Prevention costs
Benjamin Franklin was an 18th-century American politician and scientist.
Having made multiple contributions to humanity, his trajectory highlights that experiment using a comet during a storm in which he demonstrated that the clouds are loaded with electricity and that the rays are electric discharges.
Thanks to this research he designed the pararraios.
However, a monetary circumstance gave its face fame and international knowledge, as its figure is stamped on the notes of greater circulation in the United States since 1969.
In the same way as the phrase titled this article, Franklin defined his:
“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of healing”
Considering that an ounce is just over 28 grams and a pound, more than 453, the concept puts the opportunity to prevent as much as avoiding indesist facts, as referred to economic efforts in the face of one or another of the alternatives.
As for environmental policy, in the face of the effects of global warming, we observe how, even under the idea that it is preventive actions, we find healing more than preventing, and thus facing risks and costs inefficiently, wasting some opportunities.
Global climate financing reached US$632 billion in 2020, as it relates to the need for funds designed to meet greenhouse gas reduction commitments undertaken by nations, organizations and corporations under the Paris Agreement, should exceed US$4 billion, i.e. only 15% of what should be invested.
51% of these funds are provided by the public sector, both international financial institutions for development and banks and programs that offer in each of the countries, while 49% remainder is solventd by the private sector, within which corporations, banks and families are included.
In addition to the financial instruments used, most of them are intended for the generation of renewable energies, research and development of equipment that make energy consumption, solar panels, or electric cars more efficient.
Very little is intended for the conservation of scarce natural pressures that contribute to carbon fixation, water regulation and biodiversity maintenance that provides balance and sustainability on the planet, fundamental to all human activities, including the economy.
Only 10% of the total funds intended to fund the effects of climate change are intended for conservation projects, it is more, if we do a thinner study of the case, with regard to the effective care of forests, forests or natural mangroves, it is less, because many of the projects focus on reforesting or recovering erosionated lands.
Freising with the dismantling of the “bulmões of the planet” is part of the most economic and simple preventive actions to perform.
Just imagine the effort that represent changing the productive processes, the energy matrices, the uses and customs in the transport or the way the products are packaged, against stopping intervening against the natural, just accompanying.
What is the reason why society is more prepared to heal than to prevent climate?
There's a single answer. “The business”.
If we look at each of the projects and products financed by the funds to reduce global warming, we will always find a profitable economic activity behind each of them.
Making electric cars, solar panels or generating renewable energies for families are profitable economic activities.
If we understand by economic activity the whole process by which value is added, without a doubt, the jungles and natural forests, were the first productive units that existed on earth.
Its provisions, encompassed within the so-called ecosystem services, are prior to the activities carried out by men, such as agriculture or livestock, but also constitute a primary economic activity which, like others, must be measured, rewarded and sustained.
All the activities that man has developed since the beginning of time have been subsidized by those who have kept and avoided compensation for keeping among their assets “unproductive lands”.
In fact, there are no unproductive lands, all produce something, only that in the case of ecosystem services there is no price to the valuable contributions they provide.
It is likely that the interests of economics and ecology find a meeting point, offering markets something more than a question of survival, but rather a business.
How many units of ecosystem services will be worth a barrel of oil?
Comments