3 ms·
Exactly. We know that the existence of the forest is extremely valuable in its natural state — for carbon capture, biodiversity, etc, but we expect to reap its
by shmageggy 6y ago
Exactly. We know that the existence of the forest is extremely valuable in its natural state — for carbon capture, biodiversity, etc, but we expect to reap its rewards without paying for it. The forest is just as much a natural resource as the oil underneath Saudi Arabia, for example.
FTA:
> "The real problem is cost, because natural palm oil is extremely cheap...”
These kinds of statements are infuriating to me. It’s only cheap because we don’t pay for the negative externalities. If there were a monetary value associated with the forest, destroying it for a monocrop wouldn’t be so cheap. Markets are extremely useful things. We should use them.
- InfiniteRand 6y agoThere are programs that approach deforestation from that perspective. The one that comes to my mind is REDD+ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reducing_emissions_from_deforestation_and_forest_degradation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reducing_emissions_from_defore... These are not uncontroversial, but I think the idea makes sense.
- vram22 6y ago> We know that the existence of the forest is extremely valuable in its natural state — for carbon capture, biodiversity, etc, but we expect to reap its rewards without paying for it. The forest is just as much a natural resource as the oil underneath Saudi Arabia, for example. From this HN thread of two months ago: Egypt has managed to plant trees in the desert usi... check out the influential book - The Forest and The Sea by Marston Bates - that I mentioned: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24820550 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24820550