Great Barrier Reef valued at $56 billion
June 25, 2017 2:33 PM Subscribe
Thank god that Deloitte put a price tag on one of nature's most precious ecosystems because otherwise it could go fuck itself back to the permian period while we madmax the rest of the planet.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 2:43 PM on June 25, 2017 [24 favorites]
posted by Foci for Analysis at 2:43 PM on June 25, 2017 [24 favorites]
man, liquidity and fungibility on that asset sucks a lot
posted by hleehowon at 2:44 PM on June 25, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by hleehowon at 2:44 PM on June 25, 2017 [5 favorites]
On this calculation, Apple is worth more than 10 times the value of the entire Great Barrier Reef.
posted by daveje at 2:57 PM on June 25, 2017 [8 favorites]
posted by daveje at 2:57 PM on June 25, 2017 [8 favorites]
The feeling of grass beneath your bare feet takes a major plunge after a weak quarterly filing, while shares in playing with a labrador puppy continue to skyrocket
posted by theodolite at 2:57 PM on June 25, 2017 [42 favorites]
posted by theodolite at 2:57 PM on June 25, 2017 [42 favorites]
Thank god that Deloitte put a price tag on one of nature's most precious ecosystems because otherwise it could go fuck itself back to the permian period while we madmax the rest of the planet.
Given that the Australian government is completely ignoring the reef, despite the reef being a massive tourist draw and in severe decline, this is probably Deloitte trying to convince them to actually do something to protect it (although they have done value estimates on the reef before). Instead, the Australian government is moving heaven and earth to approve a massive coal mine virtually next to the reef, which will involve dredging a shipping path through it and more likely than not mining spoil being dumped on it.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 3:02 PM on June 25, 2017 [28 favorites]
Given that the Australian government is completely ignoring the reef, despite the reef being a massive tourist draw and in severe decline, this is probably Deloitte trying to convince them to actually do something to protect it (although they have done value estimates on the reef before). Instead, the Australian government is moving heaven and earth to approve a massive coal mine virtually next to the reef, which will involve dredging a shipping path through it and more likely than not mining spoil being dumped on it.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 3:02 PM on June 25, 2017 [28 favorites]
Just to add a bit more context, the article specifies that the Deloitte assessment was commissioned by the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. So it's definitely to support an argument (in fact, a business case) that the Goverment should not murder the reef for the sake of a coal mine that will deliver only marginal short term benefits to Australia.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 3:09 PM on June 25, 2017 [15 favorites]
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 3:09 PM on June 25, 2017 [15 favorites]
It's a shame it had to come to this. Double shame that it will have no impact on our corrupt, spineless, gormless, fuck-faced, geriatric leaders.
posted by turbid dahlia at 3:25 PM on June 25, 2017 [8 favorites]
posted by turbid dahlia at 3:25 PM on June 25, 2017 [8 favorites]
At that price, Apple could afford to build 4 new ones, and have cash left over to build a spare Mt. Washington as well.
posted by sfenders at 3:37 PM on June 25, 2017 [6 favorites]
posted by sfenders at 3:37 PM on June 25, 2017 [6 favorites]
I, for one, would like to apologize for damaging 27 cents worth of the reef when I bashed my leg into it in 2002, and am happy to make restitution. I still think the reef came away better than my leg though.
posted by zachlipton at 4:31 PM on June 25, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 4:31 PM on June 25, 2017 [2 favorites]
At that price, Apple could afford to build 4 new ones, and have cash left over to build a spare Mt. Washington as well.
If someone could build a Great Barrier Reef for $56B, Bill Gates would have ordered one already. $56B is a measure of economic benefit, not replacement cost.
posted by Artful Codger at 4:53 PM on June 25, 2017 [10 favorites]
If someone could build a Great Barrier Reef for $56B, Bill Gates would have ordered one already. $56B is a measure of economic benefit, not replacement cost.
posted by Artful Codger at 4:53 PM on June 25, 2017 [10 favorites]
I wonder if they're taking into account the increase in value of all the other famous natural wonders of the world that will be realized if this one is destroyed. After all, it doesn't take much fancy economics to observe that the fewer there are, the more valuable the remaining ones will be. Anyway I wouldn't worry about it: If there's a demand for natural beauty and biodiversity, I'm sure the market will find some way to solve the problem.
