The Bottom Line
Posted by Jeff Condon on June 16, 2010
Sam at Climatequotes has another guest post here which expands on the motives behind the exaggerated claims of the UN. As with all government, the motive is the key.
The past two days I’ve looked at the UN’s interim TEEB report and found several errors in the first chapter. I was going to write a post about how this pseudo-science spreads, but after looking at several TEEB documents I decided to write on a new topic.
The TEEB isn’t a scientific body, it exists to influence policymakers. This isn’t a contentious claim, they say so on their webpage:
The TEEB study aims to:
* Integrate ecological and economic knowledge to structure the evaluation of ecosystem services under different scenarios.
* Recommend appropriate valuation methodologies for different contexts.
* Examine the economic costs of biodiversity decline and the costs and benefits of actions to reduce these losses.
* Develop “toolkits” for policy makers at international, regional and local levels in order to foster sustainable development and better conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity.
* Enable easy access to leading information and tools for improved biodiversity practice for the business community – from the perspective of managing risks, addressing opportunities, and measuring impacts.
* Raise public awareness of the individual’s impact on biodiversity and ecosystems, as well as identifying areas where individual action can make a positive difference.
They obtain these goals by attempting to instill fear in their audience. Once the fear is instilled, they recommend new taxes to solve the problem.
On this section of their website they give ‘presentation tools’. I guess if you are concerned about biodiversity you can download them and lecture your friends with a powerpoint slide. One presentation is particularly interesting, The Origins and Goals of TEEB.
It starts with a picture of the globe now, and then a picture in 2050 showing how much biodiversity we are going to lose. It is typical to start off with a graphic like that, I suppose it ensures the audience is listening. Then this slide follows:
If this weren’t seeming to advocate a ‘total overhaul’ of the ‘model of capitalism’ it would be funny. This slide is almost childish. However, the next slide is what really takes the cake:
This attempt at placing guilt on the audience is ridiculous enough, but look at the caption below the slide:
Think about it –
Are you happy to leave your grandchildren a qorld where Nature is only valued at one-seventh of what we perceive it as today?
With current economic models that is exactly what we are saying right now.
I don’t feel comfortable with that, and I am pretty sure most of you wouldn’t be either.So we have to change things.
I can’t help but laugh at this. Or maybe, quagh at it. This looks more like a comment from an un-educated pre-teen on some blog than a coherent presentation of the facts about biodiversity loss. Remember, this is on the TEEB’s own website, in their own section called ‘presentation tools’ and it is labeled ‘The Origins and Goals of TEEB’.
Yes, I am making fun of this, but why not? This is being touted as the basis for a new IPCC-like panel to look at biodiversity loss, and it looks at though it is being presented by fear-mongering amateurs. However, some other presentations aren’t quite as silly. Patrick ten Brink is the TEEB for Policy Makers Co-ordinator at the Institute for European Environmental Policy. He gave a presentation to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) in Montreux, Switzerland on March 12′th of this year. Here is the presentation (a pdf).
Most of it is pretty standard stuff, but there are a few slides worth noting. The first is a slide that also exists on the TEEB site:
This is a collage of the headlines after the first TEEB report was released. While it isn’t surprising to see that they desired positive media attention, to still be touting such attention two years later must mean they value it VERY highly.
A large emphasis of the TEEB is protection of the world’s biodiversity, which of course will cost money. Where will the money come from? Well, let’s see: