Realist, not conformist analysis of the latest financial, business and political news

If Only The Guardian Understood Numbers – Fat Chance

As we know the arts graduates that produce The Guardian don’t understand numbers in the slightest. That’s why we get the tosh from them that we do. An example today being the damage done to human welfare by plastics in the seas. This doesn’t even make sense in the numbers they themselves quote:

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””] Plastic pollution in the world’s oceans costs society billions of dollars every year in damaged and lost resources, research has found. Fisheries, aquaculture, recreational activities and global wellbeing are all negatively affected by plastic pollution, with an estimated 1-5% decline in the benefit humans derive from oceans. The resulting cost in such benefits, known as marine ecosystem value, is up to $2.5bn (£1.9bn) a year, according to a study published this week in Marine Pollution Bulletin. Plastic waste is also believed to cost up to $33,000 per ton in reduced environmental value, the study found. An estimated 8m tons of plastic pollution enter the world’s oceans every year. [/perfectpullquote]

Think it through for a moment. If it is $2.5 billion then we’ve not got a problem. This is damage to us all at entirely trivial levels, rounding errors type numbers. The NHS blew four times that number just on trying to get digital medical records. We can therefore all carry on using plastic and dumping it into the ocean.

Or, we can try working through the numbers presented. 8 million tonnes a year, $33,000 a tonne, that’s, umm, $264,000,000,000 or $0.250 trillion. That’s a bit more of a problem. But, you know, trillion, billion, who is bothering to count?

We might even start to think a little about where these vast numbers are coming from. In the original paper:

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””] In light of this evidence, it is considered reasonable to postulate a 1–5% reduction in marine ecosystem service delivery as a result of the stock of marine plastic in the oceans in 2011. Such a conjecture is conservative when compared to the reduction in terrestrial ecosystem services due to anthropogenic disturbances available in the literature, e.g. a 11–28% decline of global terrestrial ecosystem services (by value) arising from land use changes between 1997 and 2011 (Constanza et al., 2014), and a reduction of up to 31% (by value) due to urbanisation in China (Su et al., 2014; Su et al., 2012). On a global scale, it has been estimated that for 2011 marine ecosystem services provided benefits to society approximating $49.7 trillion1 per year (Constanza et al., 2014). [/perfectpullquote]

That is:

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]This 1–5% decline in marine ecosystem service delivery equates to an annual loss of $500–$2500 billion in the value of benefits derived from marine ecosystem services.[/perfectpullquote]

The actual damage is up to $2.5 trillion.

Not that this is all that believable. Marine benefits to humanity of $50 trillion a year when the global economy back in that year was about $70 trillion? We probably shouldn’t believe it anyway but it would help if the Guardian knew numbers well enough to get within an order or two of magnitude of the right number, no?

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Total
0
Shares
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
5 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jonathan Harston
Jonathan Harston
1 year ago

Put it another way, £2bn of damage, 8 billion peeps on the planet, so that’s 25p per person per year. So, just charge me a hapenny per week for my plastic use, job done. As Tim says, it’s all rounding errors.

Quentin Vole
Quentin Vole
1 year ago

Exactly. And almost none of the UK’s plastic ends up in the oceans in any case.

Davidsb
Davidsb
1 year ago
Reply to  Quentin Vole

…almost none of the UK’s plastic ends up in the oceans…

Well, only the stuff that we ship to the Far East so that they can charge us to recycle it responsibly….

;¬)

Q46
Q46
1 year ago

What ‘damage’? The greatest damage to marine life is marine life… they eat each other. How much does that cost?

‘…global terrestrial ecosystem services…’. What are these?

‘… reduced environmental value…’. What is environmental value?

A lot of meaningless ecobabble with $ signs with lots of noughts after, to pretend there is a problem.

Dodgy Geezer
Dodgy Geezer
1 year ago

….This 1–5% decline in marine ecosystem service delivery … One major ‘service delivery’ that the oceans provide seems to be a general purpose dustbin. That’s very useful. I suggest that it should be valued at $2.5 trillion. or any other number you think is convenient to bring the total balance back to zero. Because the pollution is absorbed quite easily by the oceans and so the balance of nature is not upset. ALL attempts to show that the ocean is suffering depend on: a – calculating the total manufactured plastic weight and assuming that some proportion ends up in the… Read more »

Can you help support Continental Telegraph?

If you can spare a few pounds you can donate to our fundraising campaign below. All donations are greatly appreciated and go towards our server, security and software costs. 25,000 people per day read our sites and every penny goes towards our fight against the Establishment. We don't take a wage and do what we do because we enjoy it and hope our readers enjoy it too.


Donate
5
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x