posted by sfenders at 5:16 PM on June 25, 2017 [7 favorites]
posted by sfenders at 5:16 PM on June 25, 2017 [7 favorites]
Along the same lines, from the Washington Post: As coral reefs wither amid climate change, so will the Florida Keys’ economy
posted by peeedro at 6:13 PM on June 25, 2017
posted by peeedro at 6:13 PM on June 25, 2017
This kind of thing (putting a dollar value on nature) has been going on for a while now, see "ecosystem services." It was a pretty hot topic durng the few years when I worked in conservation research. I kinda hated it, as a concept.
On the one hand, many many people (including most policymakers and the ultra-wealthy) only understand value in terms of money—they simply can't see that there are other types of worth, or that things may have value beyond what they can do for us as resource to be exploited. Doing this kind of analysis helps reach those people, and we've got to use whatever tools we have.
On the other hand, that very problem is the whole reason why we are in this sorry mess to begin with, and playing that game with conservation just legitimizes a broken system and puts us in a situation where we can't win. The Great Barrier Reef is widely acknowledged to be one of the great wonders of the natural world, one the chiefest of Earth's crown jewels. This analysis says it's worth 56 billion AUD and that sounds like a lot, but it isn't really. It's 1/25th the cost of the US's F-35 program, or 1/8th the value of the world's fleet of offshore drilling rigs.
Once you start playing the game on their terms, they've won.
Our priorities are way out of whack.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 6:30 PM on June 25, 2017 [25 favorites]
On the one hand, many many people (including most policymakers and the ultra-wealthy) only understand value in terms of money—they simply can't see that there are other types of worth, or that things may have value beyond what they can do for us as resource to be exploited. Doing this kind of analysis helps reach those people, and we've got to use whatever tools we have.
On the other hand, that very problem is the whole reason why we are in this sorry mess to begin with, and playing that game with conservation just legitimizes a broken system and puts us in a situation where we can't win. The Great Barrier Reef is widely acknowledged to be one of the great wonders of the natural world, one the chiefest of Earth's crown jewels. This analysis says it's worth 56 billion AUD and that sounds like a lot, but it isn't really. It's 1/25th the cost of the US's F-35 program, or 1/8th the value of the world's fleet of offshore drilling rigs.
Once you start playing the game on their terms, they've won.
Our priorities are way out of whack.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 6:30 PM on June 25, 2017 [25 favorites]
Even with the slump in coal prices, Queensland exported $20 billion in coal last year. This doesn't include the value of coal used locally for power generation.
If you try to make a case for shutting down coal mines to protect the reef on financial grounds you're going to lose.
posted by zymil at 7:22 PM on June 25, 2017
If you try to make a case for shutting down coal mines to protect the reef on financial grounds you're going to lose.
posted by zymil at 7:22 PM on June 25, 2017
On the one hand, many many people (including most policymakers and the ultra-wealthy) only understand value in terms of money—they simply can't see that there are other types of worth, or that things may have value beyond what they can do for us as resource to be exploited. Doing this kind of analysis helps reach those people, and we've got to use whatever tools we have.
If the intended audience aren't themselves in a position to profit from the resource in question, why would they give a fig?
posted by Artful Codger at 7:36 PM on June 25, 2017 [2 favorites]
If the intended audience aren't themselves in a position to profit from the resource in question, why would they give a fig?
posted by Artful Codger at 7:36 PM on June 25, 2017 [2 favorites]
Even with the slump in coal prices, Queensland exported $20 billion in coal last year. This doesn't include the value of coal used locally for power generation.
If you try to make a case for shutting down coal mines to protect the reef on financial grounds you're going to lose
Oh really? Coal royalties only raised around $3 billion last year, which is around 45% less than the GB Reef's annual contribution to the economy.
posted by Thella at 7:38 PM on June 25, 2017 [1 favorite]
If you try to make a case for shutting down coal mines to protect the reef on financial grounds you're going to lose
Oh really? Coal royalties only raised around $3 billion last year, which is around 45% less than the GB Reef's annual contribution to the economy.
posted by Thella at 7:38 PM on June 25, 2017 [1 favorite]
My homeowners insurance premium is largely driven by the replacement value of my house; i.e., how much it would cost to rebuild a similar house if this one burned down.
