BC #003: What Has Nature Ever Done For Us? By Tony Juniper

[theanimal]

What Has Nature Ever Done For Us?: How Money Really Does Grow on Trees
By Tony Juniper

http://www.amazon.com/What-Has-Nature-E ... 0907791484

Rating
4/5

Synopsis
Juniper explores how the different facets of the natural world benefit the economy and our livelihoods. From the air to the land to the sea, Juniper states dozens of reasons and examples throughout the book about the true value of the natural world. He finds that through the destruction of this "natural capital," we are actually causing more pain and destruction to ourselves because of the associated costs/reactions that come with it. For example, increased deforestation leads to poorer air and water quality as well as areas becoming more prone to receiving more damage via natural disasters (flooding, mudslides, tsunamis etc.)

At the end of each section, Juniper describes what actions are being taken by some who have acknowledged this problem. The problem from there becomes how one works with nature to preserve both the living organisms and area while still finding a way to make an economic profit. In all the cases that were presented, the countries, companies or cities improved the area dramatically back to its original state while also increasing their profits in the process.

Review
I found this book to be incredibly informative. It was shocking to find how many billions certain sectors of the natural are worth. I can't fathom why this issue isn't being taken into account by average citizens or many of the multinational companies. There is a cost to everything but why is it that the cost of damaging nature is largely ignored? That's always puzzled me. I think it goes along with what Juniper says of how we have moved far away from nature.

I found the chapter about the natural health service to validate my own experiences in my life. During my time in Alaska, I was more at peace than I had ever been. A calm, relaxed, and stress free mood stayed with me for the vast majority of the trip. I truly believe that Juniper's findings are spot on in this regard, with nature being replaced by the television and resulting in disorders (and maybe diseases?) that wouldn't occur if more people interacted closely with nature.

Discussion Questions
1. How do we live here on earth whereby we can benefit economically while keeping the environment intact?
2. How can people's awareness be raised of the dramatic effect nature has on our everyday lives?
3. Would population control be a viable solution to help aid the recovery/conservation of nature?
4. Why are people always concerned with constant growth on a planet with finite resources?

[sshawnn]

Junipers view of natural capital were very well stated. An opponent of his theories may argue the math and other factors that he omitted, but the fact that other countries are paying for foreign countries to stop deforestation gave a lot of credence to his deforestation example. As most good books do, this book spurred me to research several other ideas that were presented (glyphosate in factory farming, diclofenac residue in dead animals, and the biosphere project in Tuscon.)

1. Succinctly stated, we can not if the increasing world population strives for the average American or European level of consumption.

2. Unfortunately, awareness among the masses and their leaders will only occur when the masses see a large, concrete, cause and effect collapse of a system where a temporary fix can not be purchased. (The part about the oysters in NY harbor should qualify as such an event!) Certainly, books like this raise awareness among those willing to read them or talk about them. This number is few in my experience and knowing and taking action are still two different prospects. For instance, our family is fairly well informed about global environmental concerns but continue to burn excessive fossil fuels in cars and occasionally buy factory farmed chicken.

Positive individual interaction with the environment also raises awareness. DW is a beekeeper and understands that factory farming chemicals have a negative effect on her efforts but the average person with land in this area is consumed with extracting every penny they can for every acre despite the erosive and chemically laden techniques that are used by leased to farmers or themselves.

3. The book never really mentions population control as a measure of control but I thought of it during every chapter especially those dealing with food production. Sure, population control is the answer to most of the problems. That being said, can the fragile systems that took unfathomable years to create regain their potency in foreseeable human lifetimes?

4. Greed. Power. Control. Comfort.

Thanks animal for choosing this book. It was very much outside what I would select and it got my mind working about everyday occurrences and how they effect life cycles and food chains.

[jacob]

Don't mean to derail, but during my brief "career" in sustainability, it was pretty clear that population control really is the "third rail" of sustainability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_rail_of_politics

[jennypenny]

Don't mean to derail, but during my brief "career" in sustainability, it was pretty clear that population control really is the "third rail" of sustainability.

Does that mean you don't want us to discuss it? I'm willing to discuss it in a macro sense, meaning reasons for/against but not methods. (I'm assuming I'll be the lone dissenting voice.)

[jacob]

Just an observation. Discuss at will.

[vivacious]

Yeah. From what I understand it has leveled off in the first world. But the population is erratic in the 3rd/developing world. Not a 3rd rail issue in China. They obviously understand the importance of limiting the size of the population, reversing from Mao creating incentives to have a large family. I don't think India has any child limit laws though and it will soon be the most populous country in the world.

Of course there's a lot more to sustainability than that and the estimates for the world population coming up vary wildly. You can easily argue that we're at capacity already though so any population increase would be bad.

