wise use of mires and peatlands - Peatland Ecology Research Group

118 VALUES AND CONFLICTS: WHERE DIFFERENT VALUES MEETperson -1 yr -1 (White & Lovett 1999).111Gren et al. 1995.112Costanza et al. 1997.113Thibodeau & Ostro 1981.114Thibodeau & Ostro 1981.115Hampicke & Schäfer 1997.116Costanza et al. 1997.117Costanza et al. 1997.118Costanza et al. 1997.119Costanza et al. 1997.120Using $2 – 35 kg -1 N (Gren 1995, Byström 1998)and emission rates of 7,540 – 49,600 kg N km -2y -1 (Gelbrecht et al. 2000).121Using $5 - 25 t -1 C (Tol 1999a) (with ratiosbetween the marginal costs of CO 2and those ofCH 4and N 2O equal to the global warmingpotentials of these gases, cf. Tol 1999b) and acumulative radiative forcing of 2,928 – 10,334CO 2-C-kg-equivalents ha -1 y -1 (Augustin 2001).The aggregated monetarised damage due toclimate change has been estimated at 1.5 to 2.0percent of World GNP; the OECD would lose 1.0to 1.5 percent of GDP; the developing countries2.0 to 9.0 percent. These figures are notcomprehensive and are highly uncertain. Recentstudies increasingly emphasise adaptation,variability, the rate of change, extreme events,other (non-climate change) stress factors, andthe need for integrated assessment of damages.As a result, differences in estimated impactsbetween regions and sectors have increased, themarket impacts in developed countries havetended to fall, and non-market impacts havebecome increasingly important.Whether it is fast or slow, climate change is likelyto have greater economic impacts on poorcountries than on rich countries. On the whole,market impacts fall relative to economic growthwhile non-market impacts rise relative to growth(http://www.gcrio.org/gwcc/toc.html).122Capital investment costs recalculated to annualcosts using an interest rate of 6%.123IPCC 1996.124Primavera 2000.125Primavera 2000.126See also discussions in Costanza et al. 1997.127Cf. the exclamation “my kingdom for a horse”in Shakespeare ’s King Richard III, V, iv, 7. Theanswer to the question: “How can you monetarise‘nature’, ‘biodiversity’, or ‘the environment’ “is simply: “you cannot”. The same answer,however, also applies to everyday necessities suchas food, drinking water, or shelter. To ask thequestion how much poorer the world would bewithout any food or without biodiversity is absurd(cf. Costanza et al 1997). In daily practice,however, a loaf of bread, a litre of water, and ahouse is replaceable and hence does have a price.Similarly a peatland can have a monetarised valuefor tourism, for education, for energy generation,etc., a price that is dependent on demand andscarcity (Mitsch & Gosselink 2000).128Cf. the recent discussions of the role of peatlandsin climate change (Gorham 1991, Franzén 1994,Crill et al. 2000).129Cf. MacGillivray 1998, who shows that even indepressed areas there is a strong appreciation thatthere is more to happiness, welfare or quality oflife than cash income. This appreciation includesa recognition of the value of such qualities ashealth, security, standard of living, education, andenvironment.130For example, one might accept the killing offarmed rabbits for eating while not accepting thekilling of a child’s pet rabbit. Cf. Brennan 1992.131Norton 1987.132I.e. in general, people dislike losing a benefit morethan they like gaining the same benefit.133Brennan 1992. There may, for example be largedifferences between the perspective of a personas a consumer and of the same person as a citizen,for example in her attitude towards rules andregulations. The decision to have or not to havepeat extracted in a country concerns the politicalquestion of what limits should be placed on thesatisfaction of consumer preferences. The decisionto buy a bag of compost containing peat, when itis available on the market, concerns merely thesatisfaction of individual preferences within theselimits (Cf. Norton 1987).A person in her role as palaeo-ecologist mayprefer the view of a bog while it is being exploited,because the exposure of peat profiles allowsoptimal access to stratigraphical information (cf.Casparie 1972, Barber 1981). The same personin her role as conservationist may prefer to seepristine bogs.134See §3.2.135Cf. §4.7.136Cf. the large sums currently spent on mirerestoration in West and Central Europeancountries which clearly show that present daysociety values things different from society only30 years ago.137Based on Costanza et al. 1998 and Hampicke2000b.138Cf. Rees (1998): “…at this critical stage of worlddevelopment, we must regard many of nature’sservices as we would an expensive yacht. If wehave to ask the price, we probably can’t affordit.”139Fear that “intermediate” generations might“hijack” the funds is no reason to refrain fromproviding them, because– our duty to mitigate the consequences of ouractions exists, independent of what futuregenerations may do. If they abuse the funds,they are responsible for the ensuing suffering.If we do not start to invest, we are;– instead of in bank accounts, we may as wellinvest in technical progress. This mightimprove the capacity to solve problems moreefficiently and is less reversible than thestockpiling of money (Hampicke 2000).140cf. Tol 1999b. See §5.6.5 (2).141The decision on the correct method ofdiscounting is independent of whether the presentgeneration is actually going to pay for futuredamages or not. If it appears after thoroughcalculation that the present costs are relatively