Existence Value of the Amazon Rainforest
After reading through the blog and thinking about the existence value of the environment I searched for what the value of the Amazon rainforest might be. I found an excellent paper here. The paper discusses the total economic value of the Amazon rainforest. It is clear from the research that maintaining the forest is of far more value than the deforestation. As noted in the paper revenue per year for logging the forest is only about $400/yr/ha. Contrast that to the economic value of having an intact forest: nearly $1,000/yr/ha.
The existence value of the forest is worth even more than that in my opinion. Although the research attempted to include a monetary value to such things as medicine not yet discovered. I believe that if the forest houses an undiscovered cure for cancer or aids the value would be even higher both in option value and the monetary benefits of the find.
posted by Kent @ 12:53 PM
1 Comments:
The question of economic value inherent in the system is based on more than the values given by the article mentioned. I am sorry, this is a 1999 paper using 1992 data on the accounting profits earned by logging (note: it is not revenue, all costs other than opportunity costs have been subtracted) while the costs associated with protection have been ignored. I agree that there is some existential value in protecting something that has an intrinsic value, but only if the long term benefits derived by doing so are worth the costs.
The second question about protection that is brought up by economists is whether or not the value is able to be captured by those involved in its protection. As I have no plans on ever visiting the Amazon, I will never be in the position to enjoy the food nor the scenery, nor have enough Americans or other wealthy foreigners been willing to take trips to the area to justify anyone purchasing the bulk of the land for the mere practice of using it as a safari region, or as a tourist place.
The other question that needs to be brought up is the question of why we should be the ones to protect it. Is it our place to demand another country to comply with standards we have set? many liberals take the stance that it is OK to enforce American environmental goals across the globe while, in the same breath, condemning leaders who seek to hold foreign leaders accountable for crimes against humanity --as defined by international counsels (yes, the IRAQ issue).
Trying to justify our intervention by claiming the risks to global weather needs to be justified by reliable research.
Post a Comment
<< Home