So, Deloitte, how much does it cost to replace the Great Barrier Reef? Let's factor that in.
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 8:25 PM on June 25, 2017 [3 favorites]
So, Deloitte, how much does it cost to replace the Great Barrier Reef? Let's factor that in.
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 8:25 PM on June 25, 2017 [3 favorites]
Fig is a member of the Mefi community and we can't give them away.
Your mother's wedding ring, your father gave it to her, and she gave it to you, to give to the one you love. Even though it's worth 50 bucks at the pawn broker. It's priceless.
It's priceless. That's all they had to say in the report. It can't be replaced, it's unique, it's ours, and we have to protect it.
posted by adept256 at 8:51 PM on June 25, 2017 [4 favorites]
Your mother's wedding ring, your father gave it to her, and she gave it to you, to give to the one you love. Even though it's worth 50 bucks at the pawn broker. It's priceless.
It's priceless. That's all they had to say in the report. It can't be replaced, it's unique, it's ours, and we have to protect it.
posted by adept256 at 8:51 PM on June 25, 2017 [4 favorites]
It's priceless.
Anything that can't have a price tag put on it, in the calculus of Deloitte's target audience, is the "bullshit" in "money talks, bullshit walks".
posted by ryanshepard at 10:38 PM on June 25, 2017 [3 favorites]
Anything that can't have a price tag put on it, in the calculus of Deloitte's target audience, is the "bullshit" in "money talks, bullshit walks".
posted by ryanshepard at 10:38 PM on June 25, 2017 [3 favorites]
Deloitte is not the bad guy here. They are advocating for action to be taken to save the reef. Here's the report.
Your anger is properly directed at the hollow mockery that is the Australian federal government.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 10:43 PM on June 25, 2017 [6 favorites]
Your anger is properly directed at the hollow mockery that is the Australian federal government.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 10:43 PM on June 25, 2017 [6 favorites]
I understand what you're saying. But this is a case of fighting pigs, you get all covered in pig shit and the pig likes it.
posted by adept256 at 10:46 PM on June 25, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by adept256 at 10:46 PM on June 25, 2017 [3 favorites]
From the report:
< annual contribution to the Australian economy in terms of value added (Gross Domestic Product) and employment.posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 10:48 PM on June 25, 2017
Our research has shown the Great Barrier Reef contributed $6.4 billion in value added and over 64,000 jobs to the Australian economy in 2015–16 (direct and indirect). Most of these jobs came from tourism activities generated by the Great Barrier Reef, but there were also important economic contributions from shing, recreational and scientific activities.
The annual employment supported by the Great Barrier Reef is more than most of Australia’s major banks, and many corporates including the likes of Qantas and Deloitte Australia.
Considering this, the Reef is critical to supporting economic activity and jobs in Australia. The livelihoods and businesses it supports across Australia far exceeds the numbers supported by many industries we would consider too big to fail.
Another way of valuing the Reef is its economic, social and icon asset value. This figure captures the broader aspects of why we value the Reef, and cannot be added to the annual economic contribution figure.
More than the jobs it supports and the value it adds to the economy each year, the Great Barrier Reef is valued at $56 billion as an Australian economic, social and iconic asset.
That's more than 12 Sydney Opera Houses, or the cost of building Australia's new submarines. It’s even more than 4 times the length of the Great Wall of China in $100 notes.
This is Australia’s Reef. This is our natural asset. If we split the $56 billion asset value down into its parts:
• Australians who have visited the Reef as tourists –
on their honeymoon, on a family holiday, on a
bucket-list trip – derive $29 billion in value
• Australians that have not yet visited the Reef –
but value knowing that it exists – derive $24 billion in value
• And the lucky Australians that are recreational users of the Reef – going to the beach, taking the boat out, diving on the weekends – derive $3 billion in value.
The above figures are estimates based on reasonable assumptions about the length of analysis and the ‘discount rate’ – how much we value the Reef in the future. Varying these produces a range of $37 billion to $77 billion.
