1. 1
A PARTNER WITH
What do we know
about the costs of ocean acidification
to future Swedish society?
Dr Sarah Cornell
Stockholm, October 2014
pH 8.12,
1989
pH 8.08,
2009
Figure Doney 2010, data Dore et al 2009
2. Message 1:
We know very little
But we know enough to inform sensible policy choices
CO
2
Useful overviews:
Royal Society, 2005. Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.
www.royalsociety.org, document ID 13539.
Doney et al., 2010. The growing human footprint on coastal and ocean biogeochemistry.
Science 328 1512-1516.
3. Ocean acidification is part of a complex set of global
human-caused physical and biological changes
Carbon
dioxide
Fossil fuel combus on
Agriculture
Deforesta on
Organic pollutants
and toxic metals
Nutrient
elements
Climate
change
Coastal
eutrophica on
and hypoxia
Altered
biological
produc on
Ocean
acidifica on
Lowered O2
simple cause (anthropogenic CO2) complex consequences
4. Ocean acidification is part of a complex set of global
human-caused physical and biological changes
Carbon
dioxide
Fossil fuel combus on
Agriculture
Deforesta on
Organic pollutants
and toxic metals
Nutrient
elements
Climate
change
Coastal
eutrophica on
and hypoxia
Altered
biological
produc on
Ocean
acidifica on
Lowered O2
simple cause (anthropogenic CO2) complex consequences
5. Ocean acidification is essentially irreversible
All aspects of ecosystems are affected
by ocean acidification:
• Primary production
• Nutrient cycling
• Biodiversity
• Resilience (where organisms survive – but at a cost)
• Trophic webs
• Habitats
6. As CO2 rises and ocean pH drops,
75
50
25
0
US$ Trillion
costs to society will rise
Policy cost
+ damages
by 2100
(Estimates from Kempfert 2005 and Watkiss et al 2005)
Damages
by 2200
Damages
by 2200
Damages
by 2100
Costs of
Ac on vs Inac on
Stern 2006:
2% of global GDP to achieve climate stabilization at 500 ppm CO2e
Costs of inaction are >5% (up to 20% or more) of world GDP
Nordhaus 2008:
Net cost of delaying mitigation by 50 years is US$ 2.3 Trillion (2005 prices)
7. Message 2:
We are driving global changes in a world where
resilience is already depleted
Human pressures are growing worldwide…
Population __
World GDP Index __
CO2 emissions __
LPI biodiversity loss __
N and P use __
1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000
Data: US Bureau of the Census International Database, www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldpop.html; GDP from Earth Policy Institute,
www.earth-policy.org/indicators/C53; and International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook,
www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo); CO2 from Global Carbon Project; LPI www.panda.org/lpr; Global partnership for Nutrient
Management, www.unep.org/gpnm.
Also: Steffen et al. 2004, Global Change and the Earth System: A Planet under Pressure, Springer Verlag.
8. … and we only have this world
1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000
N and P use __
LPI biodiversity loss __
CO2 emissions __
World GDP Index __
Population __
9. Message 3:
Economic valuation tools reach their limits
with ocean acidification
1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000
N and P use __
LPI biodiversity loss __
CO2 emissions __
World GDP Index __
Population __
‘Marginal’ changes are not marginal in complex systems with a history
10. Message 3:
Economic valuation tools reach their limits
with ocean acidification
‘Capital’: Hard vs soft constraints? Infinite or finite shadow values?
Preferences Direct Indirect
Revealed Market prices
Replacement costs
Mitigation costs
Hedonic pricing
(also travel cost)
Averting behaviour
Stated Contingent valuation Choice experiments
Cost(s) ≠ Price ≠ Value
11. Scoping studies:
Hilmi et al. 2013, Marine Biology
Armstrong et al. 2012, FRAM Centre & NIVA
Kite-Powell 2009, Journal of Marine Education
• ‘Services that will be affected…’
• Carbon storage versus possible yield benefits
Monetary valuations:
US$ 100 billion from shellfisheries – Narita et al. 2011, ESRI WP391
US$ 9 billion for shoreline protection by reefs – Cooley & Doney 2009, ERL
US $ 21 billion for reef fisheries
12. Scoping studies:
Hilmi et al. 2013, Marine Biology
Armstrong et al. 2012, FRAM Centre & NIVA
Kite-Powell 2009, Journal of Marine Education
• ‘Services that will be affected…’
• Carbon storage versus possible yield benefits
Monetary valuations:
US$ 100 billion from shellfisheries – Narita et al. 2011, ESRI WP391
US$ 9 billion for shoreline protection by reefs – Cooley & Doney 2009, ERL
US $ 21 billion for reef fisheries
How will these ‘values’ be used?
