Economics of ecosystems
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) project aims to build awareness of the economic benefits of biodiversity by quantifying the costs of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation, and to offer strategies developed through science, economics and policy to move toward net growth in biodiversity. The project sets it sights particularly on emphasizing the role of natural systems in combating climate change through carbon storage; its agenda is to increase global funding and policy initiatives for ecosystem restoration.
Treehugger points out a compelling bit of monetization:
TEEB points out that the rate of return on investments to preserve the Earth’s ecological infrastructure can offer a great return on investment. An investment in maintaining natural areas of $45 billion could preserve some $5 trillion a year in (currently unpaid for) ecosystem services.
These sort of environmental economics seem to be catching on.
Parks as economic generators
Anne Schwartz’s recent column in the Gotham Gazette lays out some pretty impressive figures identifying city parks as economic assets: Central Park contributed $1 billion to the city’s economy in 2007; the High Line is expected to generate $4 billion in private investment and $900 million in revenues to the city over the next 30 years; the 2008 completion of the Greenwich Village section of the Hudson River Park raised real estate prices in the adjacent two blocks by 20 percent. She also cites a study by the Center for City Park Excellence that calculated dollar values for each of seven benefits conferred by parks–property values, tourism, direct use, health, community cohesion, clean water and clean air–in a series of cities. Big numbers, and an interesting way of quantifying quality-of-life dimensions.
(via City Parks Blog)
Bad economy could be good for urban nature
The Obama Administration is reportedly considering a program called “Shrink to Survive,” which would selectively bulldoze blocks of abandoned real estate in 50 economically depressed US cities and replace them with parks, forest and meadows. The plan is based on a downsizing scheme in Flint, Michigan–once the home of General Motors–where citizens are already advocating the use of vacant lots as community gardens. We’ll count it as an upside to this down economy that even generally thriving cities now saddled with vacant lots are considering their conversion into green space.
Alternative energy business leaders speak
Scientific American has run a two-week series of interviews with executives of alternative energy companies to explore the technical, infrastructural, and economic obstacles of developing and implementing non-fossil fuel energy technologies. 17 interviews altogether, including responses from Robert Gates, Senior Vice president for Commercial Operations of Clipper Windpower; David Mills, Founder and Chief Scientific Officer of Ausra (solar thermal energy); and Lucien Bronicki, Chairman and Chief Technology Officer of Ormat Technologies (geothermal and recovered energy).
Environmental microphilanthropy
Especially in hard economic times like this, it’s difficult for smaller non-profits and volunteer groups to compete for grant funding. Online microphilantropy organization ioby helps groups with small-scale environmental projects in New York City connect with potential donors and volunteers. (ioby stands for “in our backyards” in a riff on the common NIMBY “not in my backyard” sentiment.) The site allows for pooling of tiny donations into large enough sums to support local projects. Some project examples include a composting education class in Astoria (total budget $115), a community garden restoration project and a beach cleanup day.
Left: All People’s Garden in the Lower East Side, where project organizers need $2,938 to remove cement, debris and replant trees and shrubs. Right: A project in the Rockaways seeks $345 in ioby support to design and construct rainwater catchment systems and educate volunteers about stormwater management.
(via No Impact Man)
How green is waste-to-energy?
Representatives from some of the country’s largest waste management companies have been lamenting the lost potential of President Obama’s green stimulus bill to directly support the growth of waste-to-energy operations. The US is currently dishing out $60 billion in energy grants and tax breaks meant to reduce dependence on coal plants blamed for global warming–but unlike wind or solar, none of that money is directly designated for waste-to-energy. The waste management companies ascribe their exclusion from the renewable energy party to the general disregard given to garbage and the waste industry.
Treehugger has posted a response to this story agreeing with the exclusion of waste-to-energy from the bill and citing the levels of dioxin and mercury that can be released into the environment through the incineration of garbage. One of the comments at the bottom of the post, posted by someone at Waste Management, takes issue with the claim that current incinerator-generators are environmental hazards. This is a touchy area, but the EPA’s website provides some facts about practices and impacts.
The other means of energy extraction from waste is, of course, harvesting methane from the gas produced by material decomposition. At the Freshkills Park site, landfill gas is collected, and the methane extracted from it is sold to National Grid. That methane is converted into energy and used by about 22,000 homes on Staten Island. While we recognize that it’s important not to create incentives or excuses for creating more waste, we do think it’s valuable to make use of the renewable energy resources we have.
Enlightenment? Or just the economy?
New Yorkers are throwing less stuff away now than they were three years ago. That’s according to Steve Cohen on his blog at The Observer. Apparently, we’re down to 51,250 tons per week, from 54,205 tons per week in 2005. This while the city’s population continues to grow. So are we dawning on a new age of environmental consciousness? Cohen says yes, but there could be an alternative explanation. An article in The Washington Post about lowered recent intake at landfills says the decline in trash could simply be because the economic downturn has forced people to make do with less. If you buy that, it’s more like we’re experiencing a depression-era-like push to use and re-use. Phenomena like this make it hard for us to know what to celebrate.
(via sustaiNYC and unconsumption)
Refusing the refuse
Will the trash and recycling slump in China impact recycling programs here in the West? The New York Times looks at the failing recycling industry in China and the ripple effects felt here at home.
The slide show accompanying the story is also pretty illustrative.