[theanimal]

Like Sshawn, it was just an observation I had as I read through the book. It obviously wouldn't be a viable solution as Jacob has stated but as each issue arose because of increases of population (and therefore demand), I couldn't help but think of it.

That is not what Juniper advocated at all though. It was amazing to learn through the examples though of how the natural systems (preventative, defense, filtration etc.) cost much less to preserve than otherwise destroying them and trying to fix the problem with technology.

I also find it surprising how these events, such as depletion of fish, soil, clean water etc. aren't seen as bigger events in our culture. Society has evolved to just focusing on the short term benefits without thought to the long term effects.

This post kind of bounces all over the place but just some thoughts I had. I plan on reading the book Collapse next which is very related. The author details how the people of Easter Island destroyed their society by depleting the resources of the island and then shows how we are on a similar path today.

[jennypenny]

Discussion Questions
1. How do we live here on earth whereby we can benefit economically while keeping the environment intact?
2. How can people's awareness be raised of the dramatic effect nature has on our everyday lives?
3. Would population control be a viable solution to help aid the recovery/conservation of nature?
4. Why are people always concerned with constant growth on a planet with finite resources?

First, I'll say I liked the book a lot more than I thought I would. It wasn't as preachy as I expected it to be. I consider myself an environmentalist (some of the examples he gave in the book brought me to tears), but I dislike the shrill and melodramatic tone a lot of environmentalists use to make their point. He didn't do that. I appreciated the reasonable tone.

Second, some of his arguments seemed speculative at best. I didn't have much luck trying to look up some of the studies he used to back up his arguments. He probably should have just stated that some things were his opinion based on research he'd read, instead of trying to prove his viewpoint with sketchy or unrelated studies. That said, I wouldn't disagree with much.

The book didn't make me optimistic (which I think was its intent?). I'm a professed doomer and despite a valiant effort by Juniper, this book didn't change my mind.

1. Why do we have to benefit economically? Juniper made that argument too that countries and corporations should view net-zero environmentalism as the best economic choice. I guess it just bothers me that it all comes down to economics. Everything does, not just environmentalism.

2. Having people experience nature can help. I remember having earth science in grade school, but I don't think my kids have had any instruction like that. That's a pet peeve of mine. They were taught how to recycle in school, but not why. We encourage people to recycle, but not to avoid producing garbage in the first place. We complain about wasted food, and then install locks to discourage dumpster diving. We encourage people to drive more efficient cars or electric vehicles instead of encouraging them not to drive ... et cetera ... et cetera

3. The obvious answer is yes, of course. I think that's addressing the wrong problem though. I would rather have more people who all treat the planet with care, than fewer people who continue to shit where they eat so to speak (actually, First World-ers are good at shitting where other people eat). As long as we continue to ship iThings across the planet, manufacture eternal plastic crap like Little Tykes toys, insist on eating out-of-season fruit that's shipped in from another hemisphere, and change our wardrobes every year to stay in fashion, then I don't think it matters how many people there are. We're doomed.

4. People are idiots. Individually, people can be quite brilliant, but collectively we're pretty stupid. Why is that? It's amazing that we haven't wiped ourselves out yet.

Thanks @theanimal, that was good.

[Dragline]

I enjoyed reading this book, and the prose in particular. Juniper has a way of describing things that really make you feel like you are there. I also found it informative – there are a lot of efforts to preserve, restore or improve local environments than I knew about.

There were two main flaws in the book that I noticed. The first was the attempt to extrapolate the Biosphere 2 example to the entire earth. I think the earth is much more complex and resilient than the artificial earth that was created. But I also did not “need” that example to convince me that these environmental systems are connected in complex ways.

The second was that I thought the attempts to quantify the value of various parts of the environment were kind of sloppy and would be easy for someone to attack. While Juniper calls this broadly an “economic approach” – and it is in the broad sense – the proper field is the sub-discipline known as valuation theory. This is what experts do when trying to determine how much a factory, piece of land, company, etc. is worth. The first question in this process is deciding what method of valuation to use. One method is known as “fair market value”, which is what an arms-length buyer and seller would transact for. Another is called “replacement value”, which is what it would cost to build another one. Then within those methodologies one also needs to consider what the property is being used for -- is it some kind of “going concern” or operating facility, will it be a preserve, will it be exploited for its mineral wealth, etc. Without delving into all these issues any number that is assigned to a particular thing is going to be suspect.

