Stimulating economic growth in emerging economies through inclusive business models

As noted by the IMF’s chief economist, Maurice Obstfeld, China’s economic slow down has had a ripple effect on investment in emerging economies. Offsetting this economic slow down will require both official development assistance (ODA) and private sector investment.

A key opportunity for aid agencies to foster economic growth in emerging economies is to work with the private sector to build inclusive business models that address the bottom of the pyramid- the four billion people living on less than $3,000 per year. Danone has worked with the Grameen Group, a microfinance organization founded in Bangladesh by Muhammad Yunus, to create an inclusive business model called a “social business”- a non- loss, financially sustainable businesses created to address a social problem. The Grameen Danone joint venture is driven by a social mission: fighting child malnutrition in Bangladesh. Grameen Danone sells a product called Shokti Doi, a highly nutritious yogurt designed to address the nutritional deficits of Bangladeshi children.

Other multinationals such as Orange, Bouygues Construction, Essilor, Schneider Electric, Veolia and SC Johnson have followed in the footsteps of Danone in creating social businesses to address important social issues. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has also recognized the potential of inclusive business models and has partnered with Yunus Social Business to promote social businesses through the establishment of incubator funds.

By working collaboratively with the private sector, aid agencies will be able to amplify their impact and play a more systematic role in helping countries achieve economic, social and environmental development.

By Trevor S.

Pricing Carbon: Cap and Trade or a Carbon Tax?

Greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) are one of the most commonly cited examples of a negative externality: when prices in a competitive market do not reflect the full cost of producing a product or service. The days of freely emitting greenhouse gas emissions are numbered and government institutions are in the process of determining the best way to price carbon emissions. Among the plethora of options, carbon taxation, a pricing instrument, and emissions trading, a fixed quantity model, remain the two economically efficient policies.

Putting a price on carbon dioxide is an attractive alternative to providing expensive subsidies to the renewable energy sector. Since carbon pricing increases the price of fossil-fuel based energy sources, the price of renewable energy becomes more competitive in comparison. What’s more, carbon taxation provides organizations with an incentive to invest in greener technologies. In fact, executives of oilsands’ companies have expressed their support for carbon pricing.

The leading proposal in the United States and globally is to create an emissions trading system, also known as cap-and-trade.  Cap and trade systems place a limit on the amount of pollution that can be emitted. Therefore, firms must pay for each unit of pollution in the form of a permit. The price of these permits varies depending on supply and demand. Firms that can reduce greenhouse gas emission inexpensively can sell their permits to other organizations. The widespread acceptance of cap and trade is no surprise as the system benefits almost all stakeholders. For governments, cap and trade offers the opportunity to take action to combat climate without the negative perception of an added tax. For environmentalists, emissions trading systems ensure governments commit to a fixed reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Cap and trade systems can work effectively as evidenced by the sulphur dioxide allowance-trading program that was established under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA). The goal of the program was to reduce S02 emissions by ten million tons relative to 1980. The program was immensely successful; sulphur dioxide emissions declined by 43%, despite electricity generation from coal-fired power plants increasing by over 26% between 1990 and 2007.

Despite being positioned as a market-based approach to curb greenhouse gas emissions, cap and trade systems are not the best tool to combat climate change. First, cap and trade systems can take years to implement because of delays associated with policy implementation. Given the uncertainty over the price of carbon dioxide emissions, in the event that the price of carbon rises, there will be pressure on the government to relax the carbon cap, thereby reducing the overall efficacy of the policy.

A carbon tax levies a tax on each unit of greenhouse gas emissions and provides incentives for organizations to reduce pollution. Carbon taxes are easier to implement than cap and trade systems and can be adjusted if the resulting changes are too strong or too weak. Carbon taxes are supported by economists on the left and right because they are a market instrument that does not require substantial government involvement: change the price and let the market work its magic.

Carbon taxes carry limitations as well. Perhaps the biggest obstacle is the challenge of instituting an additional tax. There are many psychological reasons why people oppose things like carbon taxes. For one, the endowment effect—when peoples' willingness to accept compensation for a good is greater than their willingness to pay once their property right is established—is one reason why taxes are hard to accept.  While both pricing systems increase energy prices, cap and trade is often more viable politically because it is not labelled as a tax. Finally, there is a temptation that politicians will use carbon taxes as a revenue source rather than a neutral tax. Remember that carbon taxes are intended drive down consumption of fossil-fuel based energy source (see British Columbia's revenue neutral carbon tax as a case in point: http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/tp/climate/carbon_tax.htm).

