Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
R K

Tories To Put 'economic Value' On Nature

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13616543

The National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA) says that for decades, the emphasis has been on producing more food and other goods - but this has harmed other parts of nature that generate hidden wealth.

Ministers who commissioned the NEA will use it to re-shape planning policy.

"The natural world is vital to our existence, providing us with essentials such as food, water and clean air - but also cultural and health benefits not always fully appreciated because we get them for free," said Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman.

By calculating the value of less tangible factors such as clean air, clean water and natural flood defences, it hopes to rebalance the equation.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) welcomed the assessment.

"The traditional view of economic growth is based on chasing GDP, but in fact we will all end up richer and happier if we begin to take into account the true value of nature," said its conservation director, Martin Harper.

"Of course no-one can put a pounds and pence value on everything in nature - but equally we cannot ignore the importance of looking after it when we are striving for economic growth."

The NEA seeks to include virtually every economic contribution from eight types of landscape, such as woodlands, coasts and urban areas.

"Urban green space, for example, is unbelievably important - if affects the value of houses, it affects our mental wellbeing.

"This report is saying 'this has got incredible value, so before you start converting green space into building, think through what the economic value is of maintaining that green space' - or the blue space, the ponds and the rivers."

There's only a couple of reasons why Tories would purt a 'value' on anything.

* Sell it off to their chums

* Taxy taxy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stick it in the GDP figures.

Worker bees have no trade unions.

Or do they? :unsure:

Edit: Notice the bit where Spelman says they're going to use it to reshape planning policy.

Edited by Red Karma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Family, innit.

Indeed.

Generally speaking the tories top lot have been to public schools. This means their earliest experiences are being abandoned by their parents miles from home with other semi-feral youths in a strictly enforced hierarchy. The weak are goaded mercilessly and the strong lauded as great and good. Unsurprisingly as adults they are more than willing to impose this view of society onto the wider world rather than face up to the fact that mummy and daddies dictionary didn't have the word love in it.

There aren't many workers collectives at eton, nor do such places feature much in the way of bottom up negotiation. I'd imagine there is some cheering up of previous victims so they can be bullied again though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Blackbird in your garden this morning, £5 please or we'll get a CCJ.

You are joking, but I can see this as being "reasonable" in a few years!!

Fug off blackbirds! Except the Williams Sisters of course! :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from printy printy to choppy choppy

or the headlines

"badgers to be privatised, and Annual Badger Parade could net Treasury billions, say analysts"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this has a solid basis - suppose you permit an upland peatland area to be used extensively for sheep grazing and game-birds, requiring and entailing a lot of surface burning (to maintain the habitat for the birds) as well as the long term reduction of vegetation depth from this and the sheep, and sheep detritus ending up in the surface layers - this adds, basically, discolouration and crap (literally) to the water runoff.

The water purification processing works further down the valley has to be upgraded by the water company at a fixed and ongoing annual cost of extra 10s of £millions, and the people who make the profits from the sheep and the game-shooting make them at the expense of the water company; Joe Public essentially subsidise the cost of lamb, wool, mutton and weekend shooting parties in the Yorkshire Dales by paying higher water rates - this is actually happening.

Additionally, water runs off the surface of the upland areas now more freely and we get more flooding - the correlation does not lie with climate change, we do get more flooding, but this has correlated with increased clearing of uplands; again, Joe Soap pays as the costs of clearing up flooded cities is born by the taxpayer, whereas the benefits of more cleared upland are limited to people who buy the cheaper meat produced there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Blackbird in your garden this morning, £5 please or we'll get a CCJ.

They will just increase the rateable value of the house, so you pay more council tax.

Get spraying with DDT. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By calculating the value of less tangible factors such as clean air........

......£10 per week breathing tax - no opt out

what do you suppose the cost to the NHS is of , say, allergies relating to city pollution? should this not be borne by the polluters not simply the public?

(givern that there are practicalities here, but an air-pollution levy on anything with an engine used in a populous area might be a start, and the technology appears to exist to permti this)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this has a solid basis - suppose you permit an upland peatland area to be used extensively for sheep grazing and game-birds, requiring and entailing a lot of surface burning (to maintain the habitat for the birds) as well as the long term reduction of vegetation depth from this and the sheep, and sheep detritus ending up in the surface layers - this adds, basically, discolouration and crap (literally) to the water runoff.

The water purification processing works further down the valley has to be upgraded by the water company at a fixed and ongoing annual cost of extra 10s of £millions, and the people who make the profits from the sheep and the game-shooting make them at the expense of the water company; Joe Public essentially subsidise the cost of lamb, wool, mutton and weekend shooting parties in the Yorkshire Dales by paying higher water rates - this is actually happening.

