TEDGlobal 2011
Pavan Sukhdev: Put a value on nature!
Filmed:
Readability: 4.7
753,487 views
Every day, we use materials from the earth without thinking, for free. But what if we had to pay for their true value: would it make us more careful about what we use and what we waste? Think of Pavan Sukhdev as nature's banker -- assessing the value of the Earth's assets. Eye-opening charts will make you think differently about the cost of air, water, trees ...
Pavan Sukhdev - Environmental economist
A banker by training, Pavan Sukhdev runs the numbers on greening up -- showing that green economies are an effective engine for creating jobs and creating wealth. Full bio
A banker by training, Pavan Sukhdev runs the numbers on greening up -- showing that green economies are an effective engine for creating jobs and creating wealth. Full bio
Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.
00:15
I'm here to talk to you
0
0
2000
00:17
about the economic invisibility of nature.
1
2000
2000
00:19
The bad news
2
4000
2000
00:21
is that mother nature's back office isn't working yet,
3
6000
2000
00:23
so those invoices don't get issued.
4
8000
2000
00:25
But we need to do something about this problem.
5
10000
3000
00:28
I began my life as a markets professional
6
13000
3000
00:31
and continued to take an interest,
7
16000
3000
00:34
but most of my recent effort
8
19000
2000
00:36
has been looking at the value
9
21000
2000
00:38
of what comes to human beings from nature,
10
23000
2000
00:40
and which doesn't get priced by the markets.
11
25000
3000
00:43
A project called TEEB was started in 2007,
12
28000
3000
00:46
and it was launched by a group of environment ministers
13
31000
3000
00:49
of the G8+5.
14
34000
2000
00:51
And their basic inspiration
15
36000
2000
00:53
was a stern review of Lord Stern.
16
38000
2000
00:55
They asked themselves a question:
17
40000
2000
00:57
If economics could make such a convincing case
18
42000
2000
00:59
for early action on climate change,
19
44000
2000
01:01
well why can't the same be done for conservation?
20
46000
2000
01:03
Why can't an equivalent case be made
21
48000
2000
01:05
for nature?
22
50000
2000
01:07
And the answer is: Yeah, it can.
23
52000
2000
01:09
But it's not that straightforward.
24
54000
2000
01:11
Biodiversity, the living fabric of this planet, is not a gas.
25
56000
3000
01:14
It exists in many layers,
26
59000
2000
01:16
ecosystems, species and genes across many scales --
27
61000
3000
01:19
international, national, local, community --
28
64000
3000
01:22
and doing for nature
29
67000
2000
01:24
what Lord Stern and his team did for nature is not that easy.
30
69000
3000
01:27
And yet, we began.
31
72000
2000
01:29
We began the project with an interim report,
32
74000
2000
01:31
which quickly pulled together
33
76000
2000
01:33
a lot of information that had been collected on the subject
34
78000
3000
01:36
by many, many researchers.
35
81000
2000
01:38
And amongst our compiled results
36
83000
2000
01:40
was the startling revelation
37
85000
2000
01:42
that, in fact, we were losing natural capital --
38
87000
3000
01:45
the benefits that flow from nature to us.
39
90000
2000
01:47
We were losing it at an extraordinary rate --
40
92000
2000
01:49
in fact, of the order of two to four trillion dollars-worth
41
94000
3000
01:52
of natural capital.
42
97000
3000
01:55
This came out in 2008,
43
100000
2000
01:57
which was, of course, around the time that the banking crisis had shown
44
102000
2000
01:59
that we had lost financial capital
45
104000
2000
02:01
of the order of two and a half trillion dollars.
46
106000
2000
02:03
So this was comparable in size to that kind of loss.
47
108000
3000
02:06
We then have gone on since
48
111000
2000
02:08
to present for [the] international community,
49
113000
3000
02:11
for governments,
50
116000
2000
02:13
for local governments and for business
51
118000
2000
02:15
and for people, for you and me,
52
120000
2000
02:17
a whole slew of reports, which were presented at the U.N. last year,
53
122000
3000
02:20
which address the economic invisibility of nature
54
125000
3000
02:23
and describe what can be done to solve it.
