3. 3
Susie and her Grandma are sitting in the waiting room
of a train station. They are on their way back to the city.
Susie is a big girl now: almost eleven. She still enjoys be-
ing with Grandma, so she spends some weeks in the sum-
mer with her in the countryside. She was enjoying this
holiday a lot, too. She still remembers what she learned
on her way to Grandma on the train a few years ago. She
still keeps in touch with Peter; they are great friends.
This summer she spent most days in the garden playing
with Rex, Grandma’s friendly dog. In the small village
it was exciting to see the things she now knows so much
about. She also enjoyed looking at the bugs in the small
kitchen garden, some of which, as she knows now, safe-
guard plants from pests. She observed the bees, which
pollinated the flowers on the apple trees in the spring.
She already knew that pollination is a type of ecosystem
service, which nature gives free of charge. She walked
out to the fields with her Grandfather and looked at
the crops that people have grown for hundreds of years
in that region. Grandfather agreed that it is much bet-
ter to grow crops in a way that is suitable to the local
environment than change local conditions to suit the
needs of crops. They discussed why it is so: it requires
less pesticides, irrigation or fertilizers. It also helps pro-
tecting the abundance of animals and plants around.
But now the holiday is over and she is going home. Her
parents missed her a lot! She has been waiting at the
train station with her Grandma for half an hour. The
trains were delayed because of a storm last night. She is
already bored with the book she has brought for the trip
so she looks around with curiosity when she hears the
radio, which is on in the restaurant nearby.
- … compared to the same quarter of the previous year, sea-
sonally adjusted the gross domestic product increased by 1.7
percent in the EU27 during the second quarter of 2010, ac-
cording to flash estimates published on Monday…
4. 4
susie: Grandma, what is gross domestic product?
grandma: Hm, it is also called GDP. This is a number
which somehow shows the performance of the econo-
my. Do you know what economy is?
susie: Yes, I think. It is the factories, which produce
stuff for people.
grandma: Yes, you are right. Economy includes facto-
ries, small businesses, banks and much more. But it is
so complicated. Ordinary people like me cannot even
imagine that.
The conversation draws the attention of a boy of about
twenty who is sitting opposite them. He is holding a
university textbook in his lap, but he is not reading it.
He seems to be bored and eager for a talk.
student: If I may interrupt, maybe I can help you.
Economy is the common term for the economic system,
which is the structural framework of the production,
distribution and consumption of goods and services in
a society. It is economy when a farmer grows wheat, a
baker bakes bread, a merchant sells it, a doctor advises
about a healthy diet, but also when all these professions
are thought in schools. All these things are part of the
economic system. Do you understand?
susie: Yes, I think so. So everything that people do is
part of the economy, right?
student (a bit embarrassed): Er, I would not say that…
Only if it is related to production, distribution or con-
sumption. Do you see the difference?
susie: No.
student: Look, this topic is not for a small girl like
you. You are too young for this.
susie (seems to be offended): I am not a small girl any-
more! Grandma, what does he mean with this produc-
tion, distribution thing?
Grandma is in despair. She knows that Susie is a smart
and self-reliant girl with a great deal of curiosity. She
wants to give her a clear explanation, but she is afraid
she cannot do that. Luckily an old man sitting next to
her turns to Susie.
old man: You know economy is the interface, or simply
speaking relationship between humans and their envi-
ronment. People have needs such as food, water, shelter
and clothing. They also like culture, travelling and lei-
sure, such as going to cinema and theme pools.
susie: Yes, I also like going to the theme pool! I like the
high slides the most!
old man: You see economy helps you to realise this. A
lot of things are needed so you can go to a theme pool.
People to build and run the building and the pools.
Water from nature to fill the pools. Wooden furniture
for the lockers in the changing rooms. Bricks and tiles
from clay to build the pool and slides made of plastic
and metal. These entrepreneurs, also called economic
actors, interact with the natural environment in many
different ways and they use natural resources. But they
also get into contact with numerous other people, other
economic actors who are also part of their environment.
They know how to produce tiles, bricks, slides and have
the machines for the production. What is more, there
are also companies that do not produce but only trans-
port things from one place to another and this is how
they realise distribution. They don’t provide goods but
services. But they are also in contact with the natural
environment by using roads or generating exhaust gas-
es. Indirectly, they also use natural resources.
susie: I see. So the adults who work make the economy.
old man: Yes. They are responsible for production and
distribution. But you are also an economic player. Can
you imagine how?
susie (surprised): Me? How?
old man: When you go to the pool, you pay for its ser-
vices and use their facilities.
susie: I have already been to the theme pool several
times but I did not know that.
student: In your approach we can say that economy is
a tool to meet society’s needs.
old man: Yes, you are perfectly right. Economy is a
tool, not an aim, as nowadays many think. It is dan-
gerous when politicians put the increase of economic
performance as the main goal of national policies and
ignore that environment is a precondition for any eco-
nomic activity. Economy is the link between humans
and their social and natural environment, but economy
and society depend on nature. The natural environ-
It is dangerous when politicians put
the increase of economic performance
as the main goal of national policies
and ignore that environment is a
precondition for any economic activity.
The natural environment will survive
without economy but no economy
will survive without nature.
5. 7
student: GDP is the figure that sums up the value of
all products and services produced in a country in a
year. If it decreases, it means that less economic activity
has taken place and more people have become unem-
ployed. Also less money is paid to the state in the form
of taxes, which are to finance hospitals, schools, state
institutes or pensions.
susie: I see. So when the GDP is dropping that is bad, if
it is growing, it is good.
student: Only if it was so simple. There are several
problems with this explanation. For example, it does
not make a difference between the construction of new
schools to teach more students in better facilities and
rebuilding schools and houses because they were de-
stroyed by a flood. Do you remember how many villag-
es were flooded this year? Thousands of people became
homeless.
susie: Yes, I saw it on TV. It is terrible when people
don’t have a place to live.
student: Well, reconstructing these houses will con-
tribute to GDP even if it is a tragedy for many people.
old man: When people, for example clear-cut forests,
drain wetlands, burn the peat or produce chemicals that
eventually pollute and damage nature, they destroy
ecosystems, but when we count the GDP these are ben-
efits and not losses.
susie: But nature gives us such presents all the time!
Like food, water or the bugs that protect the carrots
and cabbages in the garden! Destroying them is bad for
us, not good!
student: Yes, that is why the GDP in itself is not a
good measure of economy and there are economists,
who are working on alternatives to GDP.
susie: So maybe it is not even bad that there was a reces-
sion? If GDP is not good, then maybe it is not bad that
it was dropping.
grandma: I am sure that this recession was awfully dif-
ficult for many people. Do you remember your friend
Julie, who could not join you for the summer holiday
last year with her family because her father had lost his
job? There are many others in a similar situation. And
there are a lot of people who find it impossible to pay
back their bank loans.
student: Actually, I heard that the whole crisis started
with the bursting of the US housing bubble followed by a
mortgage crisis. People took loans that they couldn’t pay
backlateronwhenthehousingpricesplummetedandthe
interest payments increased. Similarly, banks carried out
risky transactions that depended on insecure income.
old man: Ahem. And do you know how the financial
crisis relates to the ecological crisis?
student: The ecological crisis? What do you mean?
