Tracking Profits and Assigning Responsibility

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