The estimates do not include quantified estimates of the value Traditional Owners place on the Reef. Another approach that analyses how the Reef is natural capital that provides ecosystem services is also explored qualitatively in this report.
What a cheap assessment. They probably crit-failed their Appraisal check.
posted by filtergik at 2:13 AM on June 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by filtergik at 2:13 AM on June 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
On the one hand, this is dumb and consulting is dumb insofar as it's a social service masquerading as a technical one.
On the other hand, this is a clear example of how the calculus of profit logic eventually colonizes everything...unless it's pushed back against. Conservation for conservation's sake has made inroads in certain pockets of culture, but it seems like a hard sell in a place as low density as Australia. The entire country is living off of its natural resources.
We can't even normalize humanist arguments for stuff like CO2 levels, forget about stuff that's 'just pretty'.
[yes, I know there are ecological functions of the reef as well, but...]
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 3:54 AM on June 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
On the other hand, this is a clear example of how the calculus of profit logic eventually colonizes everything...unless it's pushed back against. Conservation for conservation's sake has made inroads in certain pockets of culture, but it seems like a hard sell in a place as low density as Australia. The entire country is living off of its natural resources.
We can't even normalize humanist arguments for stuff like CO2 levels, forget about stuff that's 'just pretty'.
[yes, I know there are ecological functions of the reef as well, but...]
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 3:54 AM on June 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
The furore over this is really rather misplaced I think. And also the claims for the "further economization of all value" seem to overlook a mode of analysis that has been around for 200 years or so.
For example: even the abolitionists of the 18thC mounted a variety of arguments against slavery including one based on the economics of slavery, that ending the use of slaves would be good for US trade. Adam Smith, may have even presented such an argument.
posted by mary8nne at 5:30 AM on June 26, 2017
For example: even the abolitionists of the 18thC mounted a variety of arguments against slavery including one based on the economics of slavery, that ending the use of slaves would be good for US trade. Adam Smith, may have even presented such an argument.
posted by mary8nne at 5:30 AM on June 26, 2017
i need a dollar valuation on "your children's love" stat
posted by indubitable at 6:18 AM on June 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 6:18 AM on June 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
The furore over this is really rather misplaced I think. And also the claims for the "further economization of all value" seem to overlook a mode of analysis that has been around for 200 years or so.
It's an important mode of analysis, but too often it's become the dominant mode, which is just wrong. At some time we have to get past the short-term thinking of this mode, and wake up to the fact that you can't have unlimited growth forever on finite resources.
I don't know if we'll ever grasp that we're tenants not owners here, and that some things should continue to exist for their own sake.
posted by Artful Codger at 6:28 AM on June 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
It's an important mode of analysis, but too often it's become the dominant mode, which is just wrong. At some time we have to get past the short-term thinking of this mode, and wake up to the fact that you can't have unlimited growth forever on finite resources.
I don't know if we'll ever grasp that we're tenants not owners here, and that some things should continue to exist for their own sake.
posted by Artful Codger at 6:28 AM on June 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
How does one put a value on part of an ecosystem? Do people truly believe that the Great Barrier Reef exists in isolation?
posted by ZeusHumms at 6:37 AM on June 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by ZeusHumms at 6:37 AM on June 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
To be fair, it's sufficiently far from New Zealand that Peter Thiel doesn't have to care about it.
posted by flabdablet at 10:05 AM on June 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by flabdablet at 10:05 AM on June 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
It's becoming more clear over time that any single measurement is worthless. *ESPECIALLY* if it's in Dollars.
posted by DigDoug at 10:59 AM on June 26, 2017
posted by DigDoug at 10:59 AM on June 26, 2017
Ugh...this gives me the same skin-crawly moral offense as those health insurance quotas and actuarial tables that correspond dollar values to human lives.
posted by darkstar at 11:04 PM on June 26, 2017
posted by darkstar at 11:04 PM on June 26, 2017
« Older If you stop every time a dog barks, your road will... | Operation Tracer Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by So You're Saying These Are Pants? at 2:37 PM on June 25, 2017 [11 favorites]