Both pricing models achieve the outcome of increasing energy costs and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  The challenge is that while carbon taxation is a more holistic solution, it is less appealing to voters due to the negative perception associated with an added tax. In short, carbon taxation is a remarkably system that allows governments to reduce spending (particularly on supporting renewable energy), lower our dependence on foreign oil, reduce pollution, and correct a market failure.

By Trevor S.

Assorted Links and Interesting Reads

1. An update on transit in Toronto
2. The U.S. federal government has released an estimate of the number of green jobs in the economy, claiming 3.1 million people are employed in the production of goods and services that benefit the environment.
3. To mark World Water Day, digital animations conveying the severity of global declines in groundwater went on display in Times Square 
4. Infographic summarizing the number and type of "green" jobs in the U.S. 
5. Award-winning German development aims to be "The World's Most Sustainable Neighborhood"

By Trevor S.

New York City's Waste Management Practices: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Under the leadership of Mayor Bloomberg, New York City is creating a state of the art facility that will use the “cleanest and latest” technology to dispose of approximately 450 tons of trash per day. If successful, the program’s capacity will be doubled. According to Bloomberg, the plant must be in New York City or no farther than 80 miles away to reduce its environmental impact. The project is part of New York City’s efforts to reduce reliance on landfills as the city currently produces 10,000 tons of waste daily.

New York also has a program called “re-fashioNYC”, a partnership between the City of New York and Housing Works. The program gives buildings with 10 or more units donation bins which are collected by the city within 5 days of placing a request. In addition, individuals can receive a tax receipt for their donation. This powerful incentive encourages re-using, reducing the amount of waste in the city. The program collects an array of items including fabric/material, clothing, towels, linens, curtains, clean rags, shoes, and accessories (belts and handbags).  

re-fashioNYC Collection Bin

While NYC’s waste-to-energy proposal is innovative, the city should investigate long-term solutions to reduce waste. If garbage collection costs follow a progressive model (low fee for a base amount of garbage and an increasingly large fee for each additional bag of garbage), households will produce less waste and recycle more often. New York City’s recycling rate of 15 percent is derisory compared to the average recycling rate of 39 percent among countries in the European Union. In fact, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands have recycling rates of over 60 percent. 

New York City should look into offering a composting collection program. Toronto’s green bin program led to 44 percent waste diversion in 2008.

Toronto's Green Bin Program

What are some other effective ways to reduce waste production?

By Trevor S.

Managing Water Effectively: Lessons from Singapore

Although Canada holds 20 percent of the world’s fresh water, we posses only 7 percent of the world’s renewable fresh water. The perception that Canada has an abundance of fresh water has led to misuse and abuse as evidenced by Canada's reprehensible per capita water consumption of 343 litres per Canadian per day. Canada requires more stringent policy to ensure sustainable water use and consumption.

The Canadian government can learn from countries like Singapore- a country that has built robust and highly effective water management policies.

Singapore covers an area of about 700 km²- slightly larger than the city of Toronto. With a population of 4.4 million, Singapore has consistently ranked as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. While Singapore receives 2400mm of rain annually, it is still considered a water-scarce country because of the limited amount of land that can be used to collect rainfall.

In order to provide sufficient water for its 4.4 million residents, Singapore’s water management approach relies on a combination of four strategies: rainfall storage, desalination, water imports and advanced technology for recycling water. Because of its holistic approach, Singapore has been able to successfully balance water quality and quantity considerations in an equitable manner that achieves economic efficiency, promotes public and private sector cooperation, and reduces reliance on external sources.

Let’s take a look at Singapore’s four strategies in further detail:

1.       Rainfall Storage:

Since 86 percent of Singapore’s population lives in high-rise buildings, the city-state has relied indispensably on collecting rainfall for non-potable uses (mainly for toilets). The cost of collecting rainwater is $0.25 USD per cubic meter compared to the cost of collecting potable water which is $0.33 USD.

2.       Desalination:

In 2005, Singapore created its first desalination plant, SingSpring, with the capacity to produce 30 million gallons of water per day. The plant uses three stages to treat water. First, sea water goes through a treatment process whereby suspended particles are removed. Next, water undergoes reverse osmosis. Finally, the water is remineralized.

A second desalination plant with a capacity to produce 70 million gallons of water will be completed in 2013. Combined, these two plants will allow Singapore to meet 7.4 percent of its current water demand.

3.       Water Imports:

Singapore currently relies on water imports from Malaysia to satisfy 40 percent of its water demand.

4.       Recycling Wastewater:

In 1998, Singapore started experimenting with water reclamation—the process of cleaning wastewater to safely return it to the environment. The Singapore Public Utilities Board (PUB) built a prototype plant, The Bedok Water Reclamation Plant, in May 2000 and after two years of testing the plant received a clean bill of health. The water quality was so high that it even met the quality standards of the Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health Organization.  After the success of the Bedok Water Reclamation Plant, Singapore has begun to collect, treat, and reuse wastewater on a larger scale.

Public Policy

Singapore passed the Trade Effluent Regulation in 1976 to ensure all wastewater discharge undergoes extensive treatment. While many other countries have similar requirements, Singapore has strictly enforced and implemented its regulations. When waste from cattle farms became a major source of contamination, Singapore enacted the Cattle Act to restrict the rearing of cattle to certain areas.

By using an approach that collects water from four sources, Singapore has been able to curtail its reliance on external water supplies and institute an efficient, cost-effective, and equitable water management strategy. Singapore’s four tap strategy will allow it to achieve self-sufficiency by 2060 as highlighted below.

By Trevor S.

Vertical Farming: A Viable Solution?

The United Nations predicts that the planet will have over 9.1 billion people by 2050. As the amount of arable land continues to decline, how will we be able to provide enough food for 9.1 billion people? Providing a sufficient amount of food for 9.1 billion people would require increasing current food production by 70 percent. Many are skeptical that we will be able to meet this vast target; however, this skepticism has not stopped scientists from coming up with alternative solutions.

One of the proposed solutions is called vertical farming. The idea of this approach is to grow agriculture on each floor of a building, all year-round in cities across the world.

The benefits of vertical farming are noteworthy: lower transportation costs, a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions associated with food transportation, and less food spoilage. The idea of growing food in cities seems logical due to higher population density.

The main challenge with vertical farming is the prodigious amount of artificial lighting (and energy) that is required. However, the energy required to power this artificial lighting can be obtained through the installation of solar panels on building rooftops. Solar energy prices have dropped dramatically over the past ten years, with prices being almost equal to coal generated electricity. 

What do you think of vertical farming? Is it a viable alternative, or should we simply accept that our earth is incapable of supporting 9.1 billion people?

Check out this video from The Economist for more details:

By Trevor S.

Climate-Change deniers have a point

It's been a while since I last posted, too busy with med school these days. But after reading this Naomi Klein article and realizing that this website - http://www.friendsofscience.org/ - is the second item that pops up when "critique of canada's position on global climate change" is googled, I can no longer keep silent.

I don't mean that I'm now going to bash the climate-change deniers. On the contrary, when I read what Naomi Klein wrote, and what "Friends of Science" says, I can't help but think that a few of the denier's denials actually have a point.

(Don't worry, I haven't turned to the Dark Side...just making a suggestion to help all environmentalists become more successful. Let me explain.)

True, environmentalists aren't "sacrificing humans to the gods like the Aztecs". But we all know there are some environmental groups out there who put the environment above all else, even above the needs of fellow humans (ie. greenpeace cutting down whole fields of crops).

In fact, I used to be like this myself back in first/second year undergrad, trying to enforce my own values and standards upon fellow students in getting them not to waste food in the Queen's University cafeterias.

But this attitude is dangerous.

It only weakens support for the environmentalist's worthy ideals, and ostracizes the environmentalist group from society at large.

The environmental movement needs to shift it's focus - from one of "environmentalism" to "humanity-ism".

As David Suzuki says, the world will survive no matter what the humans do. The real question is whether humanity will survive or not, both in the short and in the long term.

The survival of the human race for many, many generations on Earth should be goal of environmentalists. In order to do that, environmentalists need a much more balanced approach - emphasizing the social, economic, and environmental aspects of sustainability, instead of just "environmentalism".

People who truly care about the future of humanity on Earth should not be forcing less privileged members of our society to make the same degree of sacrifice they themselves are making. Until people have their basic needs met and are happy with their lives, it will be virtually impossible for them to care about the natural environment.

So - instead of solely advocating for the environment at all costs, people who care about the planet/human race should advocate for environmental friendliness along with social justice, economic equality, and the like.

This ideal triad of economic, social, and environmental sustainability is not new. But it is much more complicated than just "environmental activism" alone.