Clearly some kind of fuel and food crises happened in
2008 but I wouldn’t say there is ecological crisis.
old man: Indeed, people are less aware of an ecological
crisis threatening us. This ecological crisis affects the
whole biosphere and there are already some signs that
warn us. Can you count the storms and floods which
have happened in the last years?
grandma: I surely don’t remember so many summer
storms and such devastating floods from my youth. The
climate seems to have gone wild.
student: OK, I accept that the weather has become
more extreme. Scientists predicted this in the past. But
governments know about this problem, you can’t accuse
them of ignorance!
ment will survive without economy but no economy
will survive without nature.
student: But after this recent global economic crisis
I think it is totally right that politicians put economy
first! And some economists even warn that another
recession might come soon before real recovery hap-
pens.
susie: What are you talking about? What’s recession?
grandma: You remember, Susie, you were asking about
the GDP. Well, when the GDP has been dropping for
a longer time, we say that the economy is in recession.
susie: Yes, the GDP is a number. But what exactly does
it show?
When people, for example clear-cut forests,
drain wetlands, burn the peat or produce
chemicals that eventually pollute and damage
nature, they destroy ecosystems, but when we
count the GDP these are benefits and not losses.
6. 8 9
places we should protect and which aren’t so important.
Isn’t it too early to worry about this?
susie: Don’t be so crude! I do care about plants and ani-
mals and mushrooms! They also belong to me! I don’t
want others to harm them!
old man: What Susie is talking about is called environ-
mental justice. It’s not fair that a smaller group of peo-
ple decides about the fate of natural values, which are
the common assets of humankind. It is especially un-
fair towards children and those, who will be born later.
They can’t yet take part in today’s decisions, but will
be forced to deal with tomorrow’s problems. When we
greatly intervene in natural processes, we should think
about our children and grandchildren and pay at least
virtually for the ecological insurance.
student: I am still not convinced why we should worry
about this today and not tomorrow.
old man: Scientists say that even today may be too late.
In the last 300 years the world’s forest area has shrunk
by about 40 percent, and forests have completely disap-
peared in 25 countries. But it’s not only forests: half of
the wetlands have been lost globally in the last century
and35percentofmangroveshavedisappearedjustintwo
decades.Today100to1000timesmorespeciesdisappear
each year than would do so without human activities.
grandma: It sounds so much…
student: But from how many species? Millions? It
might not be so many from that great number. Do we
know at all how many species there are?
oldman:Youareright,wedon’tevenknowthat.Itmight
be somewhere between 5 and 30 million. But how could
we know for sure that we will never need all these spe-
cies if we don’t even know about their existence? Some
scientists say that we should stay on the safe side and
allow maximum ten times more species to die out than
would happen naturally, without humans. And even then
we would deeply transform our natural environment.
grandma: When you say that a ten times higher ex-
tinction might be all right, my calculations tell me we
are way over that limit by about a hundred times. This
makes me scared.
student: Yes, it sounds scary but I think that if we were
in such big trouble, we would know it by now. If biodi-
versity is necessary for ecosystem services and biodiver-
sity is much too disturbed already, ecosystem services
should already be disappearing.
grandma: And isn’t it already happening? The climate
is changing, the air is not so clean and refreshing as it
used to be. We need to travel further and further to
see natural landscapes like the ones in my childhood. I
remember my family bringing the water from the river
every day in a mug when I was a child. We used to drink
and cook with river water. It was much tastier than wa-
ter from the well. Today nobody would dare to drink it.
old man: That is right. According to a survey about
60 percent of ecosystem services are degraded or used
in an unsustainable way. Two types of services cannot
be sustained even at current demands, much less future
ones: fisheries and fresh water. It was clearly proven
that the decline of these services seriously affects hu-
man well-being. To tell you an example, when the New-
foundland cod fishery collapsed due to overfishing in
the early 1990s, tens of thousands of people lost their
jobs. Altogether it cost at least two billion US dollars.
We have been fishing down the marine food web. Susie,
do you know what food web is?
susie: Yes. It describes what eats what in the food chain.
We learned about this in biology. The plankton are at
old man: I’m afraid we cannot be satisfied with gov-
ernment efforts to fight climate change. Scientists sug-
gest that a much larger emission cut would be necessary
than what politicians suggest. But there are also other
environmental problems. Susie, do you know what bio-
logical diversity is?
susie: Yes, I do. It means the diversity within species
such as broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower and kohlrabi all
belonging to the same species. It also means differ-
ent types between species, like different animals and
plants. And mushrooms which are not plants. Did you
know that?
student: No, I didn’t know it. Are you sure?
old man: Yes, indeed. Mushrooms are not plants.
susie: But there is also a third thing about biodiversity,
which I forgot.
grandma: You mean ecosystems, don’t you? A forest, a
field or a pond is an ecosystem, where different living
creatures grow and work together and make up ecosys-
tem functions.
susie: Yes, now I remember! And these ecosystems give
us presents like food to eat, water to drink and fibre for
our clothes. Ecosystems also make sure that the fruit
we eat contains a lot of nutrients and makes us healthy.
old man: Oh, you are a well-informed young girl!
These "presents" are called ecosystem services, which
nature gives us for free. But there are many more pre-
sents less easy to see! Ecosystems regulate the climate,
produce clean water and air. They also support other
ecological processes through soil formation, pollina-
tion and evolution. Not to speak about the educational,
recreational or spiritual role nature plays in our life.
student: That is fine. We need these services for sure.
But what about biodiversity?
susie: Without so many different types of plants and
animals there would be no ecosystem services.
old man: You put it quite plainly, but eventually it is
true. We cannot predict how much biodiversity can dis-
appear from an ecosystem before it fails to deliver one
or more of its services. Definitely there are several spe-
cies in ecosystems playing similar roles. So when some
decrease or disappear, it doesn’t seem to disturb the
functioning of the ecosystem. However, when the en-
vironmental conditions change, this abundance might
become essential. Maybe one species doesn’t seem ir-
replaceable today, but later, once the environmental
conditions have become unfavourable for other species
with a similar function, they can become indispensable
in delivering ecosystem services.
grandma: You mean when the composition of a forest
changes, but it delivers similar services as before.
old man: Yes, that’s a good example. This is also part
of resilience in other words the ability of ecosystems to
withstand and to regenerate after disturbances such as
fires, droughts, gales, insect invasions or forest clearing.
