‘In one way or another, this century will be the one in which we learn to account for our planet. Because unless we start accounting for our transaction with the earth we will bankrupt it for all future human habitation.’ Gleeson-White 2011 p.254.

I have just finished reading Jane Gleeson-White’s (2011) book Double Entry- How the merchants of Venice shaped the modern world and how their invention could make or break the planet. I was drawn to read this book after listening to a talk with the book’s author on ABC radio. Although I only heard the tail end of the talk, the notion of this book intrigued me. In the talk Gleeson- White (2011) stated that Double Entry suggests that the current way we measure our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is destroying our planet, however if we were to take into account the environment as part of our GDP we could desist the destruction and start rejuvenation.

It has probably become apparent through previous entries to my blog that I grapple with the notion that it is difficult to argue a case for the environment as income earnings usually trumps environmental sustainability. I felt that by reading Gleeson-White (2011), my cognitive dilemma would be quelled. If my synthesis of her book is right, then I believe I now understand why monetary gain trumps environmental protection and how we can change this ingrained notion in our society.

In Double Entry Gleeson-White (2011) traces the history of accounting and its journey into today’s society controlling beast. Although I found at times Gleeson-White’s (2011) history of accounting difficult to follow due to lack of interest in the subject and lack of understanding, I believe I can sum up her discussion of how Pacioli’s invention of double entry led to today’s environmental destruction.

With the invention of double entry bookkeeping by Venice merchant Pacioli, the ability to measure ones capital gain (or loss) became a possibility. According to Gleeson-White (2011), it was this invention that sparked the Renaissance due to the ability of high earners to pay for the architecture and art. Although this revolutionised the way business and earnings were achieved, it wasn’t until the industrial revolution that double entry became common place along with the ability to tinker with one’s books. Thus the profession of accounting was born along with regulation bodies and the emergence of capitalism. Double entry had developed from a small invention used by merchants to an overarching tool that was used by businesses and eventually governments to measure their capital and therefore their overall worth. Unfortunately, measuring one’s capital, as Glesson-White (2011) points out, does not measure those things that do not hold monetary value, like education and the environment.

Eventually, with the rise of accounting double entry was used to measure a nation’s success. The use of GDP for calculating the profits and loss of a nation and thus developing a budget was first used by the British government to calculate the cost of World War Two. Despite the universal use of GDPs and budget developments today, calculating a nation’s worth and spendings was only to be used to calculate the effect of the war, and was not to set ‘a precedent’ (Gleeson-White 2011 p.185). Despite this warning, it was a precedent.

Following the evolution of accounting into the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, Gleeson- White (2011) mentions the many scandals and downfalls of businesses and the economy due to the fallibility of the human condition and therefore the manipulation of the double entry system. She shows that with a society that has a large focus on capital, when businesses and nations are subject to human dishonesty and greed the fall is rather large. Particularly when large corporations are tied up with governance and individual investments.

Through the journey of the evolution of accounting and the rise of capitalism, Gleeson- White (2011) brings the reader to our modern day world. We have become a society that measures the tangible while the intangible becomes second class. With the mention of Robert Kennedy’s speech in 1968 she shows how our evolution into a society who values profit has given us an inability to measure those things that give us life and give life meaning. In other words, the environment and society itself. However, she suggests that although through double entry we have ruined the planet, we can use this tool to rejuvenate.

Gleeson-White (2011) paints a vivid picture of the way we are currently treating our planet. One could put it into a metaphor of stealing. We take from our planet what we want and need and use it for our own purpose, yet we do not pay for what we take. We leave it in a state of dishevelment and do not believe we ‘owe’ nature anything. We get it all for free. According to Gleeson-White (2011) what we do with the resources that we take from nature is worth more to the national GDP than the actual resource itself. We do not pay for the cost of destruction as a result. However, she believes that if nature and society were included in the GDP, we could rejuvenate and avert environmental ruin. Gleeson-White (2011) suggests that if we put a monetary value on the ecosystem services that nature provides, the GDP of many nations would look very different as well as the state of the environment. Gleeson-White (2011) offers the following examples; tropical mangroves are worth US$1000/ for their ecosystem services , yet when cleared for shrimp farm the value is US $200/hectare. The WWF’s Living Planet Survey showed that the ‘ecological debt’ that we owe to the planet as a result of our activities is US $4 trillion to US $4.5 trillion each year. An amount, according to Gleeson-White (2011), far greater than the loss of the current global financial crisis.

