Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #DasguptaReview
Most recents (5)
The Government response to the #SternReview was the #ClimateChangeAct: domestic action on #ClimateChange.
Its response to the #DasguptaReview starts with a promise on international biodiversity that HMG can't deliver. A better response would be to halt #nature's decline at home.
Its response to the #DasguptaReview starts with a promise on international biodiversity that HMG can't deliver. A better response would be to halt #nature's decline at home.
Of course, it should also commit to reducing the UK's #GlobalFootprint as a way to contribute to the international biodiversity crisis.
Next, the Review focuses on raising private finance. That's an excellent ambition & the Impact Fund is welcome.
But the top thing Gov can do to unlock finance is a commitment to halt nature's decline that's "long, loud and legal": a #StateofNature target in the #EnvironmentBill
But the top thing Gov can do to unlock finance is a commitment to halt nature's decline that's "long, loud and legal": a #StateofNature target in the #EnvironmentBill
1/n As I wasn't sure if/when I would read through all 700 pages of the #DasguptaReview on #biodiversity and #economics, I joined two webinars on it today via @_UKNEE (Emily McKenzie) and @RoyalSocBio @NCI_NatCap (@waters_ruth). Here's what I learned...
2/n This review sets out to create a grammar/theoretical framework for communication between ecology 🌳🐸🦋🐝🐙🦀🐅🦉🍄and economics 💰🪙💱🏙️🏗️🧺👩🌾🧑🌾 with 📢economic and finance decision-makers the key audience 📢(this for me is key - this is where systemic changes will be made)
3/ The terminology it uses has caused much dismay in some camps (my observation), as it calls nature/the biosphere an asset, everyone on earth asset managers, and biodiversity portfolio diversification (which in finance or economics is a way to reduce risk) BUT this allows.....
Perhaps the best comment yet on the parched ethics of the #DasguptaReview, which seeks to persuade us that nature is one of the "assets in our portfolios".
Incidentally, has *anyone* who's critical of the natural capital agenda yet been interviewed in the media about the Dasgupta Review, to provide, you know, an alternative perspective? If so, I haven't seen it.
The "Monoculture of Economics", to use Kate Raworth's phrase, is sustained by the Monoculture of the Media.
Like @GeorgeMonbiot & others, I'm wary of economists trying to 'put a price on nature'.
But I was surprised to see the #DasguptaReview make a strong case for actually *putting large parts of the biosphere off-limits to the market*.
Short thread to explain:
But I was surprised to see the #DasguptaReview make a strong case for actually *putting large parts of the biosphere off-limits to the market*.
Short thread to explain:
Whilst advocating for 'natural capital' accounting, Prof Dasgupta also says: "in many cases there is a strong economic rationale for quantity restrictions over pricing mechanisms. Expanding and improving the management of Protected Areas therefore has an essential role to play”
"Protected Areas can act as a form of quantity restrictions as alternative approach to market mechanisms to prevent degradation of our natural assets" - main Dasgupta report, p.439 assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…
Tomorrow the #DasguptaReview is published. Its approach is morally wrong, intellectually vacuous and counter-productive. It represents a catastrophic misstep in our relationship with nature: the penetration of capitalism into every corner of the world.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
It arises from a system that cannot tell the difference between protecting the living planet and commodifying it. The colonial relationship between nations has long been mirrored by our colonial relationship with nature. This is its ultimate expression.
But watch the media report the review as if it were entirely uncontroversial.