55
128000
2000
02:25
What is this about?
56
130000
2000
02:27
A picture that you're familiar with --
57
132000
2000
02:29
the Amazon rainforests.
58
134000
2000
02:31
It's a massive store of carbon, it's an amazing store of biodiversity,
59
136000
3000
02:34
but what people don't really know
60
139000
2000
02:36
is this also is a rain factory.
61
141000
2000
02:38
Because the northeastern trade winds,
62
143000
2000
02:40
as they go over the Amazonas,
63
145000
2000
02:42
effectively gather the water vapor.
64
147000
2000
02:44
Something like 20 billion tons per day of water vapor
65
149000
3000
02:47
is sucked up by the northeastern trade winds,
66
152000
3000
02:50
and eventually precipitates in the form of rain
67
155000
3000
02:53
across the La Plata Basin.
68
158000
2000
02:55
This rainfall cycle, this rainfall factory,
69
160000
3000
02:58
effectively feeds an agricultural economy
70
163000
2000
03:00
of the order of 240 billion dollars-worth
71
165000
2000
03:02
in Latin America.
72
167000
2000
03:04
But the question arises: Okay, so how much
73
169000
3000
03:07
do Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina
74
172000
2000
03:09
and indeed the state of Mato Grosso in Brazil
75
174000
3000
03:12
pay for that vital input to that economy
76
177000
3000
03:15
to the state of Amazonas, which produces that rainfall?
77
180000
3000
03:18
And the answer is zilch,
78
183000
2000
03:20
exactly zero.
79
185000
2000
03:22
That's the economic invisibility of nature.
80
187000
2000
03:24
That can't keep going on,
81
189000
2000
03:26
because economic incentives and disincentives are very powerful.
82
191000
3000
03:29
Economics has become the currency of policy.
83
194000
2000
03:31
And unless we address
84
196000
2000
03:33
this invisibility,
85
198000
2000
03:35
we are going to get the results that we are seeing,
86
200000
2000
03:37
which is a gradual degradation and loss
87
202000
3000
03:40
of this valuable natural asset.
88
205000
2000
03:42
It's not just about the Amazonas, or indeed about rainforests.
89
207000
3000
03:45
No matter what level you look at,
90
210000
2000
03:47
whether it's at the ecosystem level or at the species level or at the genetic level,
91
212000
3000
03:50
we see the same problem again and again.
92
215000
3000
03:53
So rainfall cycle and water regulation by rainforests
93
218000
3000
03:56
at an ecosystem level.
94
221000
2000
03:58
At the species level,
95
223000
2000
04:00
it's been estimated that insect-based pollination,
96
225000
2000
04:02
bees pollinating fruit and so on,
97
227000
3000
04:05
is something like 190 billion dollars-worth.
98
230000
3000
04:08
That's something like eight percent
99
233000
2000
04:10
of the total agricultural output globally.
100
235000
4000
04:14
It completely passes below the radar screen.
101
239000
2000
04:16
But when did a bee actually ever give you an invoice?
102
241000
3000
04:19
Or for that matter, if you look at the genetic level,
103
244000
3000
04:22
60 percent of medicines were prospected,
104
247000
3000
04:25
were found first as molecules in a rainforest or a reef.
105
250000
3000
04:28
Once again, most of that doesn't get paid.
106
253000
2000
04:30
And that brings me to another aspect of this,
107
255000
2000
04:32
which is, to whom should this get paid?
108
257000
3000
04:35
That genetic material
109
260000
2000
04:37
probably belonged, if it could belong to anyone,
110
262000
2000
04:39
to a local community of poor people
111
264000
2000
04:41
who parted with the knowledge that helped the researchers to find the molecule,
112
266000
3000
04:44
which then became the medicine.
113
269000
2000
04:46
They were the ones that didn't get paid.