Additionally, water runs off the surface of the upland areas now more freely and we get more flooding - the correlation does not lie with climate change, we do get more flooding, but this has correlated with increased clearing of uplands; again, Joe Soap pays as the costs of clearing up flooded cities is born by the taxpayer, whereas the benefits of more cleared upland are limited to people who buy the cheaper meat produced there.

Good pointsSi1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed the bit where it said this...

Does that mean they are going to implement a policy where we will appreciate them? ;)

They had a policy to fully appreciate the forests a few months ago.

Looks like they've decided to come at it from a different angle and appreciate everything else in 'nature' too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good pointsSi1

there's an ecologist who espoused this thing about 10 to 15 years ago and it has caught on - it is called 'ecosystem services', and it is, as far as I can tell, EXACTLY, what the govt/tories are on about now, it says that we gain services from the ecosystems around us that would cost a h*ll of a lot of money to replicate using technology, so we should learn to measure them and therefore have a more complete assessment of the cost of human development that intrudes on natural sites - not to say we should not develop, merely to account more fully for the economic losses in the assessment of the developments.

Chap is called Bob Constanza, this was his first foray into economics and it is touched with genius; latterly he has become a raving global-new-world-statist so I disrespect his later work, but this early insight was brilliant, frankly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there's an ecologist who espoused this thing about 10 to 15 years ago and it has caught on - it is called 'ecosystem services', and it is, as far as I can tell, EXACTLY, what the govt/tories are on about now, it says that we gain services from the ecosystems around us that would cost a h*ll of a lot of money to replicate using technology, so we should learn to measure them and therefore have a more complete assessment of the cost of human development that intrudes on natural sites - not to say we should not develop, merely to account more fully for the economic losses in the assessment of the developments.

Chap is called Bob Constanza, this was his first foray into economics and it is touched with genius; latterly he has become a raving global-new-world-statist so I disrespect his later work, but this early insight was brilliant, frankly.

His early "insight" will have lead directly to his global NWO statism.

Karma is right, if the tories measure it, they'll want paying for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His early "insight" will have lead directly to his global NWO statism.

Karma is right, if the tories measure it, they'll want paying for it.

quite possibly true - doesn't make it bad, just means we need to be careful about its implementation

this is a bit like saying accounting standards favour corporatism - they do, but that doesn't mean they're not helpful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Blackbird in your garden this morning, £5 please or we'll get a CCJ.

Have you being breathing British Oxygen (TM, incorporated in the Bahamas) without a license again? You'll have to phone our debt collection line to get your supply restored. Better hope you are not put on hold..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what do you suppose the cost to the NHS is of , say, allergies relating to city pollution? should this not be borne by the polluters not simply the public?

(givern that there are practicalities here, but an air-pollution levy on anything with an engine used in a populous area might be a start, and the technology appears to exist to permti this)

Can't that be taken out of the huge tax that is already levied on the cost of fuel. Presumably the bigger polluters are the bigger engines but they pay more tax due to the purchase of more fuel from their lesser mpg , or they could take it from the road tax as not a lot seems to get spent on the roads , I may be wrong with this as admittedly I havnt researched it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't that be taken out of the huge tax that is already levied on the cost of fuel. Presumably the bigger polluters are the bigger engines but they pay more tax due to the purchase of more fuel from their lesser mpg , or they could take it from the road tax as not a lot seems to get spent on the roads , I may be wrong with this as admittedly I havnt researched it

no, because it is location-dependant - motorways in rural areas AFAIK for each litre of petrol burnt have less health issues than roads in inner cities; ergo if it was a blanket tax, then there would be no economic coersion to actually address the problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like in future when non-housing land that they own is going to be converted to housing land (or motorway, rail land etc) then they're now going to charge a premium on top to allow for all the vegetation, wildlife and stuff on it.

Inevitably it's going to be used as an excuse for more taxes as an adjunct to all the global warming tax excuses. Likely it won't do one jot to stop them continuing to add to excessive population densities causing congestion etc in the UK through intentionally increasing the population and so on.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, because it is location-dependant - motorways in rural areas AFAIK for each litre of petrol burnt have less health issues than roads in inner cities; ergo if it was a blanket tax, then there would be no economic coersion to actually address the problem

So are you not just talking about a congestion charge? Enter this ring (oh er) and give us 8 quid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you not just talking about a congestion charge? Enter this ring (oh er) and give us 8 quid

in this particular case they are indeed one and the same thing as far as I know!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like in future when non-housing land that they own is going to be converted to housing land (or motorway, rail land etc) then they're now going to charge a premium on top to allow for all the vegetation, wildlife and stuff on it.

Inevitably it's going to be used as an excuse for more taxes as an adjunct to all the global warming tax excuses. Likely it won't do one jot to stop them continuing to add to excessive population densities causing congestion etc in the UK through intentionally increasing the population and so on.

sorry, but higher population densities cause less congestion since people don't have to travel as far - home ownership with cars in commuter towns causes congestion, this is not high density living

Edited by Si1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.