What an interesting discussion. Is there anyone on the list who can tell us what is government thinking about money and biodiversity?
I recently went to a conference where there was a paper on how much people would be prepared to pay to preserve beaches faced with erosion e.g. because of sea level rise etc (eg. by groynes or “renourishment”) .
And there is more commodification of the environment through vegetation offset/protection schemes like the Victorian ones (Bush Tender/Bush Broker I think) with the recent White Paper making much of the need for private investment to create the vegetation corridors required for biodiversity to adapt to climate change.
I don’t want to bang on about costing ecosystem services (such as reducing salinity or pest damage….) but I believe “we” should clearly be prioritising some public goods like the spiritual and educational values of contacts with nature and its changes over time. And recognising that it costs so much more to recreate damaged systems than to protect them. Great nature reserves are good, but growing people who respect them is more so?
The original human inhabitants of central Australia have managed their land more sustainably than we. I pay them my respects and hope the money goes in sustainable directions.
Michael Norris
