|
| all news articles | by topics |
|
news
articles about singapore's wild places
|
| Letters
to The Straits Times, 31 Jan 05 Economy v environment: Let's talk dollars and sense I HAVE been reading with some amusement, and perhaps a little frustration, the latest Straits Times coverage on the nature versus economic growth debate in Parliament ('Debate over the price of being green'; ST, Jan 26), as well as the commentary by Institute of South-east Asian Studies fellow Lee Poh Onn on the worth of natural heritage in Singapore ('How much is natural heritage worth?'; ST, Jan 23). More than 10 years ago, The Straits Times featured in its Life! section a lengthy debate between me, as an academic economist, and Dr Ho Hua Chew, who was at that time president of the Nature Society of Singapore, on precisely the issues discussed today (ST, Oct 29, 1992). My frustration comes as a result of not seeing more that could have been done to solve, or perhaps more aptly handle, such environmental concerns by the use of well-known and established methods taught in all environmental economics courses across much of the developed world. In the 1992 article, I explained the merits of techniques such as cost-benefit analysis, valuation of non-market environmental goods and impact analysis in dealing with such problems. It is important, in my view, to attempt to place money values on the environment where it is affected by development projects. It is only by putting such things on a common plate, by deriving values in dollar terms, that some means of comparison and relative worth of projects and policies can be assessed inclusively. There is not much advantage in listing, as is done traditionally by most nature societies, all the so-called biodiversity and species that face extinction in an attempt to stop a proposed project. On the one hand, there is a development project worth, say, $50 million. On the other, there is a list of 10,000 species of birds, 8,500 types of insects, more than 2,000 species of trees and so on. How is one to make much meaningful sense of this, let alone weigh the merits of the project? The article by Mr Asad Latif on the economy versus the environment makes more sense in creating awareness that we, as a society, cannot have a so-called 'free lunch' in getting more growth ('Economy v environment? No, it's about achieving balance'; ST, Jan 26). There have to be some sacrifices but more pertinently, there is a need to balance further growth (and with it, employment, consumer goods and so on) with preserving or enhancing nature. It is important to remind ourselves that Singapore is a land-scarce country and at the same time realise that as more land is devoted to projects, the remaining pristine environment gets smaller. Ultimately, it depends on what a society wants: more nature or more urbanisation (both have benefits). However, the test of the relative worth of each new project should be based on the economic science of common sense in valuing and comparing in a systematic way the benefits and costs of each proposal. Euston Quah Teong Ewe (Dr) links Related articles on Putting a price on nature in Singapore |
| News articles are reproduced for non-profit educational purposes. | |
website©ria tan 2003 www.wildsingapore.com |