That is why we can consider biodiversity as insurance
for humanity for the future. Nowadays this is crucial
because global environment is under growing pressure
from human activities. Just to name one such pressure,
ecosystems face climate change to which they need
to adapt rather fast. Some species can make it, other
species can’t. However, when an ecosystem is already
degraded, there is a much bigger chance that it can’t
sustain the services, which are essential for humans.
student: So you say we need biodiversity as insurance
for the future? But maybe later we’ll know more about
these things and we’ll know better which species or
7. 10
old man: You got it. Overconsumption of ecosystem
goods is similar to taking a loan. Societies get an ad-
vance for the consumption of natural resources, while
the planet hasn’t yet created the cover for these loans.
At present our global ecological consumption deficit is
about one third of the planet – in other words we are
currently using 1.3 planet instead of just one.
grandma: In my opinion people should start thinking
about this before it’s too late. I’m afraid we are not so
well-informed to see these connections between loans
and consumption and our planet’s resources. I think
that governments should do more to educate the people
about this.
old man: That might be true. Unfortunately govern-
ments take similar decisions.
susie: The governments? They can take loans?
old man: Yes, they can. In the European Union, where
we live, the government debt was 73.6 percent of the
the bottom of the pyramid, they are eaten by sea stars,
small fish and jellyfish. These are eaten by larger fish.
Large predators, such as sharks, albatross and tuna are
on the highest level.
grandma: I would guess that humans are also top pred-
ators.
susie: Yes!
old man: And as fish on highest levels of the pyramid
are depleted by overfishing, fishermen go after smaller
species. That is why they say that we have been "fish-
ing down the food web". And the overuse of fresh water
is just as critical. Although we cannot tell it for sure,
even one quarter of global freshwater use cannot be sus-
tained on the long term because it exceeds accessible
long-term supplies.
susie: But how can we use more water than what’s avail-
able?
old man: Strangely enough it is possible. For example
extra water can be transported from far away or more
groundwater can be drawn than what can renew itself.
Natural resources are often overexploited to satisfy hu-
man consumption. But it brings me back to my earlier
question. Do you know how the financial crisis relates
to the ecological crisis?
susie: They both make people lose their jobs?
old man: Well, ultimately yes. But on a deeper level
both crises are of the same kind. Do you know why?
Why do people take loans?
susie: Because they need more money than what they
have.
old man: And why do they need more money?
susie: Because they want to buy a house. Or a car.
old man: Yes. They get advance for the consumption
for which they can only pay in the future. They con-
sume now, which otherwise they couldn’t afford. It
means that more cars can be produced, more flats can
be built – and more natural resources can be used right
now. People borrow not only money, but also natural
resources from the future. To get all this they have to
promise banks that they will pay it back together with
the interests from their future salaries. Or we can say
that they will pay it back from their future production
when they produce some kind of goods or services and
receive their salaries in return. The problem is that
when they produce goods or services, they need to use
the natural resources, do you remember?
susie: Yes. Those who build and own a theme pool use
natural resources such as water or clay.
student: Yes. Even those people use natural resources
who work in an office. I read that it takes the yearly
electricity consumption of six South-East-European
countries from Slovenia to Bulgaria to power and cool
the data centers of the world, which operate the Inter-
net. And a lot of energy and resources are needed to
operate the buildings, to produce computers, copiers,
office paper and so on.
old man: Exactly. Everybody uses more or less natural
resources to earn money. So when people take a loan,
they promise that they will pay it back with the use of
natural resources but they don’t know if those resources
will be available. On one hand it is overconsumption in
the sense that they consume more now than what they
could afford, and on the other hand it risks overcon-
sumption of natural resources in the future.
student: So you mean that both the financial and the
ecological crises are rooted in overconsumption?
I remember my family bringing the
water from the river every day in a mug
when I was a child. We used to drink
and cook with river water. It was much
tastier than water from the well.
8. 12 13
old man: And to have good friends with whom you can
shareyourthoughtsandworriesevenatnight,ifyouwant…
grandma: And to have good neighbours who you trust
and can leave the chickens with for a weekend, when
you visit your daughter and her family…
old man: And to be healthy…
grandma: My granny always told me that the two most
important things in life are love and good health.
old man: She was a wise woman. I would add and to be
safe. We want our lives and possessions to be safe.
grandma: Yes. I don’t know how old people who re-
cently lost their houses and all belongings in the recent
floods can survive. They’ve lost all the fruits of many
decades of work.
old man: For safety we need a strong and cohesive com-
munity and a healthy environment. We need shelter,
food and safe drinking water. And rights in the com-
munity to access the resources that are necessary for
shelter, food and drink.
grandma: And we need to be respected members of the
community and do what makes us happy.
student: This sounds like a good life.
old man and grandma: Yes, it does, doesn’t it?
student: But this is not exactly how well-being is de-
fined today.
old man: Then it should be redefined.
student: Maybe. But you must admit that economic
growth has improved a lot of things in our life.
grandma: For sure a lot of things have changed, some
for the better, some for the worse. Nowadays in my vil-
lage there is sewage system and an asphalt road in al-
most every street. People go to the hypermarket in the
nearby town more often than to the local market each
Saturday. They want to buy everything in one place be-
cause it’s more comfortable.
student: That’s development! People live in comfort
and they can afford to buy things they enjoy. They don’t
have to get up early in the morning to feed the chickens
and produce vegetables, eggs and meat for themselves.
susie (lost track of the conversation a few minutes ago,
but now bursts in): What’s development?
old man: Nowadays politicians as well as common peo-
ple think that development means to invest more in
infrastructure and institutions and to consume more.
They also think that development is in close connection
with rising living standards.
susie: So when people get richer they are more developed?
grandma: It sounds weird, doesn’t it? I suppose it’s not
so simple.
old man: Susie, do you remember what I said about the
credit crisis and the ecological crisis? It is the richer
countries that mostly caused them.
susie: But it doesn’t make sense that development goes
hand in hand with crises.
student: At least these developed countries have
the knowledge and technology to fix many problems!
That’s why they are developed.
old man: As I said it before, I don’t agree with the idea
that technology is the key to all our problems. Let’s
GDP for the 27 countries in 2009, rising in just two
years by 14.8 percent due to the financial crisis. At the
same time the government deficit was 6.8 percent of
the GDP, which means that the governments of the 27
countries collected less revenue than what they have
spent. And no government had more revenue than ex-
penditure.
susie: Then these countries are getting poorer and
poorer…
student: Not according to economic theory. If the
economy is growing, they are getting richer. This is
what we learned at university.
old man: Well, that might be right within reasonable
limits. But my point is that all these processes show
that natural resources are overconsumed both now and
in the future. The growing economy is already using
more and more resources and energy. But when govern-
ments take loans to stimulate the economy they com-
mit themselves to higher production also in the longer
term so that they are able to pay their loans back. Of
course, governments also have an interest in economic
growth in order to secure their budgetary income, like
paying health care, schools and pensions. This is how
in a growth-centred economy financial debt becomes
ecological debt. For which we are already paying the
price by our declining well-being.
student: But why do you think the use of natural re-
sources is necessarily growing? People do more and
more for higher efficiency and energy saving.
