Ecosystem Services: How People Benefit From Nature By Rebecca L. Goldman

People dump about 70 million tons of pollution into the air every day causing nature to be destroyed even though people can’t survive without nature. The needs of people are not more important than the needs the planet and animals.

Three of the ecosystem that I am benefiting from are pollination, nitrogen cycle and the safety of our drinking and cooking water. Pollination is a process that is mostly carry out by bees but the wind also plays a role in this process. There is much talk about the the honey bees becoming extinct. We can import bees in but this will not be very cost effective. There will be a great monetary cost to import the bees here. Also, the farmer has to be paid for the upkeep of the bee hives and it will require more manpower. This will have a great impact on our food supply. Most of our fruits and vegetables are produced due to the process.

Decisions regarding environmental problems require both knowledge and values. Placing value on specific issues can be sorted into four categories of justification: utilitarian, ecological, aesthetic and moral. California Blue focuses on the interplay of environmental issues and ethics emphasizing the conflict between industry and species preservation. Timber cutting in the Northwest United States is a mainstay of the economy. Although clear cutting is not as environmentally sensitive as selective harvesting and redwood cutting, some is essential to America's continued growth and prosperity. To ban timber operations and to throw people out of work, all to preserve an endangered blue butterfly, is to test the limits and logic of ecological priorities. The national policy of preserving endangered species serves the purpose of promoting biological diversity, which if not followed might threaten the ecosystem. This national policy of species preservation is a matter of social policy balanced with the competing interests of the local economy and human needs. Under the utilitarian approach one must balance the benefits of species preservation with the detriment of stopping human activity which threatens that species or the environment in which the

In Paul Taylor’s essay, “The Ethics for Respect for Nature,” he argues that… In this paper I will first describe Taylor’s concept of “respect for nature.” I will then explain the part this attitude plays in rationally grounding a biocentric outlook on environmental ethics. Lastly, I will present Rosalind Hursthouse’s criticism of Taylor’s view, and state how Taylor might respond to this criticism.

Have you ever thought about how your actions or opinions affected the environment around you? We’re constantly unaware of what we do that impacts the environment’s condition. One author named Wendell Berry blames the public in his article regarding the way society and the industry has treated the environment and its natural resources. This raises concerns whether we should be putting more importance on the economy or the land that we live in for the sake of our future survival. While I agree with most of Berry’s points and perspectives I slightly disagree with a few of his opinions, but nonetheless he brings up a great matter in today’s modern society.

It will influence the future generations to why we consider environment has been important, create opportunities for generation to come, a culture that can be passed on and sense of appreciation of such an experience (Singer, 2011). This point may not so readily apply to a wider consequentialist approach, which attributes intrinsic value not only to pleasure or satisfaction, but also to various objects and processes in the natural environment (Singer, 2011).

William Baxter addresses the issue of pollution, using a human-oriented method by which all value assigned to flora and fauna is dependent on each entity’s benefits to humans. In this essay I will briefly explain Baxter’s anthropocentric approach, attempt to show the flaws in Baxter’s arguments, examine his possible recourse after revisiting these points, and then conclude by restating my stance regarding the importance of flora and fauna and the immorality of environmental pollution. Pollution is immoral not only because we have a duty to preserve the