Nonetheless, until environmentalists embrace this more balanced perspective, they and their worthwhile ideals will always be vehemently opposed by a significant chunk of our society.

The Economics of Water

Global water consumption has tripled since 1950 leading to vast shortages across the world. It is estimated that 1.1 billion people worldwide do not have access to safe drinking water. Since North America has 21 percent of the world’s fresh water, most Canadians and Americans do not understand or appreciate the value of fresh water.  The average American consumes nearly 350 litres of water a day—twice the global average.

The key challenge is figuring out how to preserve our precious supply of water and eliminate excessive consumption.  As David Zetland—an influential water economist currently working at Wageningen University in the Netherlands—points out in his research, water prices must increase to bridge the current gap between supply and demand. Zetland discusses water policy at length on his website www.aguanomics.com but his solution is to implement a pricing scheme that will eliminate excess consumption.  Zetland proposes implementing a pricing scheme whereby households would receive the first 75 gallons of water for free; however, every additional 75 gallons would cost $5.60. This pricing system would ensure that everyone gets a basic allocation of cheap water while forcing excessive water users to pay more. This model follows the basic economic principle that as price increases demand decreases. Pricing is without a doubt the most effective method to reduce demand because it directly impacts the end user. Further, through incorporating Zetland’s model, municipalities would get additional revenue which could be invested in infrastructure improvements or educational initiatives. Municipalities could even use their increased revenue to provide subsidies to homeowners for switching to appliances with lower water consumption (i.e. low flush toilets, low-impact showerheads, more efficient dishwashers etc).

By Trevor S.

Greens Gone Rotten

A self-proclaimed eco-company dedicated to environmental conservation, New Forests Company, is taking advantage of the carbon-credits system to make money while planting trees.

Sounds win-win? Think again.

The catch is that in order to plant the trees, the company has evicted thousands of people in Uganda from their homes, using force if necessary. It's so serious that Oxfam is now involved in stopping this eco-friendly New Forests Company.

Sad to think that two organizations that should have the same goals and ideals are now in opposition. Once again, we are reminded that being eco-friendly and economically-beneficial alone is not enough to be sustainable. We need to be socially-just as well.

Transit in Hong Kong

One of my favourite aspects of travelling throughout Asia was observing and using public transportation systems. After using public transportation in Japan, Thailand and India, I was curious to learn whether we can apply similar strategies in Canada. I blogged about transportation in Japan in the past, but I wanted to explore Hong Kong’s public transit system, known as the Mass Transit Railway (MTR). With over four million weekly users and the highest utilization globally, it’s fascinating that the MTR is an entirely private (and profitable) organization.  

What specifically grabbed my attention about the MTR is its approach of using property development as an additional channel of revenue. The MTR develops properties like shopping centres, large housing complexes and office buildings on top of stations. The benefits of this approach are twofold: first, the MTR gets immediate cash flow from rental fees, and second ridership rises due to increased economic activity around stations. For instance, businessmen working in towers located overtop MTR stations will choose to use the MTR over driving due to convenience and affordability. Interestingly, the MTR’s properties generate more profit than transit fares. In 2009, the MTR made a net profit of HK$7.3 billion; of this amount, HK$3.55 billion came from property and HK$2.12 billion came from transit fares.

Hanford Plaza Located Overtop a MTR Station

 

What do you think about the MTR’s approach of using property development as a revenue source? 

By Trevor S.

Eco-Packaging Solutions in Canada

I recently did some research on the various forms of eco-packaging to determine which option has the strongest environmental benefit; both in the manufacturing and disposal stage.

I looked at three options: compostable, PLA and recycled PET (RPET). I’ve provided a brief outline of the three options below.

Compostable packaging is the most commonly known eco packaging- largely because of the compostable SunChips bag.  In order to receive the compostable packaging claim, the pack must be able to break down within a specified period of time in an industrial facility. I was not able to determine the specified period of time, but Sunchips takes about 14 weeks to break down which is a good benchmark. However, the major downfall of compostable packaging is it requires an industrial facility to be broken down; you can’t throw the compostable pack in your backyard. Further, compostable packaging isn’t currently accepted by green bin programs in Canada. Therefore, products like Sunchips end up sitting in a landfill where they may not even biodegrade.  However, this may change as companies lobby municipalities to accept compostable packaging.

Sunchips Compostable Bag

PLA packaging is made from renewable resources. It’s is typically made from corn, but it can also be produced using other resources like sugarcane and switchgrass. PLA’s greatest strength is that it’s made from renewable resources. However, there are ethical implications. PLA packaging drives up the demand for corn which causes a significant increase in commodity prices. This detrimentally impacts developing nations who consume corn in their daily life.

