Nature has a price. No wait. Nature has a price? Here, in fact, was a question. Nature has a price? I'm not saying that Carrefour brand in the box, who knows what I say when you see her? But above all, who knows when ever there fregherà something.
liberal economists, those of supply and demand, free market levels, have always thought that nature was not worth anything. Since, generally, the nature is not subject to exchange of goods, then it is not the subject of bid or application, it can not have a price. For this reason it can be destroyed, looted, covered with plastic bags or waste oils. After all, the reasoning is flawless: the polyp-to-door building costs 17 € because someone wants to eat, and then buy. Otherwise, the polyp remained in the sea without anyone calculate, for free. So how do you then give a value to nature? The coral reef as currency? The price of a forest is just the price of firewood or the sawmill?
Yes, but then the socialist economy? Change something? For their supply and the application does not have any role in determining the value of an object. It all depends on the amount of work that includes the object itself, or in machines that produce that object. Now the catch is that such an animal in the wild not in itself contains no work, unlike a domesticated species, and therefore not worth anything. So what is a species that is disappearing? Nothing. And above that is even less if you have not even been discovered: we know that destroying the Amazon to hammer swept away one after the other animals of which man will never know, never knew of their existence. But since I do not know what to destroy, not really destroy anything. The Caterpillar does a casino instead.
How do I rate what they do not know? The limit here is all the economy, the economy remains in the domain that exists in what is revealed. And 'the present, tangible, short-term. No one had predicted the great financial meltdown, but come on ...
biodiversity, however, has a value. Biodiversity has a cost. Biodiversity has a price and a price in euro. The European Union has decided to establish this through studies entrusted to international economists, perhaps more than identify the price, are considering the bill presented to us by nature for its degradation. 60% of ecosystems are now damaged, 10% of natural areas will disappear by 2030 and the rate of extinction of animal species is unique stuff for raves. Today, the bill would seem to be around 7% of world GDP.
But how are these costs? For example, in the case of the disappearance of a coral reef, were counted the cost of any replacement dams. This is clearly a completely arbitrary count: how to account for the cost of an object or event that is priceless? What is the cost of extinction of the white rhino? How to calculate it? It 'an inestimable cost, or more correctly as they have defined the economists study, an infinite cost. The need to give a price / cost to the phenomenon of environmental degradation is a function of political assessment but also the impact on the collective imagination. Nicholas Stern, economist and manager at the World Bank, for example, had assessed the damages caused by global warming to 5,500 billion dollars. Here, in this case the price is in dollars, the better we have the strong euro. Clearly, this figure has little meaning, but had the merit of spreading a certain fear in the political, economic and financial. Stern's goal was just to hit where the sun does not beat, the portfolio of those at the upstairs. Global warming has an inestimable cost, has a cost, finally, is a striking phrase, that global warming will cost us 5.5 trillion makes the idea. It 's all communication. So either all dismantled and everyone does the climate control, or is perhaps appropriate to think about reducing the bill.
Nature is priceless, in fact even biodiversity, global warming but because we felt bad and asked him not invent it. And human life? This is so, human life has it, is a response that can be given in slippers. The economist and demographer Alfred Soby had first proposed a calculation so that everyone can have their own ticket. And 'Just take the total amount that the person in question is likely to earn during their lives, weighted by interest rates, discounted items in "poor", resulting in the price at the time of death , that human life. There is a bit 'of irony but I go more on the sarcasm. Scientific example: A homeless man is not worth a shit, who earns two thousand Euros per month is worth double of those who earn much, but we know that is pulling the bucket. Then why, if the bum is in hypothermia from the cold, not worth the gasoline needed for the ambulance to save a millionaire by a accident should redouble its efforts with respect to the rescue of a pensioner with the least. It is not to be assholes, beauty is the economy.
