There are a number of initiatives, some already introduced and some in the pipeline, that are specifically designed to ensure that the economic value of nature is recognised.
One example is reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, under which forest owners are paid not to cut down trees. A number of governments across the world have committed hundreds of millions of dollars to these projects. Another is habitat banking, the market for which currently stands at around $3bn in the US, where companies that degrade natural areas are forced to restore nature elsewhere. Trade in forest conservation obligations in Brazil and ground-water salinity credits in Australia have also proved successful. Alongside these schemes and those like them, there are various compensation arrangements that make those causing environmental damage pay for it, just like carbon credits that currently exist. Exemptions from these various taxes, charges and fees, as well as subsidies, are also used to encourage environmentally responsible behaviour.
There is also growing pressure for companies to begin incorporating the costs of the damage that they do to the Earth’s natural resources into their profit and loss accounts. Only by incorporating these costs into their accounts, many argue, will companies be forced to reduce their impact on the natural world. "Directors’ bonuses don’t have to be included in company accounts from a pure profit and loss point of view, but they are. Environmental externalities should be the same," says Pavan Sukhdev, a career banker and team leader of the United Nations’ The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity study.
“This is not a straightforward process and needs standard methodologies accepted by everyone, but it could be achieved within 10 years.” The next step would be to incorporate environmental assets into national accounts.
(Source: https://www.bbc.com/)
Which best serves as the title for the passage?
Vui lòng chờ trong giây lát!
Thưởng th.10.2024
Bảng xếp hạng