114
271000
2000
04:48
And if you look at the species level,
115
273000
3000
04:51
you saw about fish.
116
276000
2000
04:53
Today, the depletion of ocean fisheries is so significant
117
278000
3000
04:56
that effectively it is effecting the ability of the poor,
118
281000
4000
05:00
the artisanal fisher folk
119
285000
2000
05:02
and those who fish for their own livelihoods,
120
287000
2000
05:04
to feed their families.
121
289000
2000
05:06
Something like a billion people depend on fish,
122
291000
2000
05:08
the quantity of fish in the oceans.
123
293000
2000
05:10
A billion people depend on fish
124
295000
3000
05:13
for their main source for animal protein.
125
298000
2000
05:15
And at this rate at which we are losing fish,
126
300000
2000
05:17
it is a human problem of enormous dimensions,
127
302000
2000
05:19
a health problem
128
304000
2000
05:21
of a kind we haven't seen before.
129
306000
3000
05:24
And finally, at the ecosystem level,
130
309000
2000
05:26
whether it's flood prevention or drought control provided by the forests,
131
311000
3000
05:29
or whether it is the ability of poor farmers
132
314000
2000
05:31
to go out and gather leaf litter
133
316000
2000
05:33
for their cattle and goats,
134
318000
2000
05:35
or whether it's the ability of their wives
135
320000
2000
05:37
to go and collect fuel wood from the forest,
136
322000
2000
05:39
it is actually the poor
137
324000
2000
05:41
who depend most on these ecosystem services.
138
326000
2000
05:43
We did estimates in our study
139
328000
2000
05:45
that for countries like Brazil, India and Indonesia,
140
330000
3000
05:48
even though ecosystem services --
141
333000
2000
05:50
these benefits that flow from nature to humanity for free --
142
335000
3000
05:53
they're not very big in percentage terms of GDP --
143
338000
2000
05:55
two, four, eight, 10, 15 percent --
144
340000
2000
05:57
but in these countries, if we measure how much they're worth to the poor,
145
342000
3000
06:00
the answers are more like
146
345000
2000
06:02
45 percent, 75 percent, 90 percent.
147
347000
3000
06:05
That's the difference.
148
350000
2000
06:07
Because these are important benefits for the poor.
149
352000
3000
06:10
And you can't really have a proper model for development
150
355000
3000
06:13
if at the same time you're destroying or allowing
151
358000
3000
06:16
the degradation of the very asset, the most important asset,
152
361000
3000
06:19
which is your development asset,
153
364000
2000
06:21
that is ecological infrastructure.
154
366000
2000
06:23
How bad can things get?
155
368000
2000
06:25
Well here a picture of something called the mean species abundance.
156
370000
3000
06:28
It's basically a measure
157
373000
2000
06:30
of how many tigers, toads, ticks or whatever on average
158
375000
2000
06:32
of biomass of various species are around.
159
377000
3000
06:35
The green represents the percentage.
160
380000
2000
06:37
If you start green, it's like 80 to 100 percent.
161
382000
3000
06:40
If it's yellow, it's 40 to 60 percent.
162
385000
2000
06:42
And these are percentages versus the original state, so to speak,
163
387000
2000
06:44
the pre-industrial era, 1750.
164
389000
3000
06:47
Now I'm going to show you
165
392000
2000
06:49
how business as usual will affect this.
166
394000
2000
06:51
And just watch the change in colors
167
396000
2000
06:53
in India, China, Europe,
168
398000
2000
06:55
sub-Saharan Africa
169
400000
2000
06:57
as we move on and consume global biomass
170
402000
3000
07:00
at a rate which is actually not going to be able to sustain us.
171
405000
4000
07:04
See that again.
172
409000
2000
07:06
The only places that remain green -- and that's not good news --
173
411000
2000
07:08
is, in fact, places like the Gobi Desert,
174
413000
3000
07:11
like the tundra and like the Sahara.
175
416000
2000
07:13
But that doesn't help because there were very few species
176
418000
2000
07:15
and volume of biomass there in the first place.
