Pavan Sukhdev’s TED Talk[1] is about the current economic invisibility of nature and nature system services. He argues that economics made a great case for early action to combat climate change, and that a proper valuation of nature and natural capital will result in a drastic change to economic decision making. Natural capital is being lost at an alarming rate, and no one is pricing the cost of the degradation and loss of natural capital into their decision making analysis. This loss of natural capital creates problems at every level, from ecosystem level, to the species level and even the genetic level. Upon closer inspection the poor are paying a heavy price for this loss of capital. While the value of this natural capital would make up only about 8% of a country's GDP, it is anywhere from 40-70% of annual income for the poor.

Pavan argues in favor of a green carbon market that values not just brown carbon, energy from industry and energy production, but also black carbon, blue carbon and green carbon. He shows that by incorporating the value of these other forms of carbon, carbon sequestration of forests and biomass in the oceans, into economic benefit cost analysis will result in a drastic change into economic decision making. This would identify externalities and bring them into the market to better determine social costs across the market making them more efficient for everyone.

When all of the facts are not known, people make inefficient decisions. Choosing 2 degrees Celsius and 450 ppm for climate change goals is choosing a world without coral reefs and the fish and human life that depends on their existence. Only through building proper valuation of natural capital into markets can economists reduce the externalities and help decision makers to make better ethical decisions.

I agree with Sukhdev’s propositions that including natural capital into economic decision making is key to sustainable future that is equitable across socio-economic classes. However, I think it is important that we move beyond the arguments and into the action phase. The argument for ecosystem valuation in economics has been going on in earnest since 1966[2] but we have not seen enough action in the last 50+ years[3]. The current way of doing business is not ecologically efficient, and research suggests that the current valuation of natural capital is not providing maximum ecosystem services to our communities[4].

In an effort to maximize the value of ecosystem services across socioeconomic levels policies should dictate investment in the restoration of natural capital. By providing a more visible value to the natural capital decision makers can craft policy and make decisions to preserve, protect, and defend our wild places. We have to move beyond a world that looks at growing consumption as a mark of progress and look to a world that values the economics of the ecological systems. This new world will be more equitable and just, able to meet the needs of everyone regardless of their place in the world, their race, gender or species[5]. In this new world we will once again find a way to live in harmony with the natural world, rather than in opposition to it.
________________
[1] Sukhdev, Pavan. “Put a Value on Nature!” TED. Accessed January 19, 2020. https://www.ted.com/talks/pavan_sukhdev_put_a_value_on_nature/details?language=en#t-1086150.
[2] Boulding, Kenneth. "E., 1966, the economics of the coming spaceship earth." New York (1966).
[3] Costanza, Robert. “Ecological Economics in 2049: Getting beyond the Argument Culture to the World We All Want.” Ecological Economics 168 (2020): 106484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106484.
[4] Ghofrani, Zahra, Victor Sposito, and Robert Faggian. “Maximising the Value of Natural Capital in a Changing Climate Through the Integration of Blue-Green Infrastructure.” Journal of Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems 8, no. 1 (2020): 213–34. https://doi.org/10.13044/j.sdewes.d7.0279.
[5] Costanza, Robert. “Ecological Economics in 2049: Getting beyond the Argument Culture to the World We All Want.” Ecological Economics 168 (2020): 106484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106484.