Noble PLA Bottle

Last, but certainly not least is Recycled PET. PET is the most common form of packaging and is often found in bottles and jars.  Recycled PET is in my opinion, the best option as reuses plastic that would otherwise go to a landfill. Further, there is an established market for RPET since there is an abundance of PET plastic. Since both PLA and compostable packaging are made from renewable resources, the availability of supply is often a concern (if there is a drought or other natural disasters the price of packaging rises and you may not have enough supply). 

Innocent Smoothie Bottle made from RPET

What options do you think have the least impact on our environment? 

By Trevor S.

Airships in Canada's Arctic

It seems that airships may be the ideal source of transit for remote areas. Requiring less fuel to run than airplanes and reducing the need for runways, blimps could be an idea worth floating.

Info Source: http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article/43291--northern-aviator-signs-first-arctic-airship-deal

World's Largest Solar Farm (to date)

Behold! The world's largest solar farm at 80MW, generating enough power to meet the needs of approximately 12 000 homes. Where is this you may ask? The sunny state of California, tech savvy Tokyo or the green tech crucible of China? All good guesses but this farm is found in Sarnia, Ontario, and was a joint project between Enbridge and First Solar.

The contract for this farm is not under the new FIT program but its predecessor the RESOP program. Thus, the next time you may feel that Ontario is dropping the environmental torch, just remember Sarnia Solar!

Early Signs of the Electric Wave

The early signs of the wave of electric cars to come are already lapping up on the shore. Above is a dedicated electric car parking spot at Conestoga Mall in Waterloo. The Provincial government has already touted a lofty goal that by 2020, every 1 in 20 cars on Ontario's roads will be electric.

Australia Joins India, the EU & New Zealand by Introducing Carbon Taxes

Australia has recently imposed a national carbon tax, amounting to about $25 US dollars per ton of carbon emitted. To prevent disadvantaged and low-income households from being harmed by the carbon tax, over 50% of tax revenue will support low-income households. The remaining funds will be used towards supporting green energy projects across Australia. Through introducing a national carbon tax, Australia joins New Zealand, the EU, and India. The question that remains is when will Canada and the U.S. follow the leadership of the aforementioned nations through introducing carbon taxes?

Carbon taxes are controversial and opponents argue they pose two significant issues: first, they claim it reduces the economic competitiveness of a country; and second they claim it harms low-income households who would need to fork out a larger portion of their income. 

Unsurprisingly, Alberta is strongly opposed to implementing a national carbon as the province produces exorbitant carbon emissions from tar sands oil extraction. Consequently, Alberta would have to pay much more taxes to the federal government if carbon taxes were implemented nationally. Ironically though, Alberta does have somewhat of a provincial carbon tax for the worst emitters, whom are required to pay $15 per ton into an "energy innovation fund". Through this provincial carbon tax, tax revenue stays in Alberta and is used for Albertans. Fair? For Alberta, the answer seems to be yes.

Perhaps the solution to passing a carbon tax in Canada is for each individual province/territory to pass their own legislation.

What do you think is the best way to implement carbon taxes in Canada?

For further information on carbon taxes check out this link.

From Yan Yu.

A Review of “Force of Nature: The David Suzuki Movie”, plus my thoughts on change

I recently watched "Force of Nature: The David Suzuki Movie". It serves both as a concise biography of Suzuki’s life, as well as another rallying call for environmental change.

In the movie, David made an interesting comparison. He compared the market economy we have today to the gods of the past. Both are not “real, natural forces” (like gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, etc), but figments of the human imagination. Yet both guide how humans act and feel. We are expected to conform to both, and to appease both. When the gods, or the markets, are doing well, humans are happy. When they’re not, humans become glum and blah.

But, asserts Suzuki, if the market economy is not a real force of nature, then if and when it doesn’t work anymore, we should change it!

The recent global recession, and the economy’s destruction of the Earth, is proving that many things aren’t working with our market economy. Problem is, no-one is looking to change it!

Ironically, the business leaders and politicians that Suzuki has met have all been telling him to be “realistic”, that the “economy is the bottom line”.

Ha, retorts Suzuki. As if the market can be more real than real forces of nature.

How do I see it? Well, of course there are generalizations and simplifications made in Suzuki’s argument. People who blindly follow free-market dogma may scoff at them. And they would be correct only in their astute observation that yes, there are simplifications.

