Essay: Environmental economics

By Hugh Burns
Modified:

Saturday, July 16, 2011 2:12 AM EDT
Originally Published: Saturday, July 16, 2011

YORK -- It’s been interesting to see folks’ comments on observing an abundant deer population, a few bear sightings, lots of rabbits in the garden, and some “shovel in the dirt” development around town. Looking at it all together is a good way of thinking about the big picture –– environmental economics.

The term “environmental economics” is not an oxymoron. A healthy environment and a healthy economy are both parts of what is required for a healthy community, society, and nation.

Environmental science (which is my current gig) looks at ecosystems as an organic whole. You can’t do just one thing. You can’t just spray a pesticide and kill a bug. If you spray a pesti*cide, you’ll kill the bug, maybe some other bugs you didn’t want to kill, the pesticide can go into the ground and be taken up by other bugs that are eaten by birds that won’t be able to repro*duce as well. Get the picture?

The science of economics works the same. It looks at systems and behaviors and tries to discern how markets, consum*ers, trade agreements, taxes, and everything else all work together to make a healthy economy.

Let me toss out a question: What animal kills the most people in the United States? Wolves, mountain lions, bears? The answer is deer — because of car accidents.

Deer are abundant in Virginia because there is no top predator to keep their population in check. Whitetail deer were very rare in Virginia about 170 years ago. There are a lot more deer in Virginia now than there were in 1607 at the founding of James*town when deer were hunted as a food source. And, because of less pressure from large herbi*vores like whitetail deer, native plants were more abundant and their populations more robust.

Deer, rabbits, and other herbivores that don’t have the downward population pressure in the absence of top carnivores eat what is available. They compete for what they eat and they are opportunistic feeders. Aldo Leopold, the preeminent author, biologist, and environ*mental scientist, recognized the problem 75 years ago when he remarked that everything was grazed to the height of a saddlehorn when wolves were killed out of the system.

Killing all the wolves caused what’s called in ecology a trophic cascade. A disturbance at one level, such as the removal of a top predator like a wolf, has huge effects on the health of subsequent levels. The same is true in economics. Manipulation or disturbance at one level can have large and far-reaching consequences throughout the system. A bubble and subse*quent burst in the economy is kind of analogous to a trophic cascade in an ecosystem.

Environmental scientists, economists, and systems engineers are pretty much on the same page. They generally get the idea that everything has to work well in order for the community, the nation, and the world to be healthy. Tea Partiers and Green Partiers should recognize that they’re working on parts of the same big picture, and both would do well to try to understand and respect other’s parts of the picture. The economy and the environment can use all the help they can get from whatever quarter.

Ecosystems don’t generally operate on a dollar cost basis, and economies generally don’t cost-out externalities like losses of ecosystem services. But both need to be considered to solve big problems. And we all need to do a lot of work to solve some big problems. If a bear meander*ing through the subdivision, or a deer standing in the yard, can remind us to look at the big picture, I think they did us all a great service.

Environmental economics is not a contradiction of terms.

Hugh Burns is a biologist and environmental scientist. He is a master of science candidate in environmen*tal science at Christopher Newport University. He worked previously as an Air Force fighter pilot and was the founder and brewmaster of Williamsburg Brewing Co.