What I believe Gleeson-White (2011) is saying is that we need to treat nature like we would someone who provides us with goods and services. We need to start paying nature for what we take. That means we need to start placing a monetary value on the services offered to us by nature and the only way to do that is by putting natural resources and their destruction into the double entry system of nations. Those of us who care for the environment for its own sake and for ecosystem services need to stop fighting capitalism and use it to our own advantage.  It certainly would be interesting to see how we would value and treat our environment if this was the case. I would imagine rather differently.

 

Gleeson J 2011 Double Entry- How the merchants of Venice shaped the modern world and how their invention could make or break the planet Allen and Unwin, Sydney.

The notion of 'de-extinction'- A reflection

Although the notion of ‘de-extinction’ is quite appealing, I feel a sense of concern. This sense of concern is two-fold. One concern is in relation to the inherent complexities of the process within ecosystems and the second concern is for the urgency and the feeling of needing to protect critically endangered species.

Processes within ecosystems are very complex and there is a possibility that when one species is no longer a contributor to an ecosystem other species fill that ecological niche. Thus, if a species is re-introduced could there be a potential for it to disrupt the processes that have developed since its departure?  Or, What would be the outcome of an extinct species re-entering into an ecosystem where its potential competitor is also on the brink of extinction? For example the Thylacine re-entering the Tasmanian wilderness with the Tasmanian Devil suffering from DFTD and habitat fragmentation/lose. Of course there is the possibility that the returned species will fit nicely back into its ecological niche. Yet that is the nature of ecosystems, they are highly complex and unique, outcomes could be positive to ecological processes or negative.

According to Tilbury and Wortman (2004), sustainability is about addressing the cause of problems, not the symptoms. I feel that the use of ‘de-extinction’ is a potential band-aid to the fact that we are going through a period of rapid species loss that is largely attributed to human activities. Although  did not state that this is a solution to saving species from extinction I fear that it could be seen as a potential solution by others, therefore diminishing the feeling of urgency and need to protect these species. I feel that one of the answers to species extinction is addressing the causes. That is, societal attitudes and systems that allow human activities to impact on the survival of other species and not the symptoms, which is extinction. Although this may seem like an almost impossible task, would it not be wonderful if other species’ survival were valued in all facets of society?

Tasmanian Devil: Symbol of ecological complexities and our inability to understand them.

I have just finished reading Tasmanian Devil: A unique and threatened animal by David Owen and David Pemberton (2005). After reading this book, completing three assignments in the subject Ecological Processes at university and the chance encounter with the television program Living Planet on SBS, I have come to the realisation of the deep complexities that make up an ecosystem. It appears that everything is connected and an intricate balance between the processes in an ecosystem keeps the environment functional and healthy. Yet, if something is removed or disturbed this intricate balance can be disrupted with sometimes drastic consequences.

A perfect example of the complexities within ecological processes is the Tasmanian Devil and the current issue of Devil Facial Tumor Disease (DFTD). According to Owen and Pemberton (2005) although it is known that the current declining rate of the Tasmanian Devil is due to DFTD it is not certain as to the cause of this devastating disease. There is speculation that it is due to deformities in oysters as a result of chemicals used in forestry that have made their way into the water streams. This same chemical has been associated with tumors in mice. As devils almost eat anything, including oysters, there is speculation that this chemical, bio-accumulated in oysters and ingested by devils, has caused DFTD (Owen & Pemberton 2005).
This association, though would seem unlikely, shows just how complex and connected processes are in an ecosystem and how our behaviour could have unintended consequences. As a result of DFTD we (Australia) are at risk of losing our last endemic marsupial carnivore. This begs a question to be asked, What consequences could losing the Tasmanian Devil have to the ecosystem in Tasmania, particularly when we consider the devils' scavaging abilities?
Predictably, the powers that be are denying this connection between their chemical usage and DFTD. How much power does a huge money making industry like forestry in Tasmania have? Is it enough power that its voice is louder and has more sway than that of the lose of a species?

This example shows that our lack of ability to understand the complexities in ecosystems is not just due to their inherent complex nature but our political stubbornness and greed for money. It seems that an industries ability to make money and produce jobs comes before conserving a species. Although this is speculation on my part, it appears to be a recurring and common issue with most environmental/conservation issues. After reading Owen and Pemberton (2005) two things seems certain to me, politicians will sit on their hands unless it is absolutely necessary to act, like a species becoming extinct, and if anyone stands to lose money as a result of a decision to save a species, affected parties will argue for their case stalling any real action.

Although I do feel sympathy for those who are trying to make a living I have trouble accepting that the ability of one to make a living trumps the health of our environment and the wellbeing of species. Do we want another extinction in Tasmania because of our actions and the value we put on capitalism?

Own D & Pemberton D 2005 Tasmanian Devil: A unique and threatened animal Allen & Unwin Sydney.