To assume that the amount a price rises by is directly proportional to the percentage of the increase a group will receive is not true. These additional price hikes are almost impossible to trace. I did some research and found a TED talk by Pavan Sukhedev, who applies this same concept to nature- trying to put a value on something that is almost impossible to track.
Pavan Sukhdev makes an interesting case
regarding how individuals do not perceive public wealth as a factor when making
the most economically beneficial decision for themselves. His example was in
Thailand, there is an imbalance between shrimp and mangrove farms (9,632 versus
584) because the shrimp farm is significantly more profitable. A tangible value
must be placed on the mangrove farms because the argument that Sukhdev brings
to the audience’s attention is that the weather shielding benefits and other intangible
dividends the mangrove pays to the public are worth more then once person on
group of people using the same land for shrimp production. The overall lesson
brought to light by this situation in Thailand is conservation makes more sense
than destruction because it contributes to public wealth.
Sukhdev mentions that this global
problem could be regulated in the form of higher prices for products. These higher prices are similar to Bos's argument because they cannot be tracked! When most
products are sold globally, earthly damage such as the cost to restore that
piece of land or bit of natural resources are not factored into the cost. If
they were, the price for some commodities like timber would average a price
that is nearly three times as high as it currently is. These higher dollar
amounts are simply restoring the land that the public owns, it does not add
value to a public asset.
If the
Sukhdev highlighted the benefits to a company and the industries reputation by
striving to become more efficient with public resources rather than
economically driven, the underlying impression of the every for-profit would be
more positive. There is a correlation between one’s wealth and how much they
depend on the natural resources. Up to 90% of the people in poverty rely on
public wealth more than individuals who have more money. If these public
resources continue to be depleted without regard to their benefits, there will
be an even greater divide between the rich and the poor worldwide.
http://www.ted.com/talks/pavan_sukhdev_what_s_the_price_of_nature.html