Last week I was yet at another conference (much more local this time) and the last plenary speaker, Professor Roberto Danovaro, was definitely a thoughts provoker. There was a lot of talking about natural capital, and the valuing of nature, something already debated in itself, given its anthropocentrism. Assuming for a moment that valuing nature in monetary terms for the services that it provides is an acceptable thing, the issue arises when one fails to consider that these capitals are 'common goods'. Instead, more and more, these areas are being somewhat 'privatised' in that industries invest in restoration projects and obtain 'offsets' in the form of carbon credits (but soon likely with other finance methods) - he argued that a common good been used this way by privates is not so good anymore.
It made me think, but even as I am writing this I don't know whether I stand on one side or another or maybe I just stand in the middle. Yes, it is the private putting the foot in the public for its own return (offsets = a greener image = more profits), at the same time, it's unlikely that the public will ever have those sums required for restoration projects and if it did, restoration of nature will still be at the end of the list. Perhaps, this privatisation in one sense should make sure to include some public returns and ensure accessibility to full capacity...
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Disclaimer: some posts may contain affiliate links. At no extra costs to you, buying through the link will help me in this blogging journey!
Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|