I am working part-time on a Greenhouse Gas model of hybrid poplar for a group called AgRefresh here in Burlington, but in the mean time am looking for other job opportunities and came across a great one in the EU for a policy officer overseeing issues pertaining to biodiversity, water quality, and the development of soil policy. Anyway the application requires that you answer 3 questions that I don’t think any US government agency would ever think to ask. So I have pasted them and my answers below because all 3 topics are extremely important. Enjoy (Hopefully!)!
Question 1: In the debate on biodiversity policy there is a strong focus these days on the importance of biodiversity for providing ecosystem services. How would you describe ecosystem services and how important an argument do you think they are for protecting biodiversity?
Answer 1: Ecosystem services are a way to monetize the myriad seen and unseen services that our terrestrial and aquatic systems provide for the common good, whether it be water purification provided by the Catskills for the people of New York City, the Gulf of Mexico fisheries, or the steady and predictable discharge of water from the Himalayan glaciers. These are aspects of ecosystems that have been assumed constant and long-term, but in a changing climate we are seeing that neither of these two assumptions is even remotely true anymore. We live in an Age of Volatility, whether financial or environmental and payments for ecosystem services will – if we are realistic in our long-term policy construction – be a crucial way that communities, states, and regions can increase employment, boost sustainable economic growth, and ameliorate past, present, and future anthropogenic disturbance(s). I believe the primary role of ecosystem services in a – for better or worse – global economy going forward will be to monetize the role of biodiversity in ecosystems and agriculture as well as the transfer and transformation of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus. Society writ large with a few exceptions (i.e., The Maldives & Bhutan) does not seem to embrace practices that insure the long-term health of the nature-human interface at the expense of current animal spirits.
We have decided that consumption and degradation now should always come at the expense of future vitality. Thus, market mechanisms appear to be the only way to ameliorate this trend and institute a degree of Keynes’ paradox of thrift with respect to natural resources and biodiversity. This is where concepts like ecosystem services and markets for carbon, nitrogen, or phosphorus come in as de facto and simultaneous stewards of “free markets” and ecosystem diversity. It is true that ecosystem services when embraced by Wall Street or The City of London will lose some of their altruistic underpinnings, but if we work diligently and holistically to construct and explain the concept to policy makers and captains of industry alike we will be successful in protecting ecosystems and their inherent potential to offset our role in changing the balance of terrestrial and aquatic carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus flows and stocks.
Question 2: The Water Framework Directive defines what ‘good status’ of water means and commits member states to meet this status by 2015. Do you think that the impacts of climate change are an argument to lower the ambitions of the WFD or actually make it more important to do this?
Answer 2: I believe that the increase in the short- and long-term volatility of the global hydrologic cycle, China’s Three Gorges Dam, Turkey’s increasing stranglehold on the Tigris River, proposed hydropower projects in Brazil, and the expansion of Hydro-Québec’s Rupert River project all lend credence to the notion that The Water Framework Directive needs to be pushed forward, strengthened, and perhaps even expanded to include sub-surface and aquifer derived waters. This question notes the influence of climate change on water and I would point out that the procyclical influence of precipitation and evapotranspiration on hydrologic event frequency, intensity, and breadth will be an equally important facet of the WFD. Speaking to the import of water status my most recent work has focused on the influence of livestock on GHG (CO2, CH4, and N2O) emissions and freshwater eutrophication via P and N saturation in the US, Europe, Canada, and Australia. The primary conclusions were: 1) wildlife ruminant GHG emissions are 0.10% of domesticated livestock in the EU, 2) the average eutrophication potential – total amount of soluble agriculture P divided by freshwater area – is 1,552 MT mi.-2 yr-1 in Europe, and 3) the average GHG footprint in CO2 equivalents – when accounting for livestock emissions –in Europe (8.3 to 14.3 MT pc yr-1) increased by 189%.
Looking specifically at eutrophication potential we found that the range was < 5 MT mi.-2 yr-1 in Bulgaria, Romania, Finland, and Sweden, while it exceeded 5,000 MT mi.-2 yr-1 in Belgium, Cyprus, and the United Kingdom. Thus, an attempts to push the WFD will require a degree of cajoling and horse trading given the fact that the EU’s water quality will be – like CO2 politics – largely determined by nations that contribute a disproportionate fraction to GDP, but are also the same nations that put the greatest strain on water purification facilities and the ecosystem services provided by the regions lakes, rivers, and streams.
Question 3: Do you think the EU should adopt a soil policy and if so for what reasons?
Answer 3: As a soil scientist by trade I am biased with respect to this last question, but needless to say soils and soil-type materials (i.e. compost & cured manures) are the primary drivers of agriculture and forest productivity, provide much of the water purification eluded to with respect to ecosystem services, and as it relates to Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) provide the alternative with the lowest cost to benefit ratio vis à vis more exotic ideas like CO2 pumping, burying wood, “clean coal”, etc. I know for a fact that if the EU develops a strong soil policy it will eliminate much of the capital and labor expenditures associated with flood mitigation, water purification, and coastal dead zone remediation. Soils are able to capture and store large quantities of everything from beneficial elements like carbon and nitrogen to metals like aluminum and iron and in extreme cases toxics like Hexavalent Chromium. The first question spoke of ecosystem services and biodiversity, which I feel is an equally important aspect of any sound soil policy. In other words soil diversity (i.e., Pedodiversity), while not a direct reflection of flora and fauna diversity is the third leg of the ecosystem service stool. Mechanized agriculture and Norman Borlaug’s Green Revolution yielded many positives on the food supply front, but what lay beneath this shift, both literally and figuratively, was a global homogenization of soils, the release of hundreds of Petagrams of CO2 into the atmosphere, and creation of the aforementioned coastal dead zones. Rebuilding the EU’s soil capital, both chemically and biologically, will be a crucial aspect of the region’s heretofore innovative and holistic policy and practice in the 21st century. This will require policies of scale and constant as well as cooperative interaction with communities that rely on soil health, whether for agricultural or forestry related purposes. Renewal of the health of the EU’s soils will provide jobs, GDP growth, and as it relates to the production of compost and curing of manures the region would have the opportunity to produce large quantities of energy via CH4 digestion. Thus, a sound EU soil policy will facilitate the regeneration and maintenance of the union’s biodiversity, improve the buffering capacity of ecosystem services relative to climate change, and if it includes large-scale composting and manure processing projects will increase gainful employment in the economy’s “green” sector.
