Why (not) price nature?

A few remarks on today's debate on economic valuation of ecosystem services, here in Wageningen:

• Having two non-economists as the only speakers in a debate on economic valuation of ecosystem services led to the usual misconceptions of economics, some if which I will explain below.
• I have written most of what I can say about the issue in this post.
• In my three-species typology in that post, Dolf de Groot is a typical pragmatic ecologist: he literally called valuation "a necessary evil."
• The same typology might label Bram Büscher (a sociologist) a hardcore ecologist, but actually his arguments were more of a Marxist critique of economics and capitalism than of a moral nature (intrinsic value 'n all). In short his argument is that ecosystem degradation is caused by the logic of capitalism; pricing nature perpetuates that logic rather than abolishing it.
• De Groot claimed that "conventional economists ignore most externalities, like ecosystem degradation." As a conventional environmental economist, who has been working on nothing else for the past ten years than externalities and other market failures, and who meets hundreds of similar economists every year at the meetings of EAERE, AERE, IIFET, BIOECON, and so on, I found this very strange to hear, to put it mildly.
• Another statement by De Groot was that unlike pricing, valuing "is not about substitution." Economic valuation is ALWAYS about substitution. If you don't like the idea that people can be compensated for ecological degradation, don't do valuation. De Groot wants to have his cake and eat it too.
• It is a more general problem I have with the so-called 'ecological economists': a lot of their valuation work is poorly thought through, poorly executed, and done from a political agenda rather than out of scientific curiosity.
• Common mistakes by ecological economists are (1) not properly defining what they measure (like doing a stated preference survey among tourists to measure indirect use values); (2) aggregating values to such a scale that prices are bound to change (the most fundamental critique of Costanza et al.'s 1997 paper); (3) treating economic values like they would treat biophysical variables such as temperature or density (which are not context-dependent while economic value depends on what question you are asking).
• Büscher repeated the Suzuki fallacy that "externality" means "not part of the economic system"
• Büscher "did not have time" to propose an alternative to the capitalist system. Perhaps he should have a look at the historical alternatives to capitalism and their wonderful impact on the environment.
• Büscher quoted a Chinese philosopher (probably Sun Tzu) that "if you can get your enemy to speak your language you have won the battle" or something in that spirit. I don't agree. Economists study the rules of market allocation (property rights, taxation, and so on) to understand where such rules work and where they don't. This would suggest that our advice would always favour big business. But being market-friendly is not the same as being business-friendly.
• I'm in favour of pricing ecosystem services, but only in the context of concrete policy decisions, in a proper cost-benefit analysis that is part of a wider policy-making process that also takes into account other considerations besides economic value (such as intrinsic value, distribution of effects, and so on). Don't try to estimate the total value of the planet, as Costanza did.

Why economists argue with ecologists (5): The Suzuki fallacy

I quit smoking when I was about 30 years old. It is an unhealthy habit, of course, but I also disliked the idea of being dependent on my stock of tobacco. One of the few things I miss about smoking, however, is the excuse to go outside during a break and have a fag and a chat with a few likeminded nicotinists. So occasionally I go outside with the addicts and have the chat without the fag.

I did this a while ago with an ecologist who started a long complaint about economists' ignorance of the limits of our planet. Economists, he claimed, refer to environmental problems as 'externalities': they think the environment is external, i.e. irrelevant, to the economy. I tried to convince him how he misunderstood what externalities are, pointing to his sigarette. It may be his own choice to light a cigarette, or something between him and his dealer to buy a pack of cigarettes, but I also had to inhale his smoke. The damage that he thus inflicted on me was a negative externality: a cost that did not show up on his mental 'balance sheet'. Perhaps, if he had to pay a tax for each of my lost lung cells he would have made a different choice. (You know what they say: nobody is purer than an ex-prostitute.)

I doubt whether I convinced him, but in any case his comment had me thinking. Where did he get this ludricous idea that the economic term 'externality' means 'irrelevant'? After all, every introductory microeconomics book has a chapter on how externalities are a form of market failure. Then I saw the following clip:

My toes still cringe when I watch this - it's just too embarrassing. When he talks about ecosystem services:

All of the things that nature does for us, for nothing. Pollination, for example, or a forest that takes carbon dioxide out of the air and puts oxygen back in, or that holds the soil and prevent erosion.

That's the point where I would have expected an explanation that these services are unpriced, and that we should make those services visible in the market place. For instance, by putting a price on them in public decisions, or by levying environmental taxes, or through paying the owners of the ecosystems for the services they provide. But somehow he got it into his head that

All those services that nature performs, economists call them "externalities". And what that means is: "they got nothing to do with the economy. We don't put a price on them, they are irrelevant."

The speaker, David Suzuki, is a famous environmentalist. He should know his stuff, but he is making these statements without a single speck of irony, and apparently he has been doing this for years. Of course there is lots of nonsense spouted on the internet and you don't have to react to everything, but people like my smoking ecologist listen to David Suzuki. I don't mind criticism of economic theory, in fact I think a lot can be improved. The nice thing about interdisciplinary work is that you learn not just about the contents of other disciplines, but also their way of doing science. And this reflects back on your own discipline. But such cooperation is not helped if people start spreading this kind of prejudice and misunderstanding about one of the fields involved.