177
420000
2000
07:17
This is the challenge.
178
422000
2000
07:19
The reason this is happening
179
424000
3000
07:22
boils down, in my mind, to one basic problem,
180
427000
3000
07:25
which is our inability to perceive the difference
181
430000
2000
07:27
between public benefits
182
432000
2000
07:29
and private profits.
183
434000
2000
07:31
We tend to constantly ignore public wealth
184
436000
3000
07:34
simply because it is in the common wealth,
185
439000
2000
07:36
it's common goods.
186
441000
2000
07:38
And here's an example from Thailand
187
443000
2000
07:40
where we found that, because the value of a mangrove is not that much --
188
445000
4000
07:44
it's about $600 over the life of nine years that this has been measured --
189
449000
4000
07:48
compared to its value as a shrimp farm,
190
453000
2000
07:50
which is more like $9,600,
191
455000
2000
07:52
there has been a gradual trend to deplete the mangroves
192
457000
3000
07:55
and convert them to shrimp farms.
193
460000
2000
07:57
But of course, if you look at exactly what those profits are,
194
462000
4000
08:01
almost 8,000 of those dollars
195
466000
2000
08:03
are, in fact, subsidies.
196
468000
2000
08:05
So you compare the two sides of the coin
197
470000
3000
08:08
and you find that it's more like 1,200 to 600.
198
473000
2000
08:10
That's not that hard.
199
475000
2000
08:12
But on the other hand, if you start measuring,
200
477000
2000
08:14
how much would it actually cost
201
479000
2000
08:16
to restore the land of the shrimp farm
202
481000
2000
08:18
back to productive use?
203
483000
2000
08:20
Once salt deposition and chemical deposition
204
485000
2000
08:22
has had its effects,
205
487000
2000
08:24
that answer is more like $12,000 of cost.
206
489000
3000
08:27
And if you see the benefits of the mangrove
207
492000
2000
08:29
in terms of the storm protection and cyclone protection that you get
208
494000
3000
08:32
and in terms of the fisheries, the fish nurseries,
209
497000
2000
08:34
that provide fish for the poor,
210
499000
2000
08:36
that answer is more like $11,000.
211
501000
2000
08:38
So now look at the different lens.
212
503000
2000
08:40
If you look at the lens of public wealth
213
505000
2000
08:42
as against the lens of private profits,
214
507000
2000
08:44
you get a completely different answer,
215
509000
2000
08:46
which is clearly conservation makes more sense,
216
511000
3000
08:49
and not destruction.
217
514000
2000
08:51
So is this just a story from South Thailand?
218
516000
3000
08:54
Sorry, this is a global story.
219
519000
2000
08:56
And here's what the same calculation looks like,
220
521000
2000
08:58
which was done recently -- well I say recently, over the last 10 years --
221
523000
3000
09:01
by a group called TRUCOST.
222
526000
2000
09:03
And they calculated for the top 3,000 corporations,
223
528000
2000
09:05
what are the externalities?
224
530000
2000
09:07
In other words, what are the costs of doing business as usual?
225
532000
2000
09:09
This is not illegal stuff, this is basically business as usual,
226
534000
3000
09:12
which causes climate-changing emissions, which have an economic cost.
227
537000
3000
09:15
It causes pollutants being issued, which have an economic cost,
228
540000
3000
09:18
health cost and so on.
229
543000
2000
09:20
Use of freshwater.
230
545000
2000
09:22
If you drill water to make coke near a village farm,
231
547000
2000
09:24
that's not illegal, but yes, it costs the community.
232
549000
2000
09:26
Can we stop this, and how?
233
551000
2000
09:28
I think the first point to make is that we need to recognize natural capital.
234
553000
3000
09:31
Basically the stuff of life is natural capital,
235
556000
3000
09:34
and we need to recognize and build that into our systems.
236
559000
3000
09:37
When we measure GDP
237
562000
2000
09:39
as a measure of economic performance at the national level,
238
564000
2000
09:41
we don't include our biggest asset at the country level.
