Nature? Why would you be reading nature for a basic Economics 101 type of article? That's like
citing an article on hominid mating rituals in the Economist! There are countless better sources for economic studies.
The particular article that you cite is so awash in socialogical mumbo-jumbo -- things like...
Quote:
|
"The buzz-word is 'ecosystem services': the favours such as food and fuel; protection from storms, disease and solar radiation; regulation of water and climate; creation of soils; and inspiration for art, literature, religion and culture that the natural world bestows on us." and "The current political focus on climate change has brought this pressure on our ecological support systems into sharper relief."
|
Hah! Climate Change! This sounds like a PARF thread!
Quote:
|
Srinivasan et al.1 present for the first time a global-scale quantitative analysis of the distribution of major environmental costs across nations in three income groups: low (representing 32% of the world's population), middle (50%) and high (18%). The timescale of the study is 1961–2000, and it covers six categories of environmental change: climate change; stratospheric ozone depletion; agricultural intensification and expansion; deforestation; overfishing; and mangrove conversion. In the case of climate change, the authors calculate that nations in the low, middle and high income groups were responsible for 13%, 45% and 42% of greenhouse-gas emissions, respectively. The resulting climate damages were estimated to be distributed 29%, 45% and 25%.
|
So the entire premise of the paper is built on the unvalidated (or potentially more accurately described disproven) concept of man-made climate change. In reading over the article it would appear that economic concepts discussed are as shoddy the climate science.