Quick Search

SFGate Home
Business
Sports
Entertainment

Travel

JOBS
REAL ESTATE
AUTOS

OPEN FORUM

Whither the Endangered Species Act?
Protection is
good economics

Andrew J.
Gunther

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Printable
Version

Email
This Article

Main
Opinion Page
Chronicle
Sunday Insight
Chronicle
Campaigns

SF Chronicle Submissions
Letters
to the Editor
Open
Forum
Sunday
Insight

We're frequently told that the Endangered Species Act, a cornerstone of
U.S. environmental law, must be "improved." At the heart of these
arguments are claims of economic damage, as critics agonize that the
well-being of critters is placed above that of humans.

These criticisms arise from a limited understanding of both endangered
species protection and economics. A key purpose of the ESA is to enhance
our well-being, and in particular that of future generations. Endangered
species, just as the famous canary in the coal mine, indicate the
degradation of ecosystems that contribute environmental goods and services
to our economy.

These goods and services include clean air and water, crop pollination,
water retention and flood control, soil formation and waste assimilation.
Our economy depends upon these factors just as it does on fossil fuels,
capital investment and labor. If we want a strong economy for ourselves,
our children and grandchildren, it makes economic sense to protect the
ecosystems that provide these valuable goods and services.

Unfortunately, the "cost" and "benefit" of endangered-species
protection often reflects what can be easily assigned a monetary value.
The ability of our estuaries to absorb and degrade all of our waste
discharges is of great value (imagine if all our waste just built up). But
because it is difficult to give a monetary value to waste assimilation,
this benefit is often overlooked when the "economics" of environmental law
is debated.

This selective application of economic theory leads to analyses that
give great weight to easily quantified costs (i.e., timber not cut, the
cost of emission control equipment or the value of unsold water "left" in
a river), but ignore the costs incurred if environmental protections are
not provided (soil erosion, childhood asthma or damaged fisheries). These
selective economic arguments can be made quite compelling, because the
quantifiable costs are often borne by specific individuals or corporations
in particular instances, while the hard-to-quantify (but no less economic)
costs are borne by society as a whole (including future generations) due
to the cumulative impact of the activities of all individuals or
corporations.

The recently completed Millennium Ecosystem Assessment sponsored by the
United Nations, has made the first global assessment of how the loss of
ecosystem services such as water retention and purification is adversely
affecting human well-being, and how poorly our present economic markets
take such costs into account. For example, an analysis of Mediterranean
forests has documented that the "market value" of timber and fuel from
these ecosystems accounts for only one-third of their total economic
value, with the balance being ecosystem goods and services such as
watershed protection or climate moderation. When the loss of these goods
and services is considered, many nations commonly considered to be growing
in wealth are actually getting poorer, the U.N. assessment found.

There is no doubt that the ESA produces economic hardship in specific
cases, as individuals find they are no longer free to take actions that
harm endangered species. These instances prompt claims that implementing
the ESA is causing a "taking" of private property, with complaints about
government intervention in our "free market" economy.

Yet, without government intervention, our economy polluted our rivers,
poisoned our air, acidified our rainfall and poured untreated waste into
our estuaries and coastal waters. Government intervention (such as the
ESA) does not "take" private property; it simply represents the public's
refusal to continue to subsidize private activities by allowing the
destruction of public resources.

So next time you hear somebody talk about the economic impacts of the
Endangered Species Act, remember the big picture. Protecting endangered
species, and the ecosystems they represent, will keep our economy
productive now and in the future.

Andrew J. Gunther, Ph.D., is executive director of the Center for
Ecosystem Management and Restoration in Oakland (http://www.cemar.org/).

Page B - 9

Get 50% off home delivery of the Chronicle for 12
weeks!

BIOTECH

Several Positions

Bio-Rad

BIOTECH

NOW HIRING

PDL

BIOTECHNOLOGY

Regulatory Affairs Engrs,;Techs;HR...

Medtronic Vascular

BIOTECHNOLOGY

For over 29 years, Genentech has been

Genentech

BIOTECHNOLOGY

Pharm. D. required 3-5 yrs clin. exp.

Genentech

COMPUTER

NOW HIRING

RightNow Technologies, Inc.

CONSTRUCTION

$70K Per Year

KitchenWorks, Inc.

CONSTRUCTION

Knowledge of kitchen refacing

KitchenWorks, Inc.

CUSTOMER

SERVICE $2000+/Mo . Set up/Display

DENTAL

All phases of dentistry

DENTAL

Experienced or new grads welcome

Western Dental

EDUCATION

Teach Basketball Classes

University of California at Berkeley

EDUCATION

Work directly with kids&their parents

Sylvan Learning Centers

ENGINEER

Cupertino office position

UC Santa Cruz

ENGINEER

Cupertino office position

UC Santa Cruz

About
Top Jobs

View All Top Jobs

Back
To Top

San Francisco Chronicle SectionsDatebookCommentaryFoodSportsNewsBay AreaHome&GardenBusiness

©2005 San Francisco
Chronicle | Feedback |
RSS Feeds | FAQ | Contact