In the first week of classes we learned seven economic principles that would later be reinforced with examples in the class along with providing our own examples and analysis of the concepts in our own written work and debates about real world issues and events. We first talked about how incentives matter. In agriculture, and many other business sectors, incentives are very important and come in many forms such as subsidies or tax breaks from the government. It was also very important to learn about the shortages and surpluses that could amount from such incentives. For example, if the government were to give farmers prices above equilibrium, farmers would then be able to over produce above the demand levels. This is not to say that the government can’t sometimes improve the market outcomes. If a market failure is present and the government interferes, it would result in a positive market outcome. Next we discussed the importance of trade-offs and the opportunity costs behind those trade-offs. We make our trade-offs among three pillars of values: social/cultural, environmental, and economics and only when all three are balanced are we completely sustainable. In agriculture, trade-offs and opportunity costs are faced daily, and decisions should be made according to what is most sustainable now, and in the future. If a farmer decides to drain a wetland for more crop space to produce more (economic), the opportunity cost is the ecosystem being destroyed (environmental). Another example is if a farmer decides to farm organically, the opportunity cost is the increased yields of non-organic farming practices. Next I learned that rational people think at the margin. An example of this within agriculture is that a farmer does not think that he will hire five people to run two tractors, he thinks at the margin, hires two people to do the job, and therefore profits from that decision. I learned that markets are a good way

Main Point 1: According to Richard Fuller, a system theorist, “Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we've been ignorant of their value.”written on

The result is an unfair distribution of impacts that does not maximize social surplus. Weimer and Vining call externalities a “missing market” (p. 92). It is feasible to imagine externalities being accounted for by a private market, in cases where, for example, an externality is manifested into a change in land value. However, these cases are exceptional. Governmental must typically step in to value externalities, such as charging fines for polluting industry, in order to account for social costs and benefits.

In a slightly facetious fashion, scientist Edward O. Wilson points out to the general public both sides of the coin in regards to environmentalism and conservation of natural resources. He appeals to the emotional, logical and ethical sides of readers by pointing out the harsh effect that the desires and actions of both “radical environmentalism” and “anti- environmentalists” can have on the economy and working class citizens. These passages both comically show the overwhelming consequences that the extreme of any one standpoint can bring.

Mother Nature has a value that cannot be measured nor quantified, it is on a playing field of their own. The environment around every human on earth, provides every necessity to sustain life. Nature provides food, shelter, and even entertainment to all its member. Although there significant challenges that arise when trying to survive in certain environments, the environment should not be destroyed just to make it easier thrive in. Nature is the ultimate provider for all organisms on earth, but there are those people that try and take advantage of nature's gifts. Due to greed for money and power, people mine the earth and destroy the entire environment. The way the earth and its environment is treated in completely disrespectful. The environment does have intrinsic

Nature has provided humans an extensive variety of free sources, that has helped humanity to thrive and survive. As humans, we collectively depend on nature. Humans benefit from nature in ways that include our interaction with the environment, animals, and plants.

Sergio Margulis, the Lead Environmental Economist for the Latin America and Caribbean department of the World Bank, is worried about the economic damage that Amazonian agriculture may bring upon the people in the region. After performing an extensive and thorough microeconomic analysis of the area’s agricultural industry, he estimated the social costs of deforestation caused by agricultural encroachment to be approximately USD $100 annually per hectare of lost rainforest, which exceeds the potential profits to be made from agriculture (Margulis 61). Margulis, as an employee of the World Bank, is responsible for helping his organization determine the most effective and efficient method to invest capital in an effort to reduce poverty, and therefore, he has a strong incentive to find accurate economic figures in order to make the wisest recommendations on how to best help those in need. Although his research determined that agricultural expansion would yield a non-negligible economic benefit for the people, he found the drawbacks of the resulting deforestation caused by such expansion to be unjustifiably excessive from a social and economic

Right from the end of the 19th Century and the beginning of the 20th Century, there has been a fierce debate concerning how economic growth or development affects the environment or ecological setup of a country. The debate has its basis on whether it would be recommendable for a nation to concentrate on growing its economy while at the same time hurting or harming its ecological system. Naturalists like Pinchot Gifford, John Muir, Love Canal and Cuyahoga County always argued in favor of environmental preservation as opposed to concentrating all efforts towards developing the economy (Olmes 154; Miller 150-51). This paper will, therefore, discuss the struggle between economics and ecology specifically looking at particular events across the Twentieth Century. It will also attempt to explain the factors involved in the pursuit for change on the way people and the administration perceived the environmental conservation as opposed to economic growth.