The Rio+20 summit focused too much greener ways to calculate wealth and GDP. - Slate Magazine
I really like Slate, but it is unclear to me why they pay this guy. He seems to completely misunderstand the idea behind green accounting, and presents the reader with the hackneyed "development versus conservation" dichotomy. He also misrepresents, or misunderstands his own examples.
Worst of all, he's a Political Scientist. For the record, folks, this kind of polemical writing is not Political Science. I'm not sure what it is--certainly not economics, and really not journalism, either.
As luck would have it, Lomborg uses Kampala as an example of green-accounting gone bad. He notes that the World Bank encouraged Uganda to conserve the Nakivubo Swamp, a large wetland adjacent to the city, because the swamp functions to clean the sewage and grey water that runs into it. The city has, thus far, decided to conserve the swamp...
But there is also a significant risk of political misuse of such information. Kampala’s decision-makers decided to protect the area. In other words, they rejected ever considering alternative possibilities for the area.
Green campaigners often seek such outcomes, but they are entirely unjustified. The swamp is close to the city center and its industrial center, and there is a land shortage in Kampala. In all likelihood, the net benefits of job creation and economic growth that could result from creating a new district (in place of the swamp) would be dramatically higher than the $1.75 million. There is a reason why few large, rich cities, if any, have undeveloped wetlands in their midst.
Of course, this is nonsense. I suspect that Lomborg has never been here in Kampala. Otherwise, it would be clear to him that this sprawling metropolis has no "land shortage." Instead, the city sprawls. And there is really nothing particularly desirable about the Nakivubo area, which is miles from the city center. To the extent that it is difficult to buy land, the reason is not because land is not available, but because mechanisms for land titling are weak, land is often purchased and left undeveloped (for money laundering and tax evasion purposes), and because land ownership institutions in general are uncertain. Paving over a swamp is not going to fix these problems.
He compares the Nakivubo conservation policy to an alternative which involves the construction of a sewage treatment plant, which he implicitly assumes would be built, would operate, and would be maintained effectively over time.
In a place like Kampala, where we seem to get power outages a couple times a day, where the city regularly floods because the storm drains are clogged with trash, where it takes years for the city to build roads that should be constructed in months, this is not the appropriate comparison.
Most likely, uncontrolled development would wipe out the Nakivubo wetland, no treatment facility would be built, or if it were built, it would operate intermittently and ineffectively, and sewage would make people sick. It would also likely ruin inshore fisheries in Lake Victoria. And the cost of these problems would be much higher than the $1.75 million/year that Lomborg cites. Of course, these costs would fall disproportionately on the poor. In short, the same problems that have caused Lomborg's "land shortage" would mean his policy prescription would be a failure.
Lomborg assumes that by allowing development on the wetland, Kampala will develop more quickly. Never mind that an absence of land is not a major obstacle to Uganda's economic development, while the lack of human capital--an educated, healthy workforce--is.
In the developed world, we tend to think in these kinds of terms--development versus conservation--because we already enjoy a pretty clean environment. We don't have problems with lung infections because our air is so dirty, we don't get ringworm or other parasites because our water isn't clean, and we don't miss work or school because we're sick from our exposure to chemical fertilizers and pesticides. But to most people in the developed world, environmental conservation and public health can't be separated. They care about conservation precisely because environmental degradation makes them poorer.
Conservation, in most cases, is not an obstacle to economic development. It is a way to economic development.
Of course, this is nonsense. I suspect that Lomborg has never been here in Kampala. Otherwise, it would be clear to him that this sprawling metropolis has no "land shortage." Instead, the city sprawls. And there is really nothing particularly desirable about the Nakivubo area, which is miles from the city center. To the extent that it is difficult to buy land, the reason is not because land is not available, but because mechanisms for land titling are weak, land is often purchased and left undeveloped (for money laundering and tax evasion purposes), and because land ownership institutions in general are uncertain. Paving over a swamp is not going to fix these problems.
He compares the Nakivubo conservation policy to an alternative which involves the construction of a sewage treatment plant, which he implicitly assumes would be built, would operate, and would be maintained effectively over time.
In a place like Kampala, where we seem to get power outages a couple times a day, where the city regularly floods because the storm drains are clogged with trash, where it takes years for the city to build roads that should be constructed in months, this is not the appropriate comparison.
Most likely, uncontrolled development would wipe out the Nakivubo wetland, no treatment facility would be built, or if it were built, it would operate intermittently and ineffectively, and sewage would make people sick. It would also likely ruin inshore fisheries in Lake Victoria. And the cost of these problems would be much higher than the $1.75 million/year that Lomborg cites. Of course, these costs would fall disproportionately on the poor. In short, the same problems that have caused Lomborg's "land shortage" would mean his policy prescription would be a failure.
Lomborg assumes that by allowing development on the wetland, Kampala will develop more quickly. Never mind that an absence of land is not a major obstacle to Uganda's economic development, while the lack of human capital--an educated, healthy workforce--is.
In the developed world, we tend to think in these kinds of terms--development versus conservation--because we already enjoy a pretty clean environment. We don't have problems with lung infections because our air is so dirty, we don't get ringworm or other parasites because our water isn't clean, and we don't miss work or school because we're sick from our exposure to chemical fertilizers and pesticides. But to most people in the developed world, environmental conservation and public health can't be separated. They care about conservation precisely because environmental degradation makes them poorer.
Conservation, in most cases, is not an obstacle to economic development. It is a way to economic development.
No comments:
Post a Comment