Conservationists commonly have framed ecological concerns in economic terms to garner political support for conservation and to increase public interest in preserving global biodiversity. Beginning in the early 1980s, conservation biologists adapted neoliberal economics to reframe ecosystem functions and related biodiversity as ecosystem services to humanity. Despite the economic success of programs such as the Catskill/Delaware watershed management plan in the United States and the creation of global carbon exchanges, today's marketplace often fails to adequately protect biodiversity. We used a Marxist critique to explain one reason for this failure and to suggest a possible, if partial, response. Reframing ecosystem functions as economic services does not address the political problem of commodification. Just as it obscures the labor of human workers, commodification obscures the importance of the biota (ecosystem workers) and related abiotic factors that contribute to ecosystem functions. This erasure of work done by ecosystems impedes public understanding of biodiversity. Odum and