Podcast Summary
Apple Card vs Bat Conservation: Apple Card offers daily cash back and savings opportunities, while bat conservation requires significant investment to protect populations and ecosystems, emphasizing the importance of informed decisions based on costs and potential outcomes.
Apple Card offers daily cash back of 3% when used to purchase specific items, with an option to grow it at a 4.40% annual percentage yield APY through a savings account. Meanwhile, environmental economist Amy Ando raises the question of whether it's worth investing in bat conservation efforts, given the high costs, as white nose syndrome has been decimating bat populations. This is a complex issue, as economic activity can sometimes harm the environment, but Amy Ando argues that using economics to study the environment is crucial for its protection. The discussion also highlighted the impact of white nose syndrome on bat populations, with potentially millions of bats dying in the last two decades. Solutions, such as monitoring caves, protecting habitats, and developing vaccines, are costly but necessary to prevent further damage. Amy Ando's work as an environmental economist emphasizes the importance of considering both the financial and human costs when making decisions regarding environmental conservation. In essence, the Apple Card's financial benefits and the environmental conservation efforts share a common thread: making informed decisions based on careful consideration of costs and potential outcomes. While the former offers daily cash back and savings opportunities, the latter involves investing in the preservation of bat populations and their ecosystems. Both require a thoughtful approach and a commitment to understanding the true value of the investment.
Valuing Nature's Economic Impact: Recognizing and valuing nature's contributions to the economy can lead to a better understanding of its worth, as seen through the example of bats' pest control services, which have substantial economic impact despite being intangible.
Despite the intangible value nature provides, it's essential to quantify the benefits we receive from it. For instance, bats, though seemingly worthless, play a significant role in pest control on farms, saving farmers money on pesticides. Economist Amy, after recognizing bats' labor value, attempted to put a price on it. However, it's challenging to determine the exact contribution of each bat on every farm. As a result, she considered the cost of replacing their services, which revealed the substantial economic impact of their work. In essence, acknowledging and valuing nature's contributions to our economy can lead to a better understanding of its worth.
Bat impact on agriculture land value: The presence of bats can increase land rental rates due to their insect-control benefits, while their absence can decrease them, as evidenced by a study analyzing USDA data and white nose syndrome spread.
The impact of bats on agriculture and land value can be studied through market observations. Bats, being difficult to directly observe or measure, can't be asked about their bug-eating habits or numbers. Instead, researchers can look at how the presence or absence of bats affects the price of land. Farmers consider various factors when deciding on the profitability of renting land for crop production, including the cost of inputs and weather conditions. The presence of bats, which help control insect populations, can make land more valuable and increase rental rates. Conversely, the disappearance of bats can lead to lower rental rates. Researchers analyzed USDA data on farmed acres and average cropland rental rates, as well as the spread of white nose syndrome in different counties, to find that losing bats in a county caused land rental rates to fall by almost $3 an acre, with potential spillover effects. This study highlights the importance of considering the indirect impacts of wildlife on agricultural markets and the potential economic consequences of their declines.
Bat economic value: Bats have significant economic value due to controlling pests, pollinating plants, and providing nonuse value, with the cost of White Nose Syndrome estimated to be $420.5B-$1T annually. Scientists explore methods like temperature change to combat the disease, and bat houses offer economic incentives through bat guano production.
Bats, affected by the disease White Nose Syndrome, have significant economic value beyond just their role in controlling pests. The cost to society of this syndrome is estimated to be between $420.5 billion and $1 trillion annually. To combat the disease, scientists are exploring methods like using a naturally occurring bacteria to change bat cave temperatures. Bats also provide nonuse value, as people value their existence and biodiversity for emotional and spiritual reasons. This nonuse value is evident in donations to save species with no direct market impact. Bat houses, for instance, not only serve as a means to prevent the spread of White Nose Syndrome but also provide an economic incentive by producing fertilizer-rich bat guano. Additionally, bats play a crucial role in controlling insect populations and pollinating plants. Overall, the economic value of bats is multifaceted, highlighting the importance of considering both use and nonuse values when assessing the worth of wildlife and ecosystems.
Non-use value estimation: Researchers estimate non-use values for natural resources through stated preference methods, which help inform environmental policy-making by determining compensation for loss of species or ecosystems, despite their independence from market data.
