StudentShare
Contact Us
Sign In / Sign Up for FREE
Search
Go to advanced search...
Free

Monetarization of Environmental Assets - Essay Example

Cite this document
Summary
This essay "Monetarization of Environmental Assets" contains information concerning the issue of monetarization of environmental assets. As the author puts it, most environmental assets today are generally underpriced or free…
Download full paper File format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER95.9% of users find it useful
Monetarization of Environmental Assets
Read Text Preview

Extract of sample "Monetarization of Environmental Assets"

Analysis of The Debate on The Monetarization of Environmental Assets Analysis of The Debate on The Monetarization of Environmental Assets Introduction Most environmental economists today argue that the current global environmental degradation that is being experienced has primarily resulted from the market system’s inability to place the appropriate amount of value on the environment (Ernst, 2009). It is as a result of this factor that most environmental assets today are generally underpriced or free. In addition to this, these assets are also frequently abused, and overused and this has had the effect of causing a significant degree of environmental damage. In an attempt to try and resolve this emerging crisis, it has been proposed that a monetary value should be placed on all the various environmental assets via the aid of some form of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) (Hanley and Barbier, 2009). This approach is seen to make the assumption that the current environmental problems that are being faced globally can successfully be solved via the extension of the market. However, there are those that oppose this proposition and argue that the monetarization of environmental assets is simply a ploy by those in power to try and avoid the need for the implementation of fundamental changes in social institutions and power relationships. This paper will provide a review of some of the social, political and economic arguments that have been presented in respect to the establishment of environmental monetary values. In the traditional economic framework, output is generally regarded to be a function of the factors of production, these are labor, land and capital. Land in this sense assumes the broad definition of all space including the space that is used for cultivation in the fields, for building, as well as for natural resources such as water bodies and forests (Hall and Liberman, 2008). Humanity has always treated the various land-related natural resources as a given, to be wantonly used for overall human benefit with very little regard to the general sustainability of that use. In addition to this, economic growth is regarded by most government to be of most importance and little to no attention is usually give to the impact that this growth will have on the environment or the overall sustainability of the resource base (Andre et al., 2004). While this approach was reasonable in the past, the industrial revolution and its associated effects such as increased rate of population growth started to cause a substantial degree of human impact on the environment. Over the past two centuries, it has become increasingly clear to most environmentalists that human impacts on the environment are irreversible and this might eventually limit the ability of humans to continue thriving on the planet (Khalil, 1999). Over a period spanning through the last three decades, there has been a global concern over this problem and the search is currently underway for the establishment of strategies that will aid in the minimization of human impacts on the environment while at the same time improving the quality of life of the billions of people that are currently living in abject poverty across the globe. It is in a bid to try and effect a possible resolution to this crisis that the monetization of environmental assets via some form of CBA has been proposed. What is Cost Benefit Analysis? Cost-benefit analysis is generally a comparison of the various increases in human wellbeing (benefits) and the reductions that humanity experiences in social welfare (costs) as applied to a given policy or action. In this regard, for a given policy or project to be able to qualify as being viable as based on cost-benefit grounds, its total social benefits must be found to exceed its total social costs. Whereas cost-benefit analysis is usually conducted for specific project, the scope of this analysis can easily be extended to wider limits such as the assessment of the polices that have been designed to aid in the combating of climate change (OECD, 2007). The growing concerns over the environmental have caused several governments to now require that all new environmental measures or regulations should be subjected to a cost-benefit analysis. An example of this is that in the United States, all the new regulations that affect the environment and have an annual cost that is found to be in excess of $100 million must be subjected to a CBA. Canada has also adopted the use of similar measures as all new environmental regulatory proposals that have an estimated total present value that is greater than $50 million are require to have a CBA. The same measures are seen to have been adopted by the European Union as all EU-financed projects are required to be accompanied by a CBA (OECD, 2007). Arguments in Support of Monetarizing the Environment using CBA One of the arguments that is often presented in support of the monetarization of environmental assets using CBA is that the field of economics is primarily focused on increasing efficiency by obtaining the most desirable results from the fewest resources. A cost-benefit analysis is able to successfully increase efficiency by ensuring that regulations affecting the environment are only adopted in the event that their benefits happen to exceed costs (Ahmed & Gotoh). In addition to this, proponents argue that a cost benefit analysis can aid in directing the attention of regulators to those problems for which intervention by these regulators will yield the greatest level of net benefit. Most governments often tend to issue environmental rules and regulations that are insanely expensive and completely out of proportion to their innate benefits (Fisher et al., 2013). By using a cost-benefit analysis, it will be possible to screen all the proposed regulations and in the process successfully tackle this problem. The massive estimates of regulatory costs and benefits have grown to become rather ubiquitous in most political debates affecting environmental law and it is important to implement the use of CBA’s to correctly analyze the impact of these laws (Ackerman and Heinzerling, 2002). Another argument that is used by supporters of the use of CBA in the placing of monetary value on environmental assets is that the use of CBA can aid in the production of a better regulatory process that is found to be more objective, transparent and accountable to the public. The use of a cost-benefit analysis demands that that the decision-makers are transparent and that they reveal all the uncertainties and assumptions that are reflected in their final decisions (Hanley, 2013). Arguments in Opposition to the monetarization of Environmental Assets using CBA One of the oppositions to the use of CBA in the monetarization of environmental assets is that while a cost-benefit analysis might be thought to be a progressive and enlightened development that attempts to take into account some benefits and costs that might be altogether be