From my various readings over the holidays, I’d particularly recommend two long articles from The Economist double Christmas issue.
The first, The Green Man's Burden, is an evaluation of the options available to anyone who'd like to live a “good life without damaging the globe too much”, and an exploration of questions about how obligated we all should feel as individuals to even try. It ranges from Permatopia in Denmark, which sounds rather good, to the UK man who paid to have his cars crushed so that neither he nor anyone else could ever use them, to the poor bloke in Belgium who, after talking the options over with a chatbot, committed suicide: the ultimate emissions reduction strategy (not recommended). And even he continued to emit as he decomposed. This is vital reading for anyone who is serious about thinking about lowering their impact on the planet. It includes the idea that, since government id the only actor that can create effective change, the best way to do this is to campaign for government action at the policy level, whether by information campaigns or through direct activism. A sole focus on policy makes sense as a lever of change, but this seems like a get out of jail free card: essentially, consume all you like, but write to your MP afterwards. Self-promoting celebs specialise in this as they helicopter between protests. [NB, helicopter really is a verb. The OED says that there are about 0.04 occurrences per million words in modern written English. Glad to help boost the numbers.]
The second, The Price of a Whale, is an exploration of, firstly, the economics of whaling over time, and then the ecosystem services provided by these great mammals. The very readable article brings out the sheer complexity of environmental economics, ecosystem services, and putting a price on nature. Here's an example:
"... assessment of their ecosystem-services value rests on the idea that they play a distinctive regulatory role in carbon sequestration. They increase the size of the ecosystem they inhabit, and thus its ability to absorb carbon. Their vertical movement through the water column returns nutrients from the lower tiers to the surface waters in “buoyant faecal plumes”, thus allowing more phytoplankton to grow. The study of this “whale pump” dates back to the Discovery expeditions. Next is the “whale conveyor belt”. Migratory whales move nutrients horizontally, as well as vertically, getting them to places which continental run-off and ocean currents neglect. Finally there is whale fall: the descent of carcasses, with their carbon, into the abyss.
Based on the stimulus whales provide to the ocean’s ability to sequester carbon, Mr Chami estimates that returning whale populations to their pre-whaling levels would allow the fertilised oceans to store away 1.7bn more tonnes of carbon dioxide a year than today’s depleted ones do. At a carbon price of $60 per tonne—a fairly conservative estimate of what economists call the “social cost of carbon”—that represents a benefit to the world at large of around $13 per person per year through improved regulation of ecosystem services. Whales, then, are global public goods: undervalued by the market and therefore undersupplied."
Absorbing stuff which reminded me again that I really must read that copy of Moby Dick that has lain undisturbed on my bookshelves for a very long time.
HNY!
Respond