The Cost of Preservation

To: 'John Harris' <>, "" <>
Subject: The Cost of Preservation
From: Bill Stent <>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 14:51:45 +1000
"The economics are absolutely stark"
Tragically, that's not so.
I'm not entirely across this, having been out of the industry for a few years, but I can assure you that cost benefit analyses can balance very finely on assumptions used in building models.  The most important of these would be the "discount rate" - that is, how much we all (not just the economists) under-value future cash flows.  A higher discount rate will tend to blinker you from future consequences of your actions.  For a truly sustainable approach we should have a very low discount rate.  Unfortunately (again, tragically) discount rates tend to be high - highest in the private sector, where the approach is often "if we can't make a big profit in a short time it's not worth doing".
Another assumption that tips the balance (currently) in favour of the bulldozers is how you value the environment.  For example, there may be tremendous value in having the environment there for everyone to enjoy (so called "existence value"), but you can't put existence value in the bank, or get a loan using existence value as collateral.
There are many other things to say here, but I'll stop there before I get flamed for being a communist...
Bill Stent
-----Original Message-----
From: [On Behalf Of John Harris
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2002 2:32 PM
Subject: [BIRDING-AUS] The Cost of Preservation

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the birding-aus mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU