Learn fromIntegrating the History of Humans andthe Rest of Nature? Ambio 36:522-527
Lisbon Principles of Sustainable Governance:
1. Responsibility 2. Scale-Matching 3. Precaution4. Adaptive Management 5. Full Cost Allocation 6. Participation
From: Costanza, R. F. Andrade, P. Antunes, M. van den Belt, D. Boersma, D. F. Boesch, F. Catarino, S. Hanna,K. Limburg, B. Low, M. Molitor, G. Pereira, S. Rayner, R. Santos, J. Wilson, M. Young. 1998. Principles forsustainable governance of the oceans. Science 281:198-199.
Adaptive Institutions Consistent with the Vision
Making the market tell the truthIn general, privatization is NOT the answer, because most ecosystemservices are public goods. But we do need to adjust marketincentives to send the right signals to the market. These methodsinclude:
•Full cost accounting (i.e. www.trucost.org, www.earthinc.org•Ecological tax reform (tax bads not goods, remove perversesubsidies)•Ecosystem service payments (a la Costa Rica)•Impact fees for development tied to real impacts•Environmental Assurance bonds to incorporate uncertainty aboutimpacts (i.e. the Precautionary Polluter Pays Principle - 4P)•Expand the “Commons Sector”
See:Bernow, S., R. Costanza, H. Daly, et. Al.. 1998. Ecological tax reform. BioScience 48:193-196.
Costanza, R. and L. Cornwell. 1992. The 4P approach to dealing with scientific uncertainty. Environment34:12-20,42.
THE NEWCOMMONSSECTORGlobal• Earth Atmospheric Trust
National• American Permanent Fund• Children’s start-up trust• Universal health insurance• Copyright royalty fund• Spectrum trust• Commons tax credit…
Regional• Regional watershed trusts• Regional airshed trusts• Mississippi basin trust• Buffalo commons• Vermont Common Asset Trust… Local• Land trusts• Municipal wi-fi• Community gardens• Farmers’ markets• Public spaces• Car-free zones• Time banks…
www.earthinc.org
Source: Stern review on the economics of climate change, 2006
Creating An Earth Atmospheric Trust:A system to stop global warming and reduce povertyPeter Barnes, Robert Costanza, Paul Hawken, David Orr, Elinor Ostrom,Alvaro Umaña, and Oran Young. Science (Feb 8, 2008, in press)
1) Set up a global cap and trade system for greenhouse gas emissions – all greenhouse gasemissions from all sources.2) Auction off all emission permits – and allow trading of permits3) Gradually reduce the cap to follow the 450 ppm target (or better). The price of permitswill go up and total revenues will increase as the cap is reduced.4) Deposit the revenues into a trust fund, managed by trustees appointed with long terms and amandate to protect the asset (the climate and atmosphere)5) Return a fraction of the revenues to everyone on earth on a per capita basis. Thisamount will be insignificant to the rich, and much smaller than their per capita contribution to the fund, butwill be enough to lift all the world’s poor out of poverty.6) Use the remainder of the revenues to enhance and restore the asset. They could beused to fund renewable energy projects, research and development on renewable energy, payments forecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, etc.
Special features and cautions1) Do not allow revenues to go into the general fund of any government2) Appoint trustees based on their qualifications and understanding of the purposes and details of the trust, nottheir political affiliations3) Make all operations and transactions of the trust transparent by posting them open access on the internet4) Make trustees accountable for their actions and decisions and subject to removal if they are not managingthe trust for the benefit of the beneficiaries (all current and future people)
Thank YouPapers mentioned in this talk available at:
www.uvm.edu/giee/publicationsSign on to the Earth Atmospheric Trust at:
www.earthinc.org