Putting price on nature what’s wrong

Insert Surname 6

Puttingprice on nature: what’s wrong

Pricingthe ecosystem concept services and allowing them to be sold andbought has gained widespread acceptance among the conservationist inthe recent years. The services to the ecosystem are not a phrase thatcan stir the imagination of the human beings.The old style protection presents that nature has failed to stop thedestruction of dwindling species and habitats. It has massivelyfailed since the scientific and philosophical arguments rarelypromise the jobs and trump profits. In essence, the conservationistcannot put sufficient money to meet the commercial interests. Themarket value of the ecosystem was a way of a reminder to people ofwhat was lost in the process benefits like water conservation,conservation of rhino horns, reducing carbon sequestration. It thendawns that by making it feasible for the people to buy and sell theservices means that we would save the world and make a profit at thesame time. The paper aims to discuss what went wrong when nature wasput to price in regards to water conservation and rhino, globalwarming and what happens at the end of trading places.

RhinoHorns and Clean water


Havingclean water has been a problem in many parts of the world more soKenya. Children die of diarrhoea that is contracted from dirty water.So having fresh water in the developing countries has been a priorityfor the conservationist for a long time. Nevertheless, it has been ahard problem to solve. Water derived from the well is oftencontaminated. Water can be contaminated when a family uses a dirtycontainer or uses dirty cups to take water. The problems can besolved by adding chlorine that keeps water free from germs.Nevertheless, very few people buy chlorine. Thus, by putting a priceon nature means that people have failed to do the things that theyare supposed to do, and it has taken a long time to ensure thateveryone has clean water (Andersonand Terry 84).


Thecollapse of rhino populations has happened in the recent past. Longago, there were parts especially in Kenya where a person could notwalk since a Rhino could attack he/she. Nevertheless, nowadays, thereare very few in that we can give them names.Human beings have priced the underlying reason for Rhinos to be veryfew. The extinction of the rhinos is a consequence of failure in thepolicy. Some people believe that human ingenuity can save the natureinhabitants from destruction (Eustaceand M. I. C. H. A. E. L 101).

Oneof the wrong ideas of rhino extinction is the captive breeding whererhinos fail to breed in captivity. Conservationist took the decisionto have a captive breeding program. More than 40 animals in the 80swere captured and moved to reserves and zoos. No rhino was born thenand by the end of the century, most animals had died of disease. Testtube rhino babies are another bad idea where we have a handful ofageing rhinos in the zoos. Some conservationist fantasizes of hightechnology solution using cloning techniques of Jurassic Park style,but this could be a scandalous waste of money that would be spent toother conservation initiatives (Eustaceand M. I. C. H. A. E. L 104).The policies to have control in poaching have not been effective inthe face of prices fuelled by South East Asia demand.

EddieMurphy Rule

Intoday’s show, at the end of trading places, there are many thingsthat happen.For instance, in the conservation of the environment, it is evidentthat people have always bribed at the expense of nature. In essence,the rising tide of enthusiasm for payment of the ecosystem haselicited criticism and alarm. For instance, in Britain, thegovernment had planned to sell the national forests but later abandonthe idea when they faced opposition from the public. Assuming thatthe old style of conserving the environment is a mistake where thetraditional conservationist protected the environment from intrinsicvalue(Conniff).

Nevertheless,the ecosystem services are hard to price. Putting a price on theecosystem argues of whom has the right to sell the environment. If agiven system pay landowners, they may not plant genetically improvedor non-native species trees to bank the carbon faster. The effect ofclimate change could toss the constructed schemes of economics andnatural habitats to disarray. Thus, embracing the services of theecosystem does mean leaving the argument that habitats and specieshave intrinsic value but having economic case resonates well for thedecision makers(Conniff).

Puttinga price on the ecosystem may encourage greener policies but there issomething wrong in pricing conservation since assigning quantitativevalue to nature does not lead to retention and may, in fact, lead toloss and conflict of species. Unequal access to monetary benefits ofthe ecosystem particularlywhere there is the difference in power and wealth can amount to poortradeoffs both for the ecosystem and those relying on it. Thus,putting a price on nature is not a conservation measure since thereis a risk that the traditional conservation strategies may not beeffective at protecting the economic benefit of the ecosystem.


Globalwarming as amounted to the failure in policy regulations. Forinstance, a carbon tax would drive emissions down but still it failsto solve the problem.A cap and trade program can assist in addressing the problem. Theessence of a carbon tax is an approach that has been using to put aprice on emissions that lead to global warming. One fundamentalproblem with tax is that it is not feasible to understand what isahead of time and what level the tax should be to cut the emissionsthat solve global warming problems (Fankhauserand Samuel 54).

Theprice of allowance adjusts automatically, in contrast, to have anaccount for the changing market conditions and also ensuring thenecessary emissions are achieved. Nevertheless, policy failure of thetax has resulted to corruption where many organizations emittingdioxide to the atmosphere fails to pay taxes or rather usesillegitimate means to pay taxes. In essence, this is the price thatwe must pay. From the proponents of logic, organizations behave as ifthey are conserving the environment where in essence, they areimpacting the environment negatively (Fankhauserand Samuel 55).


Assigningan economic value to nature benefits provides a way to promotebiodiversity conservation and in some cases may lead to conflict andloss of some species such as rhinos. Policy failure in controllingglobal warming and ensuring cleaner water is the price that we haveto pay.Putting a price on nature may encourage adoption of greener policiesbut this cannot lead to conservation of biodiversity. Unequal accessof ecosystem benefits can lead to poor tradeoffs


Fankhauser,Samuel. Valuingclimate change: the economics of the greenhouse.Routledge, 2013

Eustace,M. I. C. H. A. E. L. &quotRhino poaching: what is the solution.&quotBusinessDay20 (2012)

Anderson,Terry L. &quotDynamic Markets for Dynamic Environments: The Case forWater Marketing.&quot Daedalus144.3 (2015): 83-93.

Conniff,Richard. What`sWrong with Putting a price on nature?18 October 2012. 17 October 2015.&lthttp://e360.yale.edu/feature/ecosystem_services_whats_wrong_with_putting_a_price_on_nature/2583/&gt.