Green thoughts of the day

1) As the BC provincial elections are heating up, CBC produced a story on the BC Green Party and the aspirations of its leader, Adrianne Carr, to be the first Green Party member to be elected into a legislature in Canada. While it was mainly a fluff piece, they guaged BC voters on their willingness to vote Green. One particular person emphasized his 'love' of the environment but was concerned about the 'economic reality' of the way we live.

If there's one thing I'd like any 'green' movement/party to hammer to voters, it's that the environment and the economy are one and the same, especially in Canada since we're a resource-based economy. The movement needs to raise more environmental economists and push the idea and the policy that economics, like health, industry, etc, are tied in one way or another to the natural environment that we live in. The societal view that the environment and economics are separate issues because they're handled by different ministries needs to b changed.

One method that may become useful is the valuation of environmental services. Last week, the Economist's cover story discussed 'ways' to 'rescue' environmentalism, mainly a discussion of environmental economics. While I disagree with some of their points, I see the usefulness of valuation. It would provide more tangent arguments to people to convince them that different natural features are worth protecting, even enhancing. People understand numbers better than aesthetic arguments like 'intrinsic value.' Studies have shown, for example, how wetlands provide better and cheaper water filtration services than treatment plants. Edmund Fowler, in his book, "Cities, Culture and Granite," contend that insurance companies are getting involved in climate change issues because of the associated risks in the uncertain effects it would have on natural disaster frequencies and the effect on insurance rates and premiums. Why not extend that into other areas of the environment, like conservation strategies for water consumption vs. importing water or desalinization?

It's time we stop being afraid that valuation will allow economists or business to gobble up the environment. Considering environmental issues are usually considered 'externalities' in economics anyways and therefore not factored in at all, at least valuation will internalize the costs involved in using nature. That, and I think that almost all valuation will show that natural processes will always be cheaper than human intervention.

A good place to start is the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. Comprehensive and global in scope.

2) My other thought involves Hansen et. al's work in Science on April 28, 2005. (Note: As I'm writing this, I just found the full article since the Science website requires a subscription so I haven't had a chance to read it over, but now you all can) One of the authors of the paper has posted on RealClimate, which will provide a better explanation than I ever could. What I want to point out is this. Climate change detractors and commentators (like our bright but inaccurate friend HERE from the Queen's Journal) LOVE, and I mean LOVE, to cite James Hansen's apprehension about the issue of climate change. Unfortunately, they always take his work out of context (I should know, I've previously written one op-ed to the Journal around the time Kyoto was being ratified by Chretien and someone tried to pull out Hansen as an argument).

For those who don't know, James Hansen is a climatologist who testified before a US Senate committee about climate change. If anyone bothered to read the bloody testimony, you'd find that he finds that climate change is occurring, that human induced forcings are one of the major contributors. What he does acknowledge, like any good scientist, is the existence of uncertainties. Now, with other scientists, he's published another paper (hopefully in print soon) confirming how his models are not only corroborated by measurements, but they show that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. You don't have to take my word, his material's linked in this post.

So, if anyone ever tells you that James Hansen doesn't believe that climate change is occurring, please either direct them to the Senate testimony or his new paper. Hell, direct them to this post. As for me, I think our friend from the Journal's op-ed's is gonna get a nice May 24 present in the form of Hansen's paper...