otherwise disregarded, it is nevertheless a procedure by which the priceless is given a price and the higher is reduced to the level of the lower. As such by using a monetarized CBA to assess the environment, it is not possible to correctly estimate the actual value of an environmental asset and use these values to formulate enlightened policies (Olsson and sjötedt, 2004). In the same vein, opponents of the monetarization of environmental assets point out that it is nearly impossible to determine the value of a particular species or habitat in the environment (Bower, 1990). The results of a cost-benefit analysis can never be able to justify the making of a decision that will allow for the extinction or survival for a given species or eco-system (Beder, 1997). Another argument that has been presented criticizing the use of CBA methods in the valuation of the environment is that these methods are completely centered on humans and never take into account the preferences of the other living creatures that share the concerned eco-system (Beder, 2013). Economists attempting to value the environment can only define their findings in respect to the value of the exchange that will occur between humans. This is not acceptable to environmentalists as it considered to be deeply arrogant in that it actually denies other living organisms any intrinsic value that might happen to lie outside of their value to the humans conducting the assessment. The use of CBA in the valuation of the environment has been criticized as unsuitable based on the argument that actions affecting the environment should not be regarded as acceptable just because the political and social benefits of these actions are calculated to outweigh its cost. An example of this is that slavery and child labor are still immoral even if the economic advantages of these practices to the whole society significantly outweigh the cost of the practices to some individuals. Attempting to put a price on nature is considered to be quite abhorrent by most individuals and has been likened to attempting to put a price on aspects such as friendship, freedom and family (Hogl, 2012). It is seen to represent a gradual creeping of economics and the market into a unique area of life that has traditionally been considered to be well above material concerns. The assigning of values to environmental assets is perceived by those opposed to this practice to be a legitimization of processes that will wipe out these resources. Opponents of the monetization of environmental assets observe that environmental questions have traditionally been determined by the political process and that the government has always levied taxes that go towards the provision of public goods and environmental protection. Tasking the government with the responsibility of protecting the environment makes it possible for everyone to share in the cost of protecting the environment based on individual income. Conclusion While some environmentalists support the move towards the monetarization of environmental assets in the hope that this will aid in the shifting of priorities back to that emerging environmental concerns, others remain opposed to this move and argue that the pricing of the environment is simply a means via which environmental issues can be incorporated into economic concerns and that the priority will still remain with the eventual economic bottom line. Of note however is that despite the raging debate, economists have now woken up to the importance of environmental assets and resources and are keen to try and aid in the maintenance of this resource in a similar manner to that which other resources such as capital and labor are maintained. As highlighted in this paper, although the debate on the monetarization of environmental resources is still ongoing, environmental protection has now become an integral part of public policies at the local, national and global levels (Pearce et al., 2006). It is imperative for all countries to work together at reaching a final decision as to whether environmental assets should be monetarized, and if not, they should formulate an effective global environmental protection plan as this will have a lasting impact on all environmental assets. Failure to do this will endorse the current global environmental degradation that will ultimately result in the earth’s inability to support life. References Top of Form Ackerman, F., and Heinzerling, L. (2002). Pricing the priceless: Cost-benefit analysis of environmental protection. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1553-1584. Ahmed, S. U., & Gotoh, K. (2006). Cost-benefit analysis of environmental goods by applying the contingent valuation method: Some Japanese case studies. Tokyo: Springer. André, P., Delisle, C. E., & Revéret, J.-P. (2004). Environmental assessment for sustainable development: Processes, actors and practice. Montréal: Presses internationales Polytechnique. Beder, S. (1997). The environment goes to market. Democracy and Nature, 3, 90-106. Beder, S. (2013). Environmental principles and policies: an interdisciplinary introduction. Routledge. Bowers, J. (1990). Economics of the environment: the conservationists response to the Pearce Report. British Association of Nature Conservationists (BANC). Ernst, H. R. (2009). Fight for the Bay: Why a dark green environmental awakening is needed to save the Chesapeake Bay. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Fisher, E., Lange, B., & Scotford, E. (2013). Environmental law: Text, cases, and materials. Hall, R. E., & Lieberman, M. (2008). Microeconomics: Principles and applications. Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western. Hanley, N., & Barbier, E. (2009). Pricing nature: Cost-benefit analysis and environmental policy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Hanley, N., Shogren, J. F., & White, B. (2013). Introduction to Environmental Economics. Hogl, K. (2012). Environmental governance: The challenge of legitimacy and effectiveness. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar. Khalil, S. (1999). The Economic Value of The Environment: Cases from South Asia. IUNC. OECD. (2007). Policy Brief: Assessing Environmental Policies. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/env/tools-evaluation/38208236.pdf Olsson, M.-O., & Sjöstedt, G. (2004). Systems approaches and their application: Examples from Sweden. Boston, Mass: Kluwer Academic. Pearce, D., Atkinson, G., Mourato, S., and Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques. (2006). Cost-benefit analysis and the environment: Recent developments. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Singh, L. K. (2008). Ecology, environment and tourism. Delhi: Isha Books. Bottom of Form 1. Top of Form 2. Bottom of Form Read More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
  • CHICAGO
(“Monetarization of Environmental Assets Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words”, n.d.)
Monetarization of Environmental Assets Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words. Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/environmental-studies/1701669-monetarization-of-environmental-assets
(Monetarization of Environmental Assets Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 Words)
Monetarization of Environmental Assets Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 Words. https://studentshare.org/environmental-studies/1701669-monetarization-of-environmental-assets.
“Monetarization of Environmental Assets Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/environmental-studies/1701669-monetarization-of-environmental-assets.
  • Cited: 0 times

