Environmental Economics: Call out for a price review of commodities

INTRODUCTION

We all know that economic growth and the environment, in this time and height of awareness are like two parallel lines, two sides of one coin. Involvement in one, more often than not, puts the other at one disadvantage or two.

And this disadvantage that the environment is put in does not result only from economic activities. All forms of human settlement directly and indirectly cause some form of disfigure or imbalance to the environment; even agriculture and recreation.

Now, the first thing that comes to the mind of many diplomats, politicians and business-minded people when they see a new product or resource is how much they can make out of it. And most if the time, the financial gain is the goal.

The next plan of action is procuring the human and technological resources to harness that new product or resource.

And if at all, they take very little into consideration, regarding the environmental side effects of their endeavour.

And that seems very rational to some extent. We can't live if we do not exploit natural resources right? We can't be conveniently civil if we live in trees or holes, and let the weather flog animation out of us, no.

DISCUSSION

So I get it, I think. We exploit earth's resources just like plants and animals do... Except we don't.

How come? Every human setting has a form of storage both for excesses and future use; a deliberate do-not-touch thing. They include money and valuable banks, blood banks, food banks, inventories, storehouses, and other names for different things.

But it seems like we are just bullying the physical earth; taking all we have use for, and leaving with it all other things which we have not found use for (at the moment).

We are still in the process of disorienting the surface and the space above the surface, we have now created exploitation resources for robbing its own underground banks. The most notable one being ground water in desert areas of India and the Middle East.

In the case of water. Water found very deep in the ground (ground water) is more bountiful than the surface water we can easily reach. Research even says that groundwater is about 60 times as much as is found on the surface in rivers and streams. But is that enough reason to want to harness them? Plants and animals do not have need for them. And if we had been more intelligent - since we say we think - and had been more "intelligent" in procreating, we would not have had need for them either.

(And mind you, I don't regard metal ores as reserves or banks simply because they are not  found on the surface in the first place)

Environmentally, that should tell us how scarce natural resources are.

We understand demand and supply when it comes to our own pockets. We understand the law of diminishing returns and those other crazy laws of economics when it comes to our businesses.

But we have conveniently refused to adequately apply these laws where the environmental is concerned. And I believe we do this because we do not see the environment as a living part of us, but rather as just resources.

Some people probably even believe that "when we finish this world, we would move on to Mars". (No mars for you bruh! I will personally see to that).

Then, apart from the environmental cost (or impact) of mining resources, there is the environmental cost of using the processed products. For example, after mining crude oil and iron, releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and polluting nearby drainage, processing these resources also cause further emission of harmful gases. Then using the fuels gotten, in cars and in our electronic appliances produce more carbon and other  harmful gases. It's almost like we have been cursed with unsustainability.

In the area of animal husbandry, acquiring further patches of land to cater for demand has its own environmental impacts. Then rearing some livestock (cattle, camels and the likes) cause emission of methane, in addition to the ones emitted from the production and transportation of natural gas and coal as well as landfills. And rearing cows divert grains that would have fed a few thousands of a population into the production of meat that will barely feed half that population.

Imagine; the whole chain from production to consumption is harmful to even us. And it is not like we don't know; we don't just care enough to find better ways to do these things.

And mind you, these situations are a bit worse in developing countries (because of our you-know-what).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the damage caused by these processes to the ecosystem is what has been causing all these growing concerns in the past decade.

Therefore, I dare say that the pricing system of this world needs checking. I mean if we realise that we are harnessing resources from a stressed entity, or that we are being taken care of by a working old lady, things would most likely not be as relatively easy to afford as they are now.

It's because we do not yet recognize this that we can still misuse and keep on harnessing resources.

The only practice that has somehow curbed our ability to access resources has been having to buy them. You know unlike plants and animals, having to pay from our hard work has been the only way for us to be quite responsible. (This is what higher form of thinking has caused us; having to be controlled by the discomfort of having to work and then pay before you can acquire stuff).

So generally speaking, if majority of the about 8 billion people of this world find it relatively easy to purchase natural resources robbed from its natural reserves then I see a problem.

I see a problem of oversight ; not being able to see the harm done. I see a problem of price. And I believe we all see the consequent problem of imbalance in former earth systems - climate and ecosystem to be precise.

But then, Environmental cost! environmental cost!... It may be difficult to financially measure this environmental cost. But if the effects of this ecosystem imbalance is evident on people's lives and properties going to hundreds of millions, (that have accumulated over the years; and if there is one thing we like very much, it is our money) then I believe we should see my point.

Death from floods, intense heat in congested areas, especially around the equator, massive air pollution, sea level rise; water scarcity causing drought, causing conflict, low farm produce and so on.

(I am advocating for population reduction, but not through death, no. I'd rather it be a deliberate effort to reduce child bearing).

We don't want to pay financially, but in the end, it's our lives and properties that reap the rewards of this laxity.

But then again, would it not be impractical for the prices of goods and services to be very high because the raw materials needed for their production are scarce to the extent that they are reaching their ecological limit, (i.e, the limit where any small change can drastically cripple their system) ?

It would be like telling people to just up and die. That no matter how many jobs they have they can't pay for anything. And only the mighty rich can live cause they can afford things. (The world's not only going to be dry to them too, because there won't be any body to produce the "things they can afford", and they're going to die just as quickly).

That is why this is just a call out. Things are scarce, and we are emptying out the world (into God knows where).

Economically, demand is increasing with increasing populations, and "earth's allowable" supply is decreasing with lack of adequate "allowable" resources. (Although , by some technological innovation or blatant environmental oversight, things are still cheaper, especially technology).