tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19408890.post113938019374645466..comments2024-02-07T21:14:26.719+11:00Comments on Oikos: Conservation vs logging: Battle of the dollars Part IIDavid Jefferyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11826563619710355534noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19408890.post-1139448031828069442006-02-09T12:20:00.000+11:002006-02-09T12:20:00.000+11:00Interesting points Nick.I think most economists wo...Interesting points Nick.<BR/><BR/>I think most economists would argue that you do need to make a logging company financially responsible for the costs it imposes on others by logging an area - either, as you suggest, by establishing some kind of right to a clean and intact environment that Gunns should compensate the community for if it violates, or by placing a 'price' on an intact ecosystem and not implicitly valuing it as 'free'.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure how much these things occur in practice in Tassie but in my view the granting of permission to log private land should be conditional on rehabilitating the site and compensating the community (through a tax, fee or through compensatory environmental works elsewhere) for the damage to catchments etc. For logging on public land, where the community considers it appropriate for logging to occur, there should be additional compensation to the community for the lost opportunity to use the area for alternative uses.David Jefferyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11826563619710355534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19408890.post-1139447097403214032006-02-09T12:04:00.000+11:002006-02-09T12:04:00.000+11:00Here's another question for you Davo.You'll notice...Here's another question for you Davo.<BR/>You'll notice that in the list of beneficiaries was Gunns Ltd, an economically successful logging company. They were paid approximately $200,000 due to losing the opportunity to log the area (this is what the Vernon family paid them in order to break a contractual agreement). With this information is is apparent that Gunns Ltd will enter into many new contracts to log contentious areas, perhaps of comparable value to Recherch Bay. What is to stop the state government from paying millions of dollars of public taxes to this private entity simply for them to relinquish the 'right to log'? Should it not be that a private entity should pay the public for them to forgoe the 'right to clean drinking water' and related benefits from intact ecosystems. <BR/><BR/>I guess the enviro-economists would argue that we haven't yet put a price on ecosystem services and therefore they are financially worthless?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com