239
566000
3000
09:44
When we measure corporate performances,
240
569000
2000
09:46
we don't include our impacts on nature
241
571000
2000
09:48
and what our business costs society.
242
573000
2000
09:50
That has to stop.
243
575000
2000
09:52
In fact, this was what really inspired my interest in this phase.
244
577000
3000
09:55
I began a project way back called the Green Accounting Project.
245
580000
2000
09:57
That was in the early 2000s
246
582000
2000
09:59
when India was going gung-ho about GDP growth
247
584000
3000
10:02
as the means forward --
248
587000
2000
10:04
looking at China with its stellar growths of eight, nine, 10 percent
249
589000
2000
10:06
and wondering, why can we do the same?
250
591000
2000
10:08
And a few friends of mine and I
251
593000
2000
10:10
decided this doesn't make sense.
252
595000
2000
10:12
This is going to create more cost to society and more losses.
253
597000
3000
10:15
So we decided to do a massive set of calculations
254
600000
2000
10:17
and started producing green accounts for India and its states.
255
602000
3000
10:20
That's how my interests began
256
605000
2000
10:22
and went to the TEEB project.
257
607000
2000
10:24
Calculating this at the national level is one thing, and it has begun.
258
609000
3000
10:27
And the World Bank has acknowledged this
259
612000
2000
10:29
and they've started a project called WAVES --
260
614000
2000
10:31
Wealth Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services.
261
616000
2000
10:33
But calculating this at the next level,
262
618000
2000
10:35
that means at the business sector level, is important.
263
620000
2000
10:37
And actually we've done this with the TEEB project.
264
622000
2000
10:39
We've done this for a very difficult case,
265
624000
3000
10:42
which was for deforestation in China.
266
627000
2000
10:44
This is important, because in China in 1997,
267
629000
3000
10:47
the Yellow River actually went dry for nine months
268
632000
3000
10:50
causing severe loss of agriculture output
269
635000
2000
10:52
and pain and loss to society.
270
637000
2000
10:54
Just a year later the Yangtze flooded,
271
639000
2000
10:56
causing something like 5,500 deaths.
272
641000
3000
10:59
So clearly there was a problem with deforestation.
273
644000
2000
11:01
It was associated largely with the construction industry.
274
646000
3000
11:04
And the Chinese government responded sensibly
275
649000
2000
11:06
and placed a ban on felling.
276
651000
2000
11:08
A retrospective on 40 years
277
653000
2000
11:10
shows that if we had accounted for these costs --
278
655000
4000
11:14
the cost of loss of topsoil,
279
659000
2000
11:16
the cost of loss of waterways,
280
661000
2000
11:18
the lost productivity, the loss to local communities
281
663000
3000
11:21
as a result of all these factors,
282
666000
2000
11:23
desertification and so on --
283
668000
2000
11:25
those costs are almost twice as much
284
670000
2000
11:27
as the market price of timber.
285
672000
2000
11:29
So in fact, the price of timber in the Beijing marketplace
286
674000
3000
11:32
ought to have been three-times what it was
287
677000
2000
11:34
had it reflected the true pain and the costs
288
679000
3000
11:37
to the society within China.
289
682000
2000
11:39
Of course, after the event one can be wise.
290
684000
3000
11:42
The way to do this is to do it on a company basis,
291
687000
2000
11:44
to take leadership forward,
292
689000
2000
11:46
and to do it for as many important sectors which have a cost,
293
691000
3000
11:49
and to disclose these answers.
294
694000
2000
11:51
Someone once asked me, "Who is better or worse,
295
696000
2000
11:53
is it Unilever or is it P&G
296
698000
2000
11:55
when it comes to their impact on rainforests in Indonesia?"
297
700000
3000
11:58
And I couldn't answer because neither of these companies,
298
703000
2000
12:00
good though they are and professional though they are,
299
705000
2000
12:02
do not calculate or disclose their externalities.