13. Costs > Dollars
Herman Daly (2009) – the unit of value is the ‘dollar’s worth’, not the dollar
Ludwig von Mises (1949) – economic valuation is not ‘a category of all human
action’, it operates ‘under the special conditions of the exchange market’
Sagoff 2000:
diversity and deliberation are part of democratic decision-making
Spash & Vatn 2006:
apart from valuation, other approaches are available
(motives/behaviour analysis, MCA, dialogue)
Cornell 2010, Valuing ecosystem benefits in a dynamic world. Climate Research.
14. What can we say about Sweden?
Sweden’s expected direct exposure:
• Eutrophication and anoxia in Baltic (already low calcite)
• Marine production sector:
- Fish/shellfish
- Bioresources
Northern high latitudes
‘Robust’ fish species
Production – yes, seafood.
But also jobs, health, livelihoods…
Environmental processes depend on the
functioning of the whole environment
Havenhand 2012, Ambio
15. Message 4:
Delaying climate change mitigation
(CO2 emissions cuts)
will cost Sweden more in the future than now
• Cost of impacts of ocean acidification will rise
• Urbanization, emerging economies’ development pathways
= lock-in, so best-value trade and aid investment is now.
16. Knowledge needs
• Methods that make sense – complexity,
economics within society within environment
• Effects of ocean pH changes – chemistry,
physics, biology + everything else
• Local studies in global frameworks
• Policies and institutions that support
precaution, provisionality, participation
“what do we know about the cost of ocean acidification in the future Swedish society”, the title is just a guideline what the committee would like you to speak about and can, off course, be changed if you like.
The importance of your lecture is if you could highlight what information is needed to make more economic assessment of the cost i.e., both income and damage as well as what the cost is to reduce ocean acidification. The aim is to find out what research is needed to make a multi-disciplinary evaluation in Swedish waters.
Ocean acidification is essentially irreversible during
our lifetimes: it will take tens of thousands of years
for ocean chemistry to return to a condition similar
to that occurring in pre-industrial times, around
200 years ago (Royal Society, 2005).
Can we predict costs? Can we ‘value’ ocean pH?
Global assessment of costs of inaction on
Climate
Chemical pollution
Nutrient management
Kim, RE, 2012. Is a New Multilateral Environmental Agreement on Ocean Acidification Necessary? Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 21(3): 243–258.
Forecasting
Speculation
Non-monotonic behaviour
Discontinuities in the trend
Speculation
Forecasting
(economic reduction of the public good to some aggregate of individual welfare).
1980s push to place monetary values on environmental functions, processes and services does not work in 2010s
Embedded assumptions (growth/discounting) hitting their limits: exponential trajectories approximated with linear functions, externalities assume an external but “one planet”, complexity approximated with simplicity - discontinuities missing
From Cornell 2011: “The ecosystem services concept involves a narrowing of focus onto the money value of ecosystems. Researchers and practitioners should reflect on past efforts in integrative benefits analysis.
There can be a conceptual disconnection of value from function, particularly when there is a reliance on benefits transfer, yet the value of ecosystem services is conditional on a well-functioning whole ecosystem.
The problem of data paucity is stark. While inadequate data and the resulting uncertainty are ubiquitous problems in environmental decision-making, the powerful simplicity of one number—the estimated monetary value of a given ecosystem service—may mean that more nuanced precautionary considerations that normally apply in uncertain contexts are bypassed.
New challenges arise because values (determined in the past) are applied to a changing and already resource-depleted world. Here I highlight the non-stationary nature of trends, the extent to which models are trusted and its role in uncertainty and risk, and the need for in-depth interdisciplinary study.”