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF Monetarization of Environmental Assets

Non-Current Assets

Non-current assets Contents Introduction 3 Differences in accounting treatment 3 Conclusion 6 References 7 Introduction IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment analyze the treatment of accounting for most types of property, equipments as well as plants.... Differences in accounting treatment The accounting standard of IAS 16 refers to the tangible noncurrent assets as property, plant and equipment and identifies that they hold a physical substance which can be used for delivery of goods or services or for purposes of administration....
4 Pages (1000 words) Essay

Integrating Environmental Factors into Life Cycle Costing

It enables the entity to choose “the most beneficial procurement strategy”, offers incentives to suppliers and establish long – term mutual beneficial relationships with them, choosing the optimal solutions for the entity, formulating effective (and realistic) budgets and, generally, effectively controlling the project and/or the acquisition of the assets (p.... Although the LCC is a methodology to gather the costs for further analysis and monitoring, it is inevitable that LCC will also be looked at as a possible means to solve the environmental issues faced by the world today....
10 Pages (2500 words) Research Paper

Price and Risk Factors of Toxic Assets

Gordon (2010) asserts, “Toxic assets are, mostly, the investments backed by risky subprime mortgages that are held by the larger U.... hellip; The price of toxic assets at which they are acquired do not reflect the real value of the assets, which results in increasing the risk factor associated with the toxic assets.... Some of the major risks associated with the toxic assets include minimization of banks' liquidity, Toxic assets are also known as dead assets because they have been utilized in the past and they are of no more value at present....
6 Pages (1500 words) Essay

The Performance of Mutual Funds in the UK and US

Bootstrap method has become an efficient technique to make statistical inferences and examining the performance of mutual funds is one of… The main advantages of using this methodology include assistance in doing accurate statistical analysis and assistance in complex financial calculations....
4 Pages (1000 words) Essay

Assets and Risk Management

Hazard identification aims at determining the qualitative nature of the dormant negative impacts of the contaminants and the ability of the evidence that it can affect.... The assessment is usually done for hazards related to chemicals, which involves other disciplines in their… The method aims at determining the quantity of contaminants that will be received by individuals and the population as a whole....
3 Pages (750 words) Assignment

Assess Asset allocation decision and security selection strategies

Immunization in the context of bond portfolio refers to an approach which matches the period of the firm's assets and liabilities with a view of reducing the effect of interest rates on the total net worth of the firm.... The short term bonds have the least standard deviation which implies that the asset has a lower risk as compared to others and although it is the fund with the least expected return the level of volatility will be reduced as desired by Ahmed. The expected return and the… deviation of the combined portfolio justify the answer in part 3 in the sense that it has a high expected return and a low standard deviation as compared to the current portfolio. If the investor expects a share move up in the market an arbitrage process will take place such at he will sell the ownership of the undervalued shares that he holds, borrow loan at an interest rate equivalent to his shareholding in that firm and then buy shares of equivalent proportion in the market....
3 Pages (750 words) Assignment

Discussion on intangible assets

The assets are classified into two categories namely limited intangible assets and unlimited intangible assets.... Limited intangible… include patents, copyrights, goodwill, reputation, and intellectual property while unlimited intangible assets include trademarks and business methodologies (Abdallah, 2004).... Despite their nature, the assets are of significance to companies as they influence or contribute to Decision on intangible assets Concerns about intangible assets Intangible assets are resources with over year useful life but haveno definite value and physical substance as compared to tangible assets....
1 Pages (250 words) Essay

Environmental Life Cycle Thinking and the Circular Economy

This term paper "environmental Life Cycle Thinking and the Circular Economy" discusses the life cycle thinking and the circular economy that is discussed in 5 major parts that is an introduction, the reason for the life cycle thinking, approaches to it, impact on other stakeholders, and lastly, conclusion.... ife cycle thinking refers to an approach where we become conscious of the environmental impact that we create in our daily life.... Therefore, according to life cycle thinking, industries are supposed to formulate and adopt environmental policies that take care of the disposal of such waste caused by the consumption of their products....
14 Pages (3500 words) Term Paper
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.
Contact Us