300
707000
3000
12:05
But if we look at companies like PUMA --
301
710000
2000
12:07
Jochen Zeitz, their CEO and chairman,
302
712000
2000
12:09
once challenged me at a function,
303
714000
2000
12:11
saying that he's going to implement my project before I finish it.
304
716000
3000
12:14
Well I think we kind of did it at the same time, but he's done it.
305
719000
3000
12:17
He's basically worked the cost to PUMA.
306
722000
2000
12:19
PUMA has 2.7 billion dollars of turnover,
307
724000
2000
12:21
300 million dollars of profits,
308
726000
2000
12:23
200 million dollars after tax,
309
728000
2000
12:25
94 million dollars of externalities, cost to business.
310
730000
3000
12:28
Now that's not a happy situation for them,
311
733000
2000
12:30
but they have the confidence and the courage
312
735000
2000
12:32
to come forward and say, "Here's what we are measuring.
313
737000
3000
12:35
We are measuring it because we know
314
740000
2000
12:37
that you cannot manage what you do not measure."
315
742000
2000
12:39
That's an example, I think, for us to look at
316
744000
2000
12:41
and for us to draw comfort from.
317
746000
2000
12:43
If more companies did this,
318
748000
2000
12:45
and if more sectors engaged this as sectors,
319
750000
2000
12:47
you could have analysts, business analysts,
320
752000
2000
12:49
and you could have people like us and consumers and NGOs
321
754000
3000
12:52
actually look and compare the social performance of companies.
322
757000
3000
12:55
Today we can't yet do that, but I think the path is laid out.
323
760000
3000
12:58
This can be done.
324
763000
2000
13:00
And I'm delighted that the Institute of Chartered Accountants in the U.K.
325
765000
2000
13:02
has already set up a coalition to do this,
326
767000
2000
13:04
an international coalition.
327
769000
2000
13:06
The other favorite, if you like, solution for me
328
771000
3000
13:09
is the creation of green carbon markets.
329
774000
2000
13:11
And by the way, these are my favorites --
330
776000
2000
13:13
externalities calculation and green carbon markets.
331
778000
2000
13:15
TEEB has more than a dozen separate groups of solutions
332
780000
4000
13:19
including protected area evaluation
333
784000
2000
13:21
and payments for ecosystem services
334
786000
2000
13:23
and eco-certification and you name it, but these are the favorites.
335
788000
3000
13:26
What's green carbon?
336
791000
2000
13:28
Today what we have is basically a brown carbon marketplace.
337
793000
2000
13:30
It's about energy emissions.
338
795000
2000
13:32
The European Union ETS is the main marketplace.
339
797000
2000
13:34
It's not doing too well. We've over-issued.
340
799000
2000
13:36
A bit like inflation: you over-issue currency,
341
801000
2000
13:38
you get what you see, declining prices.
342
803000
3000
13:41
But that's all about energy and industry.
343
806000
3000
13:44
But what we're missing is also some other emissions
344
809000
2000
13:46
like black carbon, that is soot.
345
811000
2000
13:48
What we're also missing is blue carbon,
346
813000
2000
13:50
which, by the way, is the largest store of carbon --
347
815000
2000
13:52
more than 55 percent.
348
817000
2000
13:54
Thankfully, the flux, in other words, the flow of emissions
349
819000
2000
13:56
from the ocean to the atmosphere and vice versa,
350
821000
2000
13:58
is more or less balanced.
351
823000
2000
14:00
In fact, what's being absorbed
352
825000
2000
14:02
is something like 25 percent of our emissions,
353
827000
3000
14:05
which then leads to acidification
354
830000
2000
14:07
or lower alkalinity in oceans.
355
832000
2000
14:09
More of that in a minute.
356
834000
2000
14:11
And finally, there's deforestation,
357
836000
2000
14:13
and there's emission of methane
358
838000
2000
14:15
from agriculture.
359
840000
2000
14:17
Green carbon,
360
842000
2000
14:19
which is the deforestation and agricultural emissions,
361
844000
2000
14:21
and blue carbon
362
846000
2000
14:23
together comprise 25 percent of our emissions.
