World Bank Launches Program To Put Price On Nature, 'Change The Way Governments Value Their Ecosystems'

Yahoo! News:

The World Bank on Thursday launched a program to help nations put a value on nature just like GDP in a bid to stop the destruction of forests, wetlands and reefs that underpin businesses and economies.

Read the whole story: Yahoo! News

Comments

[darkmark]

01:01 PM on 11/01/2010

the world bank doing something positive. it would be nice if the world bank was always a positive force in the world. rather than trying to privatize things like water.

[NedFlanders19]

11:29 AM on 11/01/2010

The World Bank knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. The commodification(don't know if this is a word, but it is now) of life and all it holds drives us further away from life and its amazing depths and closer to a sterile environment of seeing all through eyes filled with dollar $ign$.

Fortunately, the most precious things - a sunset, a lover's smile, the warmth of the sun on a cold day and so on are priceless. And so it goes, the eternal push/pull between those limited by their minds - looking your way world bank - and those who embrace expansiveness. We'll see how it all plays out...

[Genders]

07:03 PM on 10/29/2010

About time.

[Kevin Atlanta]

08:55 AM on 10/29/2010

Now the World Bank works to lay claim to the natural resources of all peoples with this valuation of natural ecosystems.
Just like Wall Street the World Bank has no interest in preservation or production but in making things up to place a "value" upon when this topic is priceless.
The illness of the World Bank, the Corporate Fascists is their exclusive focus upon socialization of the loss and privatization of the profits as in the Heist of History in the USA and the Global Economy in September of 2008.
The World Bank is a scourge on humanity fully intent upon economic enslavement in the guise of "development."

[Genders]

07:04 PM on 10/29/2010

True all, but maybe the plutocrats are realizing that nature is what keeps us all alive.

[rambot02]

08:25 AM on 10/29/2010

The Vatican insures its priceless art treasure for $1, a symbolic nod to the fact that this collection is irreplaceable. How much more irreplaceable is our natural world?

[JPMP]

07:51 AM on 10/29/2010

There is no "price" to put on nature.

Nature has a VALUE, and for myopic humans is can be succinctly stated as:

OUR CONTINUED EXISTENCE.

[SaddieMcCall]

06:59 AM on 11/02/2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tWLqFmaNdQ&feature=related

older video of a 12 year old's speech -

[sabelmouse]

07:04 AM on 10/29/2010

it must be actually worth something then. finally i know.

[pebblesvanpeebles]

06:02 AM on 10/29/2010

I honestly don't know how I feel about this. My instincts scream "Quit putting a godd@mn dollar sign in front of everything on this planet!" because Bill Hicks is basically my conscience. I loathe commodification, but if that's what it takes for this stupid world we live in to take its environment seriously...

[SilentSolidarity]

03:46 AM on 10/29/2010

BS. World Bank will probably play down the value, and quality of the services nature provides.

Fact is: the ecological system has 500 million years. We had 200 years. Guess which system is more efficient?
Another fact: Our economy depends on a stable environment. There is no question about that. Then why is the environment NOT one of the most important issues on the national agenda?

PS: Don't forget to count the incredible work of ants. Btw. those workers spend 6 hrs on work, 6 hours on sleep and 6 hours on body care to maintain their health. Maybe, one day we can learn something from a society that existed for more than 100 million years and is present on all continents except Antarctica.

[SilentSolidarity]

03:55 AM on 10/29/2010

In fact, the nature is not part of the economy. It provides welfare. we take clean water, air, plants etc. for granted yet if they would disappear tomorrow the human world economy would immediately collapse.

All nature is asking for is:
1. sustainable development.No bill, no taxes, no rent, just a little more brain work before we build a new highway or building or city.
2. that we leave them alone! No hunting, no animal trade, no high fructose instead of nectar, and no pesticides.

Just two things and the baggers feel overwhelmed.

[roseau]

10:56 PM on 10/28/2010

Since the implicit value used to be zero, this is a good thing. Working towards pricing helps to inform choices that have long term or diffuse benefits. For instance, a clean lake is not just a pretty thing or something we should all love because of its supposed purity. A clean lake is a resource for the next thousand years. Putting numbers on its current and future value, as well as the true costs of its loss, may seem crass but it holds up a lot better in negotiation than invoking mother earth.

[Jim Shaffer]

08:56 PM on 10/28/2010

The age of economic expediency is headed for a fall, lets hope it's soon and as painless as possible. When will the human race stop treating exsistence as a game and start dealing with the problems we all face? When will the ambitious have enough? What's so great about a lifestyle persuit? People are starting to question the way our world resource is being managed.

[frank day]

07:11 PM on 10/28/2010

The cost/benefit analysis might not always favor saving the environment.

Just enough of it for the top 1% to enjoy and a little for corporations to sell as tourist atractions.

[jsgaetano]

05:34 PM on 10/28/2010

Another thing we need to do is have the government actually report on the water bill how much it's subsidizing the cost of water treatment.

That way, we can end the huge government subsidies municipalities are giving to big businesses, and especially to the Pollution Industry, who have been taking in billions of our tax dollars to prop up their poisonous business practices.

[Matthew Harrold]

04:23 PM on 10/28/2010

It's a step in the right direction, but what happens when it turns out it's more cost effective to ignore environmental damage? It doesn't stop it, just puts a level on what is acceptable before it costs more to put right, then it does to just carry on as usual.

[Master-T]

03:48 PM on 10/28/2010

""We're here today to create something that no one has tried before: a global partnership that can fundamentally change the way governments value their ecosystems."

I hate to be the one to break it to the World Bank: ecosystems are not self-contained within government borders, and their collective interaction is what makes life possible. For instance, is it really up to Brazil to place a value on their rainforests which so much of the world depends on? What if Brazil decides continuing to strip their rainforests because its value is not as important as making Brazilian coroprations richer?

Although the World Bank may say this scheme is to better preserve the planet, the environment, etc .. I'm not buying it. I'm just not. It sounds Orwellian to me considering the fact that the World Bank is made up of wealthy corporate and government people. This sounds like yet another scheme to enable corporations to continue tearing things up in the name of shareholder value.