old man: Yes, that’s also true. The problem is that in-
creasing efficiency through technological innovations
doesn’t necessarily lead to reduced consumption. Of-
ten the opposite is true. If energy efficiency increases,
it tends to increase energy demand in two ways. First,
it makes energy relatively cheaper so everybody can af-
ford to use more and more. Second, increased energy
efficiency results in economic growth, which in turn
increases energy use throughout the whole economy.
student: But I’m sure there could be other ways to
control the amount of resources we use. Taxes, extra
fees or "cap and trade" schemes.
old man: You are perfectly right. Increasing efficiency
only makes sense, if the total amount of resource or en-
ergy use is controlled through other economic means. I
think governments will soon understand that putting a
cap on resource and energy use is inevitable, if we want
to stop the degradation of ecosystems and ecosystem
services. And that implies that our whole economy will
change as a result.
susie: Why will things change, if everybody in the gov-
ernment puts a cap on?
old man (laughing): No, no, they won’t have to wear a
cap, if they don’t want to. “Putting a cap” in this case
means that governments put a maximum limit on how
much energy and resources people can use altogether.
For example each country has a total amount of elec-
tricity and they have to share who uses how much of it.
student: I think you expect too much.
old man: Too much? A young man like you shouldn’t
be so skeptical! We’re in really big trouble, if educated
young people like you don’t believe in change! But to be
honest with you, an old man like me doesn’t want any-
thing more than to enjoy his old days in a small house
in the hills. Maybe to grow some vegetables in the gar-
den…
grandma: And to see the children and grandchildren
often…
9. they will survive. If not, they will die. So complexity,
technology and knowledge are one thing, but whether
these help us to adapt to the environment and survive
still remains a question.
susie: So development means better adaptation to the
environment?
old man: That’s right.
susie: It sounds very boring to me.
student: It doesn’t make sense to me, either. We’re not
animals anymore living in the wild and fighting mam-
moths and cold.
old man: You do not think so? Well, I think we are do-
ing that exactly, only our means have changed. We are
fighting cold with the help of houses, clothes and the
heating system. We are fighting heat with sun shades
and air conditioners. In addition, we have changed our
lifestyles so we don’t need to be outdoors all day. We
fight for food not only with tractors, fertilizers, pesti-
look at the question of development from a biological
point of view. Susie, do you know what bacteria are?
susie: Of course. They are very simple and very small
living things. They are so small that you can’t even see
them – not even with a magnifier.
old man: I can see that you are paying attention at
school, very good! Bacteria are simple organisms which
can be found everywhere. They live in the deep sea,
up in the air, in the soil, in plants – even in the hu-
man body. Oh, don’t look so scared, most of them are
harmless, and what’s more, a few of them are even good
for your health! So bacteria are very simple, they don’t
even have a nucleus, like plant, animal and fungus cells.
However, they are widespread in all kinds of environ-
ment. On the other hand, there are very complex or-
ganisms that developed complicated organs. Just think
of the eye of a fly or the complexity of the human brain.
But when it comes to survival, bacteria, flies and hu-
mans alike are faced with the same challenge: can they
adapt to their environment? If they adapt successfully,
Nowadays in my
village there is sewage
system and an asphalt
road in almost every
street. People go to
the hypermarket
in the nearby town
more often than to
the local market each
Saturday. They want
to buy everything in
one place because it’s
more comfortable.
10. 17
old man: No, I didn’t mean that. Technology can help us
to recover from the economic and financial crises through
better adaptation. But then another crisis will come. And
an other. Problems can be solved only if we tackle the un-
derlying root causes – adapting to them won’t help. A well-
insulated house and warm clothes may keep you warm but
they don’t take away the cold itself. A sun lotion protect-
ing you from the ultraviolet radiation doesn’t repair the
ozone layer. The real causes of environmental problems,
such as climate change, biodiversity loss or pollution are
cultural, institutional and structural drivers. I give you an
example. Susie, have you ever seen a whinchat?
susie: I’m not sure. What is it?
old man: It is a small bird with brown upperparts,
apricot underparts and bold white eye stripes. You can
mostly see it on posts or the top of low bushes.
susie: No, I don’t know them.
old man: Unfortunately whinchats have disappeared
from many places. They breed in open rough pastures
but many of these small farmlands have been lost in the
last decades.
susie: Why?
old man: Because intensive agriculture pays better to
the farmers, many marginal farmlands have been either
intensified or abandoned. Intensive use of the fields
means that farmers use more fertilizers, pesticides and
heavy machinery, the fields are irrigated and large fields
of monoculture are established. These practices don’t
adapt to local ecological conditions but try to change
them to produce higher yields or bring new areas or
crops into production.
susie: Yes, I’ve heard about intensive agriculture before.
It is cheaper, right?
old man: Yes, it is. The production of fertilizers, pesti-
cides, machines, fuel for the machines is still affordable
enough to make intensive agriculture more profitable
in comparison to extensive production. These practices
bring higher yields and they also replace human labour
in many ways. So less people make a living from ag-
riculture than ever before. What’s more, this trend is
forced by international trade and competition, which
decreases the price of agricultural products. Consum-
ers also favour cheap food, which is easily available in
big supermarkets. If farmers maintain traditional farm-
ing techniques, they are forced out of the market.
susie: But nobody wants to help farmers to do the kind
of farming also good for birds?
old man: On the contrary, there are many attempts to
support them on EU, national and local levels. These
are called agri-environment schemes. But these programs
can hardly compensate for all the disadvantages.
susie: But why don’t they work?
old man: Agricultural production happens in the
wider economic framework with many interacting sec-
tors, policies and market forces. For example there is
the chemical industry, which uses seemingly unlimited
cheap raw materials and energy. Then there is trans-
port, which is based on cheap fuel. This enables the
long-term transport of both the raw materials and the
produced food products. Trade exploits the differences
in the social and environmental standards within the
global economy and suppresses the prices. Finally the
taxation policy makes human labour expensive in com-
parison to natural resource use.
susie: And don’t politicians want to change these
things?
cides and fodder, but sometimes even with guns when
wild animals – wolves, bears or elephants – threaten
them. It’s true that for most of us this doesn’t mean a
day to day struggle due to technology and urbanisation.
But you can imagine how hundreds of millions of peo-
ple do this daily in poorer regions and countries.
student: Even if we accept that development means
better adaptation to the environment, technology helps
to adapt, you also said it yourself. Then why do you
doubt that technology is useful in recovering from to-
day’s crises?
The production of fertilizers, pesticides, machines, fuel for the machines is still affordable enough to make intensive
agriculture more profitable in comparison to extensive production. Consumers also favour cheap food which is easily
available in big supermarkets. If farmers maintain traditional farming techniques, they are forced out of the market.
11. 18
old man: Well, some of them try but not hard enough.