Researchers use methods like stated preference to estimate non-use values for natural resources, such as bats or grasslands, by asking people how much they're willing to pay to save them. These values play a crucial role in environmental policy-making, as they help determine the compensation needed for the loss of a species or ecosystem. This research is not just theoretical, but rather, it significantly impacts decision-making processes. However, it's important to note that these values are not directly linked to market data, as non-use values exist independently of markets. Therefore, the estimation of non-use values can be more complex than measuring use values.
Apple Card savings and environmental economics: Apple Card offers daily cash back savings and environmental economics values natural resources, both encouraging financial gain and conservation respectively
Apple Card offers daily cash back on purchases, which can grow over time when you open a savings account. This is subject to credit approval and savings is available to Apple Card owners. On a different note, environmental economists like Amy Ando measure the value of natural resources due to a policy shift in the 1980s when regulations had to go through cost-benefit analysis. This led to studies determining the economic value of natural resources, which can hold companies accountable and encourage people to save and protect them. However, these studies also face challenges in accurately valuing the natural world. In summary, Apple Card's savings feature and environmental economics both involve putting value on things, whether it's daily cash back or natural resources. The former is a financial benefit, while the latter is crucial for holding companies accountable for environmental damage and promoting conservation.
Green space valuation bias: Valuing green spaces solely based on financial resources or willingness to pay can lead to biased conclusions, potentially undervaluing green spaces in communities of color due to social and environmental factors.
The value people place on nature or green spaces is not solely determined by their financial resources or willingness to pay. Environmental economist Nathan Chan and his colleague Amy, in their research, found that this method of valuation can lead to biased conclusions, potentially resulting in the undervaluation of green spaces in communities of color due to social and environmental factors. These factors, such as safety concerns or lack of welcoming environments, can influence people's perceived value and usage of green spaces, which may not accurately reflect their true valuation. It's essential to consider these factors in addition to financial resources when evaluating the value of green spaces for all communities.
Measuring natural environments: Critics argue that economists' methods for measuring natural environments may limit understanding and distract from deeper significance, and that some spaces, like those with cultural or historical importance, may not be appropriately valued with a dollar amount.
Economists' methods for measuring the value of natural environments, such as parks, can be limiting and potentially distract from the deeper significance of these spaces. These criticisms extend to the fundamental premise of environmental economics, as some argue that placing a monetary value on nature may not be appropriate in all cases. For instance, lands with sacred or historical meanings to certain groups of people might be better understood through their cultural and heritage significance rather than a dollar amount. Additionally, some argue that certain actions, like destroying the environment, are inherently wrong and don't require a financial justification. The speaker, who initially had reservations about this type of research, acknowledges the need for economists to be humble about the limitations of their estimates and the importance of moral certitude in environmental discussions.
Environmental economics, Pandemics: Investing $22 billion annually could significantly reduce the risk of future pandemics, a cost worth considering when compared to the estimated $14 trillion cost of the COVID-19 pandemic in the US alone.
Economics plays a crucial role in convincing people and policymakers to prioritize actions that protect the environment and prevent pandemics. Amy and Nathan's work, for instance, showed that investing $22 billion annually could significantly reduce the risk of future pandemics, a figure that becomes more compelling when compared to the estimated $14 trillion cost of the COVID-19 pandemic in the US alone. However, nature's value might be overlooked if experts like Amy and Nathan don't advocate for it. In the next episode, we'll explore the misconceptions surrounding the Federal Reserve's control over inflation. Remember, the Fed chair doesn't single-handedly manage the economy; instead, they observe its trends like the rest of us. This episode was produced by Bird Pinkerton, reported by Benjie and Bird, edited by Marianne McCune, and featured contributions from Meredith Hodnot, Mandy Nguyen, Noam Hassenfeld, Christian Ayala, Melissa Hirsch, and Brian Resnick.
Engaging with Experts: Engaging with experts and thought leaders in your field can provide invaluable knowledge and advice. Send in questions and support the show to contribute to the ongoing conversation and help ensure the continued production of thought-provoking content.
The guests on Unexplainable, Nathan Chan and Amy Ando, went above and beyond in providing valuable insights and responses to follow-up emails. This demonstrates the importance of engaging with experts and thought leaders in your field, as they can offer invaluable knowledge and advice. Additionally, the hosts encourage listeners to send in their questions and thoughts, and to support the show through membership or positive reviews. By doing so, listeners can contribute to the ongoing conversation and help ensure the continued production of thought-provoking content. Overall, the episode underscores the value of community, collaboration, and the pursuit of knowledge.