Deep Equity, Nonzero-Sum Environmentalism, and a Sustainable Planet

• Author: David Takacs
• Pages: 111-131

111

Chapter 6

Deep Equity, Nonzero-Sum

Environmentalism, and a

Sustainable Planet

David Takacs

As humans appropriate ever more of the planet’s bounty, leaving less

for nonhuman species and the ecosystems they inhabit, conicts

emerge over who or what gets which resources, and what counts as

“resources” in the rst place. Such conicts result in, and emerge from, some

of the unproductive zero-sum framings described in this volume.

Dualistic, zero-sum framings result in unproductive clashes between

parties who may be talking past each other. Such clashes even extend to

choosing appropriate frames through which we view the natural world, and

thus how we set priorities to manage that world: Are ecosystems gardens to

be cultivated and manipulated for human needs, or are they wildernesses

imbued with intrinsic worth, whose species are valuable for their own sake,

to be managed for continued ecological fu nction and evolutionary potential?

Is the natural world capacious enough to allow for both paradigms to guide

our attempts to manage the planet?

In three of my research arenas, promoters of new conservation strategies

split the dierence, modulating between nature as sacred and nature as pro-

fane. In all cases, these three multifaceted approaches to solving problems

serve as counter-narratives to win-lose, zero-sum environmentalism.

Public funders and private investors are pouring billions of dollars into

reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) in

the developing world. In REDD+, investors pay people to preserve carbon in

biomass, and then sell credits based on the stored ca rbon to those wishing to

oset their own greenhouse ga s (GHG) emissions.1 In biodiversity osetting,

rapidly gaining currency as a tool that (potentially) promotes prudent eco-

1. For overviews of REDD+ and how it works, see, e.g., David Takacs, Environmental Democracy and

Forest Carbon (REDD+), 44 E. L. 71 (2014) [hereinafter Environmental Democracy and Forest

Carbon REDD+]; David Takacs, Forest Carbon (REDD+): Repairing International Trust, and Recipro-

cal Contractual Sovereignty, 37 V L. R. 653 (2013) [hereinafter Forest Carbon REDD+];

112 Beyond Zero-Sum Environmentalism

nomic and ecological planning, developers degrade biodiversity in one place

in exchange for paying to protect it elsewhere, and perhaps improving a spe-

cies’ or ecosystem’s chances for long-term survival.2 In South Afric a, to fulll

the constitutionally guaranteed right to safe, clean drinking water, ocials

are developing projects to enhance the ecological in frastructure in the 8% of

the nation’s land that provides 50% of its water. In so doing, they plan simul-

taneously to create more and cleaner water, augment local ecosystem serv ices,

protect nonhuman species, and create jobs for poor people in rural areas.3

Each of these examples presents nonzero-sum solutions to environmental

problems, and broadens the way we frame the problems in the rst place.

A worldview shaped by ecological science requires that in a ny situation we

consider the manifold connections between multiple entities. ese connec-

tions are shaped by the past, and extend into the future. An action in one

place may have predictable (or not) implications for a distant location, render-

ing simple win-loss calculations impossible. Such a worldview also requires

us to consider diverse currencies by which “wins” and “losses” are tallied. In

the three examples I discuss here, currencies (potentially) expand beyond

immediate nancial g ain and loss, or ability to develop a property or not. We

can, in addition, trade in local a nd global ecosystem services provided, GHG

mitigated, aesthetic and biophilic benets accrued, democratic decisionmak-

ing participation rights enjoyed, human rights of present and future genera-

tions guaranteed, jobs created, and economies grown. In all three research

areas, those who prize diverse ecosystems, the biodiversity they harbor, and

the ecosystem services they provide win in diverse ways. But even those

who do not explicitly prize these ecological assets nonetheless benet from

enhanced environmental amenities, albeit in more diuse ways, harder to

quantify by traditional zero-sum means.4 e natural world, viewed thusly,

is not simply a single resource; it is multiple, manifold resources that negate

simple zero-sum accounting.

David Takacs, Forest Carbon Osets and International Law: A Deep Equity Legal Analysis, 22 G.

I’ E. L. R. 521 (2010) [hereinafter Forest Carbon Osets].

2. One of the best sources of information on this scheme is the Business and Biodiversity Osets

Program (BBOP). See, e.g., Wildlife Conservation Society, BBOP Principles on Biodiversity Osets,

http://bbop.forest-trends.org/documents/les/bbop_principles.pdf. For an overview, see David

Takacs, Are Koalas Fungible?: Biodiversity Osetting and the Law, 26 N.Y.U. E. L.J. 161 (2018)

[hereinafter Are Koalas Fungible?

3. For a comprehensive description of this program, see David Takacs, South Africa and the Human Right

to Water: Equity, Ecology, and the Public Trust Doctrine, 34 B J. I’. L. 55 (2016) [hereinafter

South Africa and the Human Right to Water].

4. J.B. Ruhl discusses this phenomenon that on a macro scale, everyone wins when we sustain function-

ing ecosystems, even if on a micro scale it might look like there are immediate losers. See Chapter 1

at 7.