And you know, changing all these connected issues
is not possible with separate sectoral measures. This
means that the ministers of trade, transport, finance,
agriculture, economy, interior affairs and many others
need to agree to introduce such measures, which would
greatly change their fields of work and also change
their own importance. Complete, so-called holistic
economic measures are needed. For example, control-
ling the resource input of the economy would make a
good start. This is what we called “putting a cap on
resource use”.
student: We were talking about this a short time ago.
But this would imply a huge change not only in the
economy but also in the minds of people, right?
old man: Definitely. You can only change the way how
economy works with a holistic approach and strong po-
litical will. But of course these are closely linked to the
values of society, what people find important and what
they don’t. Do people value healthy ecosystems, safety,
personal relationships and health as contribution to hu-
man well-being? When your answer is yes, it will be
the right time to introduce a different economic frame-
work.
grandma: My God, you arrived from the whinchat to
the values of people in a minute. I can hardly follow you.
old man: As you can see, everything is related to eve-
rything else. There are many factors influencing the
whinchat population – but only few of these appear
physically in the farmed fields. The majority of drivers
are woven into economy and society, establishing causal
links between bird population trends, financial regula-
tions, the approaches of decision makers and the values
of society. These are the structural, institutional and
cultural drivers behind the problems.
Do people value healthy ecosystems, safety,
personal relationships and health as
contribution to human well-being? When
your answer is yes, it will be the right time
to introduce a different economic framework.
12. 20 21
mental pressure. And it’s not only the loss of natural
habitats that matters. If a road cuts through a forest, it
affects the forest species living there in many ways. It
causes disturbance through noise and the turbulence of
cars driving past, which scares animals. It creates a new
edge in the forest, which changes the temperature and
other microclimatic conditions along the way, so new
species appear while others move further into the deep
of the forest. A new road also separates animals from
each other who can no longer meet so easily to mate.
This process is called the fragmentation of habitats and it
has severe negative effects.
susie: So a forest in one piece is more valuable than a
same-sized forest which is divided into parts?
old man: Exactly. But coming back to my earlier point,
all kinds of human activities put these three types of
pressure on the environment to some degree. When
people take their old refrigerator to the forest and
throw it away, they not only pollute the forest on the
spot. This also includes using petrol on their way and
other resources, which were necessary to produce the
car, in which they took the refrigerator there. It also
involves the roads they were driving on including the
loss and fragmentation of forest habitats. So polluting
the forest by throwing away old machines also involves
the use of natural resources and land use to a smaller
degree.
student: And what does this all have to do with bio-
fuels?
old man: Biofuels were thought to help pollution by de-
creasing the emission of greenhouse gases. This might
be true in theory, though as I mentioned there are some
doubts in many cases because of their energy and re-
source need. But decision makers forgot about one
thing when they set their targets and introduced subsi-
dies: they didn’t calculate the land use pressure related to
increased biofuel production! We can produce biofuels
in two ways: We can bring new fields into the produc-
tion, which results in direct biodiversity loss. Or farm-
ers can switch to biofuels from food production, which
student: You mentioned employment. So you think
that limiting the use of natural resources could de-
crease unemployment?
old man: I think the answer is ultimately ‘yes’. Nowa-
days we manage natural resources as if they were un-
limited and consequently they are still very cheap.
That’s why machines, fertilizers and pesticides can re-
place human labour.
student: But fuel prices really boomed in 2008 and
you can see what happened: instead of rising employ-
ment it only contributed to a food crisis.
old man: This is what happens on the short term. To-
day’s agriculture depends on oil because of its high input
demand and related transport needs. By the way, there
were several other factors that made the food crisis
worse.
student: I know. The growing demand and subsidies
for biofuels was one such factor – even though biofuels
were considered for some time as an answer to the en-
ergy problem.
old man: A wrong answer to a wrong question…
student: What do you mean?
old man: Biofuels are getting more widespread because
people have a rapidly growing energy need, and today’s
main energy resources cause pollution and climate
change. These are the direct causes, right? But climate
change has ultimately the same root causes as the decline
of the whinchats. Cultural, institutional and structural
drivers are the same in both cases. However, decision
makers weren’t looking at core problems, and didn’t try
to solve different problems at the same time. Instead
they were pondering: how can we satisfy our growing
energy demand with a more environmentally friendly
energy resource? And they found biofuels. With which
they simply shifted the environmental pressures from
pollution to land use. And then I haven’t even mentioned
the fossil fuel needs of biofuel production, which might
make biofuels have an even negative energy balance.
grandma: What do you mean when you say shifting
environmental pressures from one place to an other?
old man: Human activities can put pressure on the en-
vironment in three ways. Susie, do you know how peo-
ple can harm the environment?
susie: Like when they throw harmful materials into the
rivers and oceans. Or throw the garbage away in the
forest.
old man: This is called pollution. Do you know other
ways?
susie: When they kill the animals or cut down the trees.
old man: This is called using natural resources. You are
very clever. Can you think of anything else?
susie: When we drive a car to school or to the shop
instead of cycling or walking.
old man: Well, that is also pollution if you think of the
exhaust gases. But road transport also harms the envi-
ronment in another way.
susie: You mean by killing animals on the roads?
grandma: Or by clearing the fields or forests for the
roads?
old man: Both of you are right. Using a piece of land
like converting natural habitats to roads, cities, agri-
cultural fields or factories is the third type of environ-
If a road cuts through a forest, it affects the forest species living there in many ways.
13. 22 23
ment of new and better technologies. This is what the
European Commission also does with its programme.
New green technologies can help companies to produce
goods with the use of lesser resources.
susie: So a company can become more competitive if it
uses green technologies. This saves resources and helps
solving those problems of nature.
old man: This is what you would expect, right? Unfor-
tunately, higher competitiveness leads to higher envi-
ronmental pressure.
susie: Why?
old man: It is quite logical. Let’s suppose you own a toy
factory. What would you do, if you made such good toys
that you could sell more and more of them?
susie: I would make more toys.
old man: Right. But producing more means using more
resources, even if you need fewer and fewer resources
for each and single toy. So on one hand being more suc-
cessful usually leads to higher environmental pressure
directly. But there are also indirect effects. The state
gets more money from higher production and con-
sumption because everybody has to pay taxes. These
taxes are partly spent on supporting the economy and
making the people wealthier. So people can afford to
consume more, which also increases environmental
pressure.
susie: So being more successful means that we are de-
stroying nature even more?
old man: Yes, it does mean that. If there are no limits of
resource and land use, increasing our competitiveness
can only lead to more environmental destruction.
susie: And because we increase environmental destruc-
tion, nature is giving us less and less presents.
old man: Exactly. Degrading ecosystems deliver less
and less ecosystem services.
student: An important thing just crossed my mind. I
read it somewhere that we can protect ecosystems by
recognising the economic value of the services they
provide. This article I read said there were studies about
this. When we recognise that ecosystems and ecosys-
tem services also have a value, even if that price is never
paid, this can help to protect them.