That being said, Juniper’s broader purpose, which to me seems to be to “bring environmental issues to the masses” is a laudable one. I give him a lot of credit for recognizing that just presenting the science has not engaged the public at large in a way that really motivates policy changes and it some circumstances has resulted in backlash against environmentalism. And I do think that just putting some numbers on some of these things will help and spur more thinking about them, even if the numbers themselves may be suspect. But as Juniper recognizes in several places, it is the human connection and/or spiritual elements that may be the most important motivating factors. Quantifying the health benefits of human interaction with is an excellent place to go. Involving religious communities is another. I was impressed by:

“Although I follow no religious faith, I was invited to speak at this unique multi-faith gathering and raised the ways in which we should place more value on Nature, economically and morally, and how religions could renew spiritual relationships with the natural world. If this were to occur, I argued, it would be more likely that economics could follow a different path. This is dangerous territory, of course. Great biologists like Richard Dawkins and Edward Wilson are among those who question the role of faith as a way to embrace ecological and other challenges. I understand their point, but beg to differ, for the unfortunate fact is that the majority of humankind either doesn’t care about ecological science or doesn’t respond to the messages it brings. Meantime, some 80 percent of the world’s population is aligned with one religion or other. If the values promoted by the faiths can change culture in ways that will help us realign our demands on Nature, then they are part of the solution. The world’s great faiths are not the only potential source of philosophical inspiration for new ways of making sure we keep Nature in good shape. Another potential source of change to how we collectively look at the world could come from one of the world’s largest industries — advertising. Employing some of the world’s smartest psychologists and communications experts, this industry is responsible for a lot of our behavior and much of our world view.” At page 269. (Kindle Locations 3992-4003)

I think that there is, in fact, movement in major religions toward incorporation of environmentally friendly policies. See this recent editorial about the relationship between vegetarianism and Christianity: http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/20 ... 14xml.html

I don’t think you’ll really have a successful movement without incorporating some forms of spirituality and mysticism. As Juniper also points out, humans tend to be irrational and short-term thinkers. Thus, majorities will not be reached with only rational, scientific presentations.

The other caution I would raise, which is actually something Nate Silver has articulated best, is that environmentalists lose a lot of credibility when they pretend they can predict the future with certainty. This is really not possible where the systems are complex and interrelated. So while it is possible to say that messing around with fragile systems will eventually cause something to break, it’s not really possible to say exactly what is going to break, how badly its going to break and when its going to happen. Chances are things are going to be a lot worse for some and a lot better for others (animal and plant species and humans, that is.)

On the Discussion Questions:

1. How do we live here on earth whereby we can benefit economically while keeping the environment intact?

Very carefully, it would seem. I think the book points out a lot of examples, such as Costa Rica, where preserving the environment and economic success have gone hand-in-hand. I don’t have any particular magic prescriptions, but it would seem that if something has worked well in one location, it can be tried in others.

2. How can people's awareness be raised of the dramatic effect nature has on our everyday lives?

Best approaches would be multi-pronged. Juniper suggests incorporating advertising, psychology, medicine and religion in addition to economics/valuation. Different individuals are likely to respond positively to different stimuli. So don’t put all the eggs in one basket and don’t exclude a method because you don’t like it or don’t adhere to it.

3. Would population control be a viable solution to help aid the recovery/conservation of nature?

Sure, but I don’t think you need “control” per se, as the population is beginning to control itself. 48% of people in the world now live in countries where the fertility rate is at or below the replacement rate. Its really only in Africa where large families remain the norm. Further, the fertility rate worldwide has decreased from 4.95 per couple in the early 1950s to 2.36 today and continues to fall. At 2.1 in developed countries and 3.4 in underdeveloped ones, the population trend will begin to reverse and population will begin to decrease over time. For some basic facts, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate

Interestingly, two of the best methods of decreasing the fertility rate appear to be increased education and the emancipation of women. I’m all in favor of those efforts. Solve the population problem by treating people well and giving them more opportunities to do things besides breed. I don’t think draconian methods are either warranted or necessary.

I also note that in the largest society subject to population control, China, pollution is rampant and environmentalism is virtually non-existent. But I would attribute that more to the inherent materialism of Marxism than to anything else. Juniper notes how Chinese authorities actively encouraged the decimation of wildlife.

Honestly, this is kind of a dumb issue to get stuck on, because it calls for massive resources and massive conflicts, and can easily divide constituencies that are agreeable about all sorts of other positive measures to preserve the environment. This is a “win the battle and prove that I’m right” but “lose the war” kind of issue in my view.

4. Why are people always concerned with constant growth on a planet with finite resources?

Probably because that’s what we have historically measured. There is a lot of truth to the shibboleth, “You get more of whatever you measure.” In that regard, it might be better to start focusing on happiness/satisfaction measurements instead of just raw dollar-figure proxies.

Further, economics generally assumes that resources are unlimited. This also goes with the “short-term” perspective that Juniper notes. In the short-term, your economy is either growing and creating more jobs or not. And the more often you measure something, the more myopic you become.

[jennypenny]

I meant to ask this in my post...