363
848000
2000
14:25
We have the means already in our hands,
364
850000
2000
14:27
through a structure, through a mechanism, called REDD Plus --
365
852000
2000
14:29
a scheme for the reduced emissions
366
854000
2000
14:31
from deforestation and forest degradation.
367
856000
3000
14:34
And already Norway has contributed a billion dollars each
368
859000
3000
14:37
towards Indonesia and Brazil
369
862000
2000
14:39
to implement this Red Plus scheme.
370
864000
2000
14:41
So we actually have some movement forward.
371
866000
2000
14:43
But the thing is to do a lot more of that.
372
868000
2000
14:45
Will this solve the problem? Will economics solve everything?
373
870000
3000
14:48
Well I'm afraid not.
374
873000
2000
14:50
There is an area that is the oceans, coral reefs.
375
875000
3000
14:53
As you can see,
376
878000
2000
14:55
they cut across the entire globe
377
880000
2000
14:57
all the way from Micronesia
378
882000
2000
14:59
across Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Madagascar
379
884000
3000
15:02
and to the West of the Caribbean.
380
887000
2000
15:04
These red dots, these red areas,
381
889000
2000
15:06
basically provide the food and livelihood
382
891000
2000
15:08
for more than half a billion people.
383
893000
2000
15:10
So that's almost an eighth of society.
384
895000
3000
15:13
And the sad thing is that, as these coral reefs are lost --
385
898000
3000
15:16
and scientists tell us
386
901000
2000
15:18
that any level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere above 350 parts per million
387
903000
3000
15:21
is too dangerous for the survival of these reefs --
388
906000
3000
15:24
we are not only risking the extinction
389
909000
2000
15:26
of the entire coral species, the warm water corals,
390
911000
2000
15:28
we're not only risking a fourth of all fish species which are in the oceans,
391
913000
4000
15:32
but we are risking the very lives and livelihoods
392
917000
2000
15:34
of more than 500 million people
393
919000
3000
15:37
who live in the developing world in poor countries.
394
922000
3000
15:40
So in selecting targets of 450 parts per million
395
925000
3000
15:43
and selecting two degrees at the climate negotiations,
396
928000
3000
15:46
what we have done is we've made an ethical choice.
397
931000
3000
15:49
We've actually kind of made an ethical choice in society
398
934000
3000
15:52
to not have coral reefs.
399
937000
2000
15:54
Well what I will say to you in parting
400
939000
2000
15:56
is that we may have done that.
401
941000
2000
15:58
Let's think about it and what it means,
402
943000
2000
16:00
but please, let's not do more of that.
403
945000
2000
16:02
Because mother nature only has that much
404
947000
2000
16:04
in ecological infrastructure and that much natural capital.
405
949000
3000
16:07
I don't think we can afford too much of such ethical choices.
406
952000
3000
16:10
Thank you.
407
955000
2000
16:12
(Applause)
408
957000
12000
ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Pavan Sukhdev - Environmental economistA banker by training, Pavan Sukhdev runs the numbers on greening up -- showing that green economies are an effective engine for creating jobs and creating wealth.
Why you should listen
In 2008, Sukhdev took a sabbatical from Deutsche Bank, where he'd worked for fifteen years, to write up two massive and convincing reports on the green economy. For UNEP, his “Green Economy Report” synthesized years of research to show, with real numbers, that environmentally sound development is not a bar to growth but rather a new engine for growing wealth and creating employment in the face of persistent poverty. The groundbreaking TEEB (formally “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity”) report counts the global economic benefits of biodiversity. It encourages countries to develop and publish “Natural capital accounts” tracking the value of plants, animal, water and other “natural wealth” alongside traditional financial measures in the hope of changing how decisions are made. In his book, Corporation 2020, he envisions tomorrow’s corporations as agents of an inclusive, green economy. He is now the CEO of Gist Advisory, a sustainability consulting firm.
Pavan Sukhdev | Speaker | TED.com