“We can never capture the total value of a forest in terms of cultural and spiritual values or even biodiversity, but we can say that it has measurable economic values across dimensions that have not been considered before.”
This is always a necessary disclaimer when talking about economics, so I’m glad it’s included here.
I’m extremely suspicious of anyone coming from Stanford. It seems very likely to me that she’s folded in with neoliberal non-solutions. Stanford and the Chicago School are two of the worst. The history of Stanford is wild.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Using emerging scientific data and the project’s innovative open-source software, Daily and her team help governments, international banks, and NGOs to not only quantify the value of nature, but also determine the benefits of conservation and ecosystem restoration.
Spurred by a summit hosted by the Royal Swedish Academy of Scientists, ecologists and economists began coming together for the first time to consider the benefits of a joint approach to developing economic and environmental policy.
Recent advances in this data collection, along with machine learning and software modeling, allow the Natural Capital team to evaluate ecosystems at a level of detail and sophistication previously considered impossible.
Using InVEST, Daily and her team were able to determine the actual cost of silt deposition in the river, particularly for drinking water and hydropower, and the value of maintaining upstream forests that would prevent that congestion from occurring.
“We were able to show that communities in the region were benefiting from this forest in ways they hadn’t necessarily realized,” says Lisa Mandle, lead scientist and director of science-software integration for the Natural Capital Project.
And it couldn’t have become reality without Daily’s vision, says Qingfeng Zhang, a senior director at the Asian Development Bank, which now includes a Natural Capital Lab inspired and supported by the Stanford project.
The original article contains 1,081 words, the summary contains 214 words. Saved 80%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
In Econ101, you learn about "externalities (wiki) which are the parts of the human experience which don’t really “fit” in the rest of the economic model. That’s when you start getting the idea that you can’t just “line go up” for all of society and life.
Why doesn’t this article even mention externalities or market failure?
Neat. I’m part of a big push in Canada for getting natural assets accounted for in government standards. Love seeing the convo happening in other pockets.