I'm curious if everyone is as hopeful as Juniper? I want to be, but this is the one issue about which I'm extremely pessimistic.

[sshawnn]

A good, compromising answer to question 1.

http://www.ted.com/talks/steve_howard_l ... ility.html

"Measure what you care about and lead the change."

[Dragline]

I meant to ask this in my post...

I'm curious if everyone is as hopeful as Juniper? I want to be, but this is the one issue about which I'm extremely pessimistic.

I suppose I would say yes, with some caveats. I think there is a lot of activity at local levels that has just not been captured in the mainstream. For example, here is something I've been thinking about getting involved with locally, but don't have the time to do right now: http://www.transitionus.org/ Sure, maybe you can't fix the whole world, but you can make your neighborhood a little nicer.

I also tend to believe that catastrophic events are likely to be localized, like the recent storm in the Philippines. It is true that some places may become uninhabitable -- but that doesn't mean anyone has to stay there or that every place on earth is going to be terrible.

I also think that the US is just way behind in exploring the possibilities. Everything from terrorism to the national debt to healthcare to the environment is presented as a catastrophe to end all catastrophes, which in turn fosters a siege mentality and a kind of paralysis, and everything is also politicized which then also leads to paralysis/inaction. People just don't think that way as much in other countries. It's really a symptom of living in an empire where everything is always about fighting to maintain pre-eminence and people not reflecting on what they have and what they might do with it.

I don't think its any accident that a lot of the prime movers in this area are non-American like Juniper. They are not burdened with trying to show that their country's way is the best or only way to go forward.

[theanimal]

I meant to ask this in my post...

I'm curious if everyone is as hopeful as Juniper? I want to be, but this is the one issue about which I'm extremely pessimistic.

I'm unsure how I feel. There are plenty of sustainability movements but many of those seem small in the overall picture. While I would like to be very optimistic, I find myself doubting that the mainstream view/attitude will change anytime soon. Hopefully, I'll be proved wrong.

[jacob]

I didn't get to read the book, but as far as the questions go, I'm pretty realistic, yeah realistic=pessimistic. Humans just don't seem to have the "mental circuit" for long-range planning. To answer question 2 of how to increase people's awareness, the answer seems pretty clear: Natural disasters! Witness the Philippines/Yolanda currently and the UN meeting in Warsaw---there's at least some paying attention.

The average human remains in a reactive mood. Without calamity, most humans will do nothing.

In sustainability circuits, the question was always: How many Katrinas (major US cities) would it take to change policy? The consensus was 2 or 3. (I suppose Sandy counts as #2).

[Chad]

I also note that in the largest society subject to population control, China, pollution is rampant and environmentalism is virtually non-existent. But I would attribute that more to the inherent materialism of Marxism than to anything else. Juniper notes how Chinese authorities actively encouraged the decimation of wildlife.

On Bloomberg a CEO for some shoe company has stated they won't be going to China for business in it's current condition. That condition being pollution. Specifically, air pollution in this case.

Also, a Chinese city closed it's airport one day because the pollution was so bad it was hard for the pilots to see.

[Chad]

I was looking forward to this book, but I didn't get a chance to read it. A shame based on the reviews. I may still pick it up.

4. People are idiots. Individually, people can be quite brilliant, but collectively we're pretty stupid. Why is that? It's amazing that we haven't wiped ourselves out yet.

Certain individuals can be quite brilliant. Most individuals are just as stupid as individuals as they are in crowds.

Surprisingly, given my view of people, I'm a little more positive on our future than you.

[sshawnn]

I meant to ask this in my post...

I'm curious if everyone is as hopeful as Juniper? I want to be, but this is the one issue about which I'm extremely pessimistic.

I am very pessimistic concerning the ecological future. I believe more species extinctions and systems failures are on the horizon but am unsure of the the timeframes. I am even more pessimistic about ecological recovery. Even as areas are allowed to rest, I do not think the delicate cycles that took thousands of years to develop can rejuvenate to fruitful level in the span of a few human generations.

[Felix]

I doubt the issues Juniper raises are being taken serious enough or even present in people's minds to take the action that is both possible and necessary, so we keep sacrificing the natural system we depend on to a too narrowly defined economic growth. People have no connection to nature anymore and live in an artificial advertising bubble instead.

Some light can be seen in the natural decline of birth rates as Dragline pointed it out. My hope is that people will learn it eventually, maybe through some najor disasters as Jacob pointed out. I don't think we can be that stupid forever.

[Felix]

Nature also adapts:
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/artic ... 888603.htm

[workathome]

In sustainability circuits, the question was always: How many Katrinas (major US cities) would it take to change policy? The consensus was 2 or 3. (I suppose Sandy counts as #2).

Does the majority actually associate Katrina/Super storms with man-made problems?