|
|
|
TABLE OF CONTENTSPRELIMINARY REPORT FROM THE MACKENZIE BASIN IMPACT STUDY (MBIS) FINAL WORKSHOP BIODIVERSITY -- WHY SHOULD WE CARE? ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROJECT IS GLOBAL WARMING STILL WORTH A BLIP? THE IAI INTITIAL SCIENCE PROGRAM AND THE IAI START-UP GRANTS HUMAN DIMENSIONS STUDENTSHIP AWARDED BY ROYAL CANADIAN GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY CCP INFO
START OFFERS FELLOWSHIP AND VISITING LECTURER PROGRAMES CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICIANS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT ROYAL SOCIETY MEDAL AWARDED FOR NEW WASTE MANAGEMENT PROCESS |
BIODIVERSITY -- WHY SHOULD WE CARE?Digby McLaren Ottawa, June 10, 1996 — A symposium called Biodiversity — Why Should We Care? was held at the Museum of Nature and organized by the Canadian Global Change Program of the Royal Society of Canada. More than one speaker referred to biological wealth in discussing threats to biodiversity, and I should like to comment on this confusing concept. Standard economic theory depends on a closed system of circular flow of exchange values to which the environment and resources are externalities. No heed is paid to uncosted materials such as water, air, soils, forests, animals and plants, without which the ecosystem would cease to exist, and we too. Attempts to put a cash value on the plants and animals that occur within the ecosphere and that have been found to be of benefit to our species, involve very large sums indeed. These values, however, although of considerable economic importance, may not legitimately be included in a single model with the ecosphere. These plants and animals are in fact in different dimensions of reality, and because of their local or temporary value, appear as commodities. Their overuse increases damage to the ecosystem, and they are economically valued only for as long as they last, or are replaced by synthetics or substitution. This essentially obviates the need to care for the rest of the ecosystem which, having no current cash value, is not noticed. The value of commodities withdrawn from the ecosystem has no connection with their role in, for instance, a forest or marine ecosystem. At the same time extinctions of plants and animals are accelerating, the forests shrink or the seas are impoverished. We cannot compute the value to humans of the many unknown species that disappear and are gone for ever. The real value of the ecosystem is without limit, it is invaluable. I was disappointed that, among the many wise ideas that our speakers addressed, there was little reference to the fundamental causes for the current attack on planetary biodiversity and indeed on the ecosphere as a whole. These are the runaway growth of human population and our use of energy. Population reached one billion early in the last century, and is now almost six, with an annual increase of 100 million. There was a similar surge in energy use which has doubled every 20 years since 1800. The curve has been a true exponential but cannot double again. Empirical facts must replace models. Simple arithmetic is forcing us to face problems that are unique in history, and to which there appear to be no acceptable alternatives. We must become aware of the futility of tackling problems as they arise, piecemeal, while ignoring ultimate causes. I call this the "sustainable development syndrome". These ideas may appear to be a simplistic approach to problems but they are simple. It is not doom-saying to suggest that we should use empirically derived facts to convince the people and the body politic that our actions are bringing about the destruction of our own life-support system.
|