After some vacation time, I checked in and enjoyed this article. While the substance of your responses to questions two and three are outside my general areas of expertise and interest, I did spend some time contemplating your response to Question One.
I’ll start by noting the somewhat silly nature of the question itself. If I were to state that biodiversity is important for providing ecosystem services, and then turn that around to ask why ecosystem services are important for biodiversity…wouldn’t that be an intentional statement of my belief in the importance of both? With this statement in mind, would any candidate for this position want to take another position?
In the first paragraph of your response, you pose a somewhat puzzling (in sentence structure and content) argument that monetization of ecosystem services will increase employment, boost economic growth, and ameliorate past, present, and future anthropogenic disturbances. In the second, you assert that these systems would become de facto stewards of “free markets” and that some of the altruistic underpinnings of such a system would be lost when embraced by Wall Street.
I think it is an absolute fantasy to think that “some” of the altruistic underpinnings of such a system would be lost when embraced by “Wall Street.” To give credit where it is properly due, let’s identify who would profit most from such a system. Indeed, some corporations would benefit…particularly those that are the most well-connected. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) would benefit in a big way, as would Fannie Mae (owners of the patent on the carbon exchange system). Our bureaucracy, and that of many nations, would benefit by gaining access to huge sums of additional money and power. If we are to cap the current levels of certain types of emissions, does doing so provide more benefit for the environment or for those groups that profit from it? I would argue for the latter.
Is it even possible for a “market” to be “free” when created and sustained by government? If an electric vehicle rolls off of a Chevy assembly line, and is purchased by a consumer for $20,000 less than what it cost to make it (thanks to government subsidies)…does THAT equate to a “free market?” Each market needs to be able to fail if it is to succeed. How about that for a paradox?
The capitalist approach to this problem is a novel one. What if all of these resources were private property, and individuals and governments respected the rights of private property owners? In that case, the property owner has the incentive to insure that his resource is kept in good order (sustainable). A vacant lot always turns into a trash heap, right? That is because no one is responsible for it. A farm, on the other hand, is kept in good order. That farmer needs to reap from that land for years on end. “Captains of industry” will, ultimately, have no vested interest in initiatives to protect the ecosystem. If they had some skin in the game, they’d protect the heck out of it.
Taking that notion just a bit further…what if a water supply was privately owned? Would that owner abuse the supply, preventing him from it’s use in the future? Would he allow others to dump poison into it? No…that would be a violation of his property rights. Might he or she also charge for access to that water? Sure he would. He has to cover the cost of his investment in it’s health, and to make it worth his while. He benefits from profit, and we benefit by having a clean water supply.
Obviously, this is not the situation that we have today. I bring it up only to illustrate the idea that government intervention into ecosystem services doesn’t have to be the only solution(s) for us to consider. Environmentalists, as we all should be, place WAY to much confidence in the ability of government to do what is best for us. What’s best for us (including what is best for the environment) is our responsibility, and the solutions that we can invent are far superior than what we can expect by begging the government to do it for us.
Interesting reply, Mike. It’s great that you’ve re-defined aspects of the argument and expanded the scope of reason. In the black and white world of textbooks you’re correct that capitalists protect their resources.
To add some shades of grey to your perspective, though, the general trend of American history has been one of forcefully taking private property from individual ownership (ownership largely determined by claims of first-come, first-served), handing it over to capitalist corporate ownership and promptly poisoning or exploiting it through an endless menagerie of industrial inputs and processes.
The argument in favor of Free Markets rarely allows for any form of regulation which would protect the environment. In fact, to hear many argue for Free Markets it would seem as if businesses should be given absolute carte blanche – above the law and infallible by virtue of the fact they’re a commercial enterprise. I rarely hear from the Free Market crowd the necessary distinction of free flowing currency vs. the freedom to act criminally (aka being as bad as the law allows you to be).
The essence of Capitalism – as you point out – is that of protecting your bottom line. If the coal in the destroyed mountain is worth more than the standing mountain itself, “Destroy the mountain!” says the Captain of Industry.
If the current market value of extracted coal is worth more than the current market value of the land within which it rests, then damn the land and the generations of so-called free citizens who live near it.
If there’s no quantitative value for clean air, yet there is a quantitative value for burned coal: the coal will damn well be burned and the pollution will be absorbed by the nominally valued ecology. Such is the logic of Capitalism extrapolated to extreme yet everyday conclusions. The variables (and validity of calculations) of profit and self-interest vary in every instance of man-made economy – while the overarching values of whole Earth have remained relatively constant over time.
Clearly numerous voices can raise valid and valuable contributions to this debate. What’s needed is a clever and trustworthy reconciliation of opposing viewpoints. A massive intellectual leap forward which draws equitably upon centuries of trial and error. A solution which resists the lazy temptations of handing everything to the rich, the poor, or the government – irresponsible or virtuous notwithstanding.
All that truly matters, and on this we can all truly agree, is exactly as you said: “What’s best for us (including what is best for the environment) is our responsibility, and the solutions that we can invent are far superior than what we can expect by begging the government to do it for us.”