In a world of all merchandise at a price. The octopus bench palace door, a pair of Adidas, illness and even death in the paradox of a life rather priceless. But thank goodness. To paraphrase Nietzsche, if he really would not have value.
liberal economists, those of supply and demand, free market levels, have always thought that nature was not worth anything. Since, generally, the nature is not subject to exchange of goods, then it is not the subject of bid or application, it can not have a price. For this reason it can be destroyed, looted, covered with plastic bags or waste oils. After all, the reasoning is flawless: the polyp-to-door building costs 17 € because someone wants to eat, and then buy. Otherwise, the polyp remained in the sea without anyone calculate, for free. So how do you then give a value to nature? The coral reef as currency? The price of a forest is just the price of firewood or the sawmill?
Yes, but then the socialist economy? Change something? For their supply and the application does not have any role in determining the value of an object. It all depends on the amount of work that includes the object itself, or in machines that produce that object. Now the catch is that such an animal in the wild not in itself contains no work, unlike a domesticated species, and therefore not worth anything. So what is a species that is disappearing? Nothing. And above that is even less if you have not even been discovered: we know that destroying the Amazon to hammer swept away one after the other animals of which man will never know, never knew of their existence. But since I do not know what to destroy, not really destroy anything. The Caterpillar does a casino instead.
How do I rate what they do not know? The limit here is all the economy, the economy remains in the domain that exists in what is revealed. And 'the present, tangible, short-term. No one had predicted the great financial meltdown, but come on ...
biodiversity, however, has a value. Biodiversity has a cost. Biodiversity has a price and a price in euro. The European Union has decided to establish this through studies entrusted to international economists, perhaps more than identify the price, are considering the bill presented to us by nature for its degradation. 60% of ecosystems are now damaged, 10% of natural areas will disappear by 2030 and the rate of extinction of animal species is unique stuff for raves. Today, the bill would seem to be around 7% of world GDP.
But how are these costs? For example, in the case of the disappearance of a coral reef, were counted the cost of any replacement dams. This is clearly a completely arbitrary count: how to account for the cost of an object or event that is priceless? What is the cost of extinction of the white rhino? How to calculate it? It 'an inestimable cost, or more correctly as they have defined the economists study, an infinite cost. The need to give a price / cost to the phenomenon of environmental degradation is a function of political assessment but also the impact on the collective imagination. Nicholas Stern, economist and manager at the World Bank, for example, had assessed the damages caused by global warming to 5,500 billion dollars. Here, in this case the price is in dollars, the better we have the strong euro. Clearly, this figure has little meaning, but had the merit of spreading a certain fear in the political, economic and financial. Stern's goal was just to hit where the sun does not beat, the portfolio of those at the upstairs. Global warming has an inestimable cost, has a cost, finally, is a striking phrase, that global warming will cost us 5.5 trillion makes the idea. It 's all communication. So either all dismantled and everyone does the climate control, or is perhaps appropriate to think about reducing the bill.
Nature is priceless, in fact even biodiversity, global warming but because we felt bad and asked him not invent it. And human life? This is so, human life has it, is a response that can be given in slippers. The economist and demographer Alfred Soby had first proposed a calculation so that everyone can have their own ticket. And 'Just take the total amount that the person in question is likely to earn during their lives, weighted by interest rates, discounted items in "poor", resulting in the price at the time of death , that human life. There is a bit 'of irony but I go more on the sarcasm. Scientific example: A homeless man is not worth a shit, who earns two thousand Euros per month is worth double of those who earn much, but we know that is pulling the bucket. Then why, if the bum is in hypothermia from the cold, not worth the gasoline needed for the ambulance to save a millionaire by a accident should redouble its efforts with respect to the rescue of a pensioner with the least. It is not to be assholes, beauty is the economy.
In a world of all merchandise at a price. The octopus bench palace door, a pair of Adidas, illness and even death in the paradox of a life rather priceless. But thank goodness. To paraphrase Nietzsche, if he really would not have value.
0 comments:
Post a Comment