But pointing out simplifications only serves to distract the public, and maybe also themselves, from Suzuki’s main point, which is valid.

Suzuki’s argument isn’t that the economic system we have right now is completely failing us. It’s that the long-run costs of the status-quo are far greater than the short-term benefits.

In exploiting the earth’s resources at an unsustainable rate now, we’re reducing the resources available for our survival years down the road. In messing with our climate patterns right now, the costs to future generations will be enormous and unthinkable. It’s just common sense.

And what short-term benefits have we achieved with our overconsumption and reliance on the traditional free-market?

The post-recession market growth (the “jobless recovery”) seems disconnected with people’s standard of living. Just ask the unemployed 10% of the US workforce.

Moreover, while the status of the economy (i.e. per capita GDP) can be a crude indicator of standard of living, it is far from a measure of “quality of life”. Does our overconsumption make us better off in the short run? Not really. A 2010 Princeton study of 1000 US residents showed that incomes above a certain level ($75,000) do not lead to increased happiness. The Happy Planet Index, a measure of people’s well-being and satisfaction over their ecological footprint, also ranked Costa Rica at number 1, and the USA at 114, in 2009.

So Suzuki is bang on. When our economic system does not make us any happier, something’s gotta change!

We in the western world are sacrificing future generations’ livelihoods to create more and more and more unneeded luxuries in our own lives, luxuries that do not even make us happier.

This philosophy is not only intuitively obtuse and morally corrupt, it’s also evolutionary suicide for us Homo sapiens.

I won’t attempt to present a comprehensive solution here – that would take pages and pages. But I’ll just talk about a few principles that I think should guide any changes we do make.

First, government and the economy need to redefine and re-prioritize the “long-term”. It shouldn’t just refer to the 4-5 year election cycles in the USA and Canada, and it shouldn’t even be defined as the 10+ years during which businesses can alter their fixed factors of production. The long-term should be an indefinite amount of time in the future, and its importance should be just as high on the priority list as the short-term. This way, society can avoid what Thomas Friedman calls the “I’ll be gone, you’ll be gone” mindset: irresponsibility for the future, which in large part caused both the great recession and the environmental crisis.

Second, instead of trying to protect nature by putting a price on it, perhaps we should use our own morals and scientific guidance as measures to determine how much we can sustainably take from the Earth. Why not put a price on nature? The first reason is that a price on nature will simply offer poachers (and the like) the incentive to destroy nature even further. The second reason is because we will never get the price “right”. As David Suzuki says in his movie: “our economics system prices the things that are most valuable to us as worthless”. He’s right - look at the classic microeconomics example of the “Paradox of Value”: a kilogram of diamonds is priced far greater than a kilo of water! Also, in the global ecological context, the role of any one species is extremely multidimensional. If one species became hunted to extinction, the consequences to the ecosystem could range from nothing all the way up to ecosystem collapse. Despite the best ecological science, there’s no way for humans to know exactly how valuable any one species is at any time, and thus the price per orangutan or some other species is practically impossible to deduce. It’s a lot easier, and a lot better, to just minimize our impacts on nature based on our societal morals and the Golden Rule, rather than to calculate in detail how much each part of nature is worth. As Suzuki says, prices are imaginary; morals and science are real.

Third, the developing world should leapfrog the unsustainable practices of the western world. Just like how almost everyone in China now has a mobile instead of a landline phone, developing countries could go straight to renewable sources of power instead of burning fossil fuels. Why would this be beneficial, given the high cost of renewables over fossil fuels? Well, the cost of renewable energy sources is steadily declining. And, once the up-front costs are paid off, renewables will be able to provide a steady supply of essentially free electricity. No need to make weekly payments of coal, or to waste time transporting it to where it is used. For a real-life example of the benefits of distributed renewable energy, check out this excellent NY Times article about rural households in Africa benefiting from their first taste of electricity, produced from individual solar panels.

Last but not least, we as a society need to regain our sense of sacrifice and value of delayed gratification. The market economy and the status-quo cannot be changed instantaneously, and changing it will entail tough compromises such as possibly higher taxes, temporarily increased energy prices (as fossil fuel energy sources transition to renewables), and declining industries (which must retrain workers and retool their factories for a low/zero-carbon economy). So overall, we need to be willing to do not just what is easy, but what is right, regardless of how hard it may be.

There you go. Definitely a thought-provoking documentary. I highly recommend you watch it.