Thanks for this article and helping to expand the issue. Every person that thinks this through, expands the global consciousness. I ( and hundreds of others) have been thinking about the monetization of the environment and how to value it on corporate books for a very long time.
The Bloomberg article clearly seeks a solution like carbon credits because it is more familiar. I have a problem with additionality. I may be the only one, but I think it penalizes the absolute morass every one with the motivation for change had to go through to get us where we are. For instance, take African parks, who has single handedly taken over many African national parks and managed wildlife and helped develop local economies and increase wilderness area. AT GREAT EXPENSE, INCLUDING LOSS OF LIFE. I believe the same is true for every early adopter of Solar. We punish the people who took great risk because they wanted to do it anyway AND found a way to monetize it. In my opinion rather than pay a DAC company 200 million, buy $200 million of batteries for the grid to capitalize on their existing contribution.
Wilderness areas and biodiversity are not a new thing, AT ALL. In fact, because of some very hard work by selfless individuals, we have animal corridors, connected wilderness, antipoaching teams, and many near extinct ( RED LIST) animals are coming back. And what about Marine protected areas with debt for nature swaps? Because they were early, do they get no credit?
It's time we value the environment in public lands as a global public good. The issue of private land as a legal framework and interaction of the world needs to be improved and that will be a very unpopular policy with people who want to use the resources of land as people have for the past century.
Probably worth mentioning the Intrinsic Exchange Group and the work they're doing to create Natural Asset Companies. Link to their website below:
https://www.intrinsicexchange.com/
Thanks for this article and helping to expand the issue. Every person that thinks this through, expands the global consciousness. I ( and hundreds of others) have been thinking about the monetization of the environment and how to value it on corporate books for a very long time.
The Bloomberg article clearly seeks a solution like carbon credits because it is more familiar. I have a problem with additionality. I may be the only one, but I think it penalizes the absolute morass every one with the motivation for change had to go through to get us where we are. For instance, take African parks, who has single handedly taken over many African national parks and managed wildlife and helped develop local economies and increase wilderness area. AT GREAT EXPENSE, INCLUDING LOSS OF LIFE. I believe the same is true for every early adopter of Solar. We punish the people who took great risk because they wanted to do it anyway AND found a way to monetize it. In my opinion rather than pay a DAC company 200 million, buy $200 million of batteries for the grid to capitalize on their existing contribution.
Wilderness areas and biodiversity are not a new thing, AT ALL. In fact, because of some very hard work by selfless individuals, we have animal corridors, connected wilderness, antipoaching teams, and many near extinct ( RED LIST) animals are coming back. And what about Marine protected areas with debt for nature swaps? Because they were early, do they get no credit?
It's time we value the environment in public lands as a global public good. The issue of private land as a legal framework and interaction of the world needs to be improved and that will be a very unpopular policy with people who want to use the resources of land as people have for the past century.