old man: Yes, there are such studies. A recent compre-
hensive study on the issue, titled The Economics of Eco-
systems and Biodiversity, has provided certain evidence
for that.
grandma: They put prices on seas and forests?
student: Well, not in all cases, but this is basically the
point.
susie: And how can this help?
old man: The consequences of biodiversity loss are
felt on the ground but these costs can go unnoticed at
national and international levels. These costs are miss-
ing from economic decisions, indicators, accounting
systems and prices on the market. I already mentioned
that the GDP doesn’t take a look at the degradation of
ecosystems, which is also called natural capital.
susie: And how can we say what the price of a forest is?
student: For example it can be calculated how much
higher price people are willing to pay for a house that is
inanaturalenvironment,likenexttoaforest.Thenfrom
this price difference it’s possible to determine the added
causes food prices to rise. But also in this latter case new
fields are brought into the food production later. This is
a perfect example of shifting environmental pressures: in
order to decrease pollution we increase land use pres-
sure instead, so environmental degradation continues.
student: And I can imagine that the growing produc-
tion of biofuels and food also needs additional fertiliz-
ers, pesticides and so on.
old man: Exactly. Without setting absolute limits to
the energy resource and land use, we just shift the prob-
lems somewhere else without solving them.
student: I can’t even imagine what needs to happen in
the world so that such reforms are finally made…
old man: You can bet your bottom dollar that sooner or
later some kind of reforms will happen.
student: Why are you so convinced?
old man: Because natural resources such as oil will be-
come scarce one day. With rising scarcity fuel prices
will shoot up and that will affect our economies, which
heavily depend on natural resources.
student: Maybe you shouldn’t worry so much, if it is
going to happen sometime anyway.
old man: The problem is that until then we are
destroying our ecosystems, degrading the ecosystem
services and compromise our well-being at an
alarming speed. And ecosystems can’t be repaired in
a day. Many of these changes are irreversible. This is
the crucial difference between an ecological and an
economic crisis.
susie: Yes, I understand that. If there are no more whin-
chats, we cannot put them back on the trees.
old man: Exactly. There is another argument to intro-
duce such reforms today instead of tomorrow. Today we
still have time for a smooth transition period. We could
still develop large scale programmes for implementing
reforms carefully. With this we could ease the pressure
on those who are the most vulnerable.
student: Who do you call vulnerable?
old man: Poor people both in our marginal regions
and in the third world. But if we wait until resources
become very scarce, the reforms will have to be drastic
and the social costs in addition to the environmental
costs will be extremely high.
radio: …The EU commissioner for research and innovation
announced yesterday nearly 6.4 billion euros of investment in
research and development to be spent by the end of 2011. The
package, described as Europe’s biggest ever investment drive
in the sector, aims to increase European competitiveness and
help tackling EU priorities such as climate change, energy,
food security, health and the ageing population…
susie: What is competitiveness?
student: Competitiveness shows how efficiently a com-
pany can make profit in comparison to other compa-
nies. For instance if a factory produces toys and people
buy more of these toys than the toys of other factories,
it contributes to the higher competitiveness of that
company.
susie: So if somebody makes better toys, they are more
competitive?
student: Well, it doesn’t only depend on making bet-
ter goods, price and marketing also matter. Companies
always struggle to become more competitive and gov-
ernments try to help them to be better than foreign
companies. For example states support the develop-
14. 24 25
cultural value of the forest for the residents. It can be
also analysed how far people are willing to travel for an
excursion in a beautiful forest and calculate how much
they are willing to pay for that through the travel costs.
old man: In these cases the aesthetic and recreational
services are valued. Forests can definitely provide such
services. There are other ways to calculate this. In ques-
tionnaires or interviews people can be asked to say how
much they would be willing to pay for certain ecosystem
services based on a hypothetical scenario. Actually, this
is also used when endangered species are valued. When
people in the US were asked how much they would be
willing to pay to protect the squawfish population, they
said they’d pay 8.42 dollars per household. But they were
willing to pay 95.42 dollars for the Northern spotted owl!
susie: A squawfish is worth less than an owl? How can
that be?
old man: Well, definitely not from an ecological point
of view… This approach of economic valuation builds
on the preferences of people. This of course doesn’t
necessarily reflect the importance of the species – or of
an ecosystem service for that matter. This is a signifi-
cant shortcoming of this approach for sure.
student: But there are other approaches of evaluation.
I heard that it is also possible to calculate how many
services, such as timber, herbs, mushrooms or berries, a
forest provides. We just have to use of the market prices
of these services. But it is more difficult to calculate the
regulating and supporting services of ecosystems although
they are usually higher than other types of services.
susie: Higher than providing food or a nice place for
hiking on the weekend?
old man: Yes, exactly. Higher than provisioning services
such as providing food, fresh water or healing herbs,
and higher than cultural services such as recreation, in-
spiration or education. When the different services of a
coastal wetland in North Sri Lanka were assessed, they
found that the role of the wetland in flood prevention
was the most substantial benefit for local people and
economic actors. The second most important ecosys-
tem service was the cleaning of domestic and industrial
wastewater, while providing food and firewood was val-
uedaslessthanone-tenthofthefloodpreventionservice.
grandma: I just cannot imagine how they can possibly
calculate such things…
old man: Well, in some cases they take the cost of the
replacement of the given service. It is possible to cal-
culate how much it would cost to build and operate a
wastewater treatment plant. Or we can sum up the costs
that can be avoided with the help of the ecosystems,
such as by flood prevention. In addition, it also works
to use existing value estimates from studies completed
for other locations.
grandma: Still it seems to be very complicated and a
lot of work!
student: Yes, it is. But this area is developing quickly
so we know more and more about the economic values
of ecosystems! With the help of such information we
can make better decisions in the future about the use
of ecosystems!
old man: Knowing the value of certain services by
ecosystems can be useful for politicians and other eco-
nomic decision makers. But we will never know the true
value of any ecosystem for sure.
student: Why are you so sure?
old man: Just imagine that dozens of different services
should be valued for each ecosystem, which deliver ben-
When people were asked how much they would be willing
to pay to protect the squawfish population, they said they’d
pay 8.42 dollars per household. But they were willing
to pay 95.42 dollars for the Northern spotted owl!
15. 26
student: Scientists say it is almost certain that such
tipping points will happen sooner or later.
susie: What tipping points?
old man: I already mentioned the possible collapse of
coral reef ecosystems. If the deforestation of the Ama-
zon forest exceeds 20–30 percent, the remaining forest
could go through a widespread dieback and shift to a
savanna-like vegetation. This would cause a decline in
agricultural production, increased carbon emission and
massive biodiversity loss.
grandma: I really wonder what the deforestation rate is
now in Brazil…
old man: Above 17 percent.
susie: And how could we stop it?
old man: First of all we could apply the principle of pre-
caution and reduce total environmental pressures such
as resource use, land use and pollution. This is what we
have been already talking about.
efits not only to the local people, but also on regional
and global scale. We don’t have enough ecological in-
formation to make good assessments of all services like
nutrient regulation, evolution, water regulation or bio-
logical control. What’s more, there are probably other
benefits that we haven’t even understood.
susie: So we don’t know the value of ecosystems?
old man: No, we only know a small part of it. We will
not be able to understand fully the supporting and
regulating services. What’s more spiritual values of
ecosystems may not be addressed by economic valua-
tion at all. It is also true for option values, which are
placed on conserving resources for possible future
use like medicinal application. The value of ecosys-
tems also relates to their capacity to maintain their
services over time under changing environmental
conditions. Without biodiversity people will die out
on this planet. Do you understand now how biodi-
versity is the insurance of humankind for the future?
student: I do.
old man: Good. Do you think we could measure this
service of ecosystems?
student: No. This can not be measured. So you don’t
think that economic valuation is a good solution.
old man: I’d say it can be a good way to attract the at-
tention of political and economic decision makers to
the importance of biodiversity. But then decision mak-
ers should keep the limitations of this method in mind
and they should stick to some key principles. Most im-
portantly we should only use economic valuations on
concrete ecosystem changes in a concrete context and
not use them to calculate the “total” value of ecosystems
because it leads to false results.
student: I understand that.
old man: Good. Then we should talk about the issue of
equity. It often happens that trade-off between differ-
ent ecosystem services leads to conflict between stake-
holders. Take the example when a company clear-cuts a
forest to get the economic value of timber. In this case
a smaller group makes the life of a local community
impossible because the well-being or even existence of
locals may depend on the services of this forest which
regulates seasonal water supply, provides food or pre-
vents floods.
grandma: Indeed, I wouldn’t like this to happen in my
village.
old man: So there are ethical questions. And there is
also the problem of irreversibility, thresholds and com-
bined effects. When a forest is cut down it is an irre-
versible act. Or it may bring a threshold and combined
effect so it starts a chain of consequences that nobody
could have foreseen. Not even the most careful valua-
tions can count with these secondary effects. For exam-
ple, increasing deforestation and fishing along tropical
coastlines seems sensible from an economic point of
view but only until a certain point. There is a thresh-
old when coral reef ecosystems will collapse because
of sediment deposition arising from inland deforesta-
tion, overfishing and other human impacts like climate
change and pollution. The problem is that such thresh-
olds can be rarely predicted and taken into account, and
it is especially difficult when several human pressures
interact on different scales. What is really worrying is
that these sudden ecosystem changes can also happen
at regional or global scale with long lasting and poten-
tially irreversible impacts. These irreversible events are
called tipping points. It is also typical of tipping points
that we realise the impacts a long time after the pres-
sures occurred.
If the deforestation of the Amazon forest exceeds
20–30 percent, the remaining forest could go
through a widespread dieback and shift to
a savanna-like vegetation. This would cause
a decline in agricultural production,
increased carbon emission and
massive biodiversity loss.
16. 28 29
student: As I was listening to the difficulties of eco-
nomic valuation, I start to doubt myself if we can use it
without taking too much risk.
old man: Well, ecological processes simply cannot go
hand in hand with economic thinking. I think it’s a to-
tally wrong approach to integrate ecosystems into the
economy. We should adapt our economy to the environ-
ment instead. Take the example of discounting. When
economists compare current benefit to future benefit,
they discount any future benefit. They do it because they
assume that people will become wealthier in a growing
economy so today’s benefits will be relatively less valu-
able in the future because today’s benefits will represent
a smaller share in people’s income. Applying a conserva-
tive discount rate of four percent over 50 years means
that any of today’s ecosystem services will be worth only
14 percent of their current value for our grandchildren.
susie: But why would a forest be worth less in 50 years?
old man: Oh of course, from an ecological point of
view, this idea is wrong. Discounting would be logi-
cal only if we could derive more and more ecosystem
services as time passes. But the contrary is true: as you
know ecosystem services are degrading so they can-
not be used to the amount we can use them today. So
despite all economic theories it is just not right to use
positive discount rates for ecosystems. We have to ac-
cept that economy must be adjusted in many ways. A
first step can be to recognise the value of ecosystems.
You might have heard about national accounts, which
include the various assets of countries.
student: Yes, I know what it is. I also read about ef-
forts to integrate the natural capital into the national
accounts. This would give a more realistic picture about
the performance of economy as not only the human-
made and financial capitals would be accounted, but also
natural capital, which is vital for any economic activity.
old man: You are right. And recognising the value of
ecosystems can also help introducing payment for eco-
system services schemes. Those who benefit from the
ecosystem services should pay for it.
susie: But who can they pay to? Not to trees, insects
and birds, right?
old man: Sure not. But those who take care of local eco-
systems should make sure they can continue providing
these services also in the future. At the moment local
people, who maintain a wide range of ecosystem servic-
es through extensive land use, are often not rewarded.
Even though it is frequently more attractive to inten-
sively exploit these resources and obtain a higher profit
on the short term, while also shifting the environmen-
tal costs to the whole society. We were already speaking
about this related to the whinchat. Do you remember?
When governments pay incentives for more biodiversi-
ty-friendly land uses within the so-called agri-environ-
ment schemes, they also pay to farmers for maintaining
ecosystem services and compensate them for the higher
profit they miss.
susie: But you said that these things don’t work!
old man: I said that they couldn’t be widespread and
deliver extensive ecosystem benefits as long as the
boundary conditions remain the same.
student: I bet you think about capping resource use
again!
old man (smiling): Exactly. We realise that we need to
spend money on maintaining ecosystem services in or-
der to safeguard human well-being. The problem is that
today we finance these schemes from the profit of activi-
ties that destroy the environment. You see, this profit, as
the whole economic system, is based on cheap resources,
and unlimited use of these resources generates lots of
It would be
a good idea to
limit the annual use of
non-renewable energy at the
current level. Then this amount
could be reduced bit by bit each
year, let’s say by one percent.
17. 30 31
environmental pressures. I do not think we have hope
to safeguard human well-being when we maintain eco-
system services in one place and at the same time spoil
them in other places. Limiting resource use would help.
grandma: You mention this so many times. Do you
have any ideas how such limits could work?
old man: Well, we could start by limiting the annual
use of non-renewable energy at the current level. Then
this amount could be reduced bit by bit each year, let’s
say by one percent. This one percent could be easily
substituted by renewable resources or saved if we used
more energy–efficient technologies. In other words, we
would have an overall non-renewable energy consump-
tion cap and quotas for achieving it.
student: But who would have those quotas?
old man: First of all, individual people. Each person
would get the right to use exactly the same amount of
non-renewable energy in the form of those quotas.
susie: Non-renewable energy? Like oil?
old man: Yes, it would include the petrol for your car,
the electricity generated from gas or nuclear energy, or
the gas for heating.
susie: Then each and every person could use the same
amount of non-renewable energy? It sounds so great!
student: How much would that quota be?
old man: It could be determined using the average level
of consumption per person. Then it would be reduced
a bit each year.
student: But what happens, if, for instance, somebody
lives in a village, and needs to use the car much more
than somebody living in the city with a well working
public transport system? It would not be fair to forbid
them to go to work by car.
old man: Of course it would not mean forbidding an-
ything. People shall make the right choices to reduce
their non-renewable energy consumption in one way or
the other. They can save energy by using their car less,
making their heating system more efficient or switch-
ing to renewables. An advisory system would aid them
to learn the system, make use of its advantages and
change their lifestyle. But of course it could still hap-
pen that some people use more non-renewable energy
than their personal quota. Then they need to buy extra
quotas to cover their excessive energy use.
grandma: And what if somebody uses less?
old man: Then they could sell it to get “quota money”.
Also public and private consumer groups covering the
whole economy would have their quotas, as well as all
the countries in the EU. They could also trade using
the “quota money”. But people of course would still
need to purchase energy for national currencies, when
they go to the petrol station or pay their electricity bill.
It would not change.
student: Then I do not understand. Why not using
normal money, why would you want to have “quota
money” when selling the quotas?
old man: If we have such “quota money”, we can make
sure that energy savings are only used for purchasing
goods and services that support the preservation of eco-
system services. Quota money could only be exchanged
to certified products and services, for example locally
produced organic food or insulation of buildings for en-
ergy saving. In this way we could create a big secondary
market for environmental goods and services.
grandma: A secondary market? I have lost the thread.
old man: It is called secondary market, as people can
only use the quota money on this market. Another im-
portant point is that even the poorest can get access to
these environmentally friendly goods and services on
this market, which they could not afford before.
susie: How?
old man: If they live a modest life and use relatively lit-
tle energy, they do not use all their quota, right? Then
they can sell it for quota money, for which they can buy
environmentally friendly goods, such as organic food
or the most energy efficient household appliances. This
way they can improve their living standards.
student:I see. But what would happen to my parents
who live in an old block house? They use a lot of energy
for heating and thus have no possibility for energy sav-
ing, and have no money for energy efficiency improve-
ments either.
old man: Yes, you are right, many people could not do
that without external help. For that reason there would
be a revolving fund established. It would give loans for
investments such as improving energy efficiency in
old block houses. So the house where your parents live
could get an interest free loan for energy efficiency im-
provements and your parents together with their neigh-
bours could pay the loan back from the actual energy
savings - with their “quota money”. Such a fund could
also give interest free loans to enterprises to develop
environmentally friendly products and services or to
make their operation more energy efficient.
student: But there are already several governmental
programmes, which support such investments. And
even better, they often give grants, not loans.
grandma: There might be such programmes, still I
could never get a cent to change my old draughty win-
dows. They do good neither to my heating bill, nor to
my joints….
old man: Yes, that is the problem with them. It is nice,
when the state, or the EU for that matter, funds energy
efficiency programmes from their usually tight budget.
But they can never meet the real needs of people or the
business, because they simply do not have enough mon-
ey for that. And if they provide grants, then they need
to fill up the fund year by year, which is a real burden.
In addition the people still need to finance the major-
ity of the investment as their own contribution, which
many of them could not afford. But with the revolving
fund the logic and the working mechanism is different.
As there is no own contribution required, everybody
could realise the energy efficiency investment, even in
the poorest households. However, the full loan must be
paid back, so the revolving fund would be replenished
by time, this is why it is called revolving. And not only
the state would be providing the funds for it. When
over-consumers buy extra quotas to meet their exces-
sive energy need, the price of the quotas would go into
the fund in the form of quota money. This could be a
really significant sum.
student: And work like a negative feedback…
old man: Exactly. The more energy people use, the
more they contribute financially to the revolving fund,
which in turn assists people and businesses in reducing
their energy use. So the whole system helps to achieve
the final target: to reduce the total non-renewable en-
ergy use of the whole economy.
grandma: That sounds good, but there is one thing I
am very much worried about. What if somebody cheats
with the quota money? For example somebody could
buy quotas of many other people.
18. old man: You should find out much more about this
system then. Contact the Resource Cap Coalition,
where lots of experts and organisations discuss this and
work for the promotion of this idea. Their web address
is: www.ceeweb.org/rcc.
student: I will certainly contact them. What I like
about this scheme the most is that while limiting energy
use we could also curb the exploitation of other natural
resources.
old man (smiling again): I hear you thinking aloud
about this scheme and I am full of joy, because we need
many thinkers and supporters if we want to make this
world a better place. For example, we need politicians
devoted to the preservation ecosystems and sustaining
human well-being on board. The nature and people can
only survive if we can reduce the total consumption of
the natural resources.
grandma: I wish politicians realised this!
susie: I wish I could also enjoy beautiful nature when I
am old...
grandma: Look, Susie, our train is here! Come, we
must hurry to catch it!
32
old man: It would not be possible to buy quota from
other people directly. Under-consumers could only sell
their remaining quota to the quota managing organisa-
tion and get “quota money”. Similarly, over-consumers
could only buy extra quotas from that organisation for
national currency.
susie: And who will keep account how much quota
is left?
old man: The same quota managing organisation. Each
energy consumer would receive an electronic card with
a PIN code. Whenever somebody pays energy bills, or
buys fuel at a petrol station, energy providers would reg-
ister how much is purchased. This information would
go to the quota managing organisation, which would
regularly send out consumption statements to the en-
ergy users. Almost everybody uses bank cards and gets
bank statement nowadays, it would not be much differ-
ent. In addition, this interest free alternative currency
would only exist electronically.
student: It sounds very interesting, though I am not
sure if I fully understand it.
old man: Well, this might sound complex at first for
sure. These four pillars, namely the quotas, the revolv-
ing fund, the secondary market for environmentally
friendly goods and services, and the advisory service,
mutually reinforce one another and form a complex
scheme. All these together are able to start radically
transforming the production and consumption patterns
of the economy and change the values of the people at
the same time.
student: Pretty ambitious. I would love to know more
about it. I think this could be even a topic for my thesis
at the university.
Read the previous part of this story:
available at
www.ceeweb.org/publications/english/Ministers_eng.pdf
WHY DOES BIODIVERSITY
LOSS MATTER?
Answers for ministers & children
19. Why is today’s economic breakdown the eco-
logical crisis of tomorrow? How is modern
economy related to the lives of ordinary people
in far-away countries? What are the main di-
rections of political decision makers and why
are these not sufficient? These are complex
and difficult questions – especially when an ea-
ger 11-year old wants the answer to them right
now. Susie, a curious youngster already knows
so much about biodiversity and still – she is full
of questions about simple facts. Her grandma
tries to answer her dilemmas but she soon finds
out: there are few who can… A young man
and an old professor come to her aid. Their
discussion brings to light the most important
relationships between the forces that shape
our lives. Become part of this discussion and
be one of the few who see the deep causes be-
hind the economic and credit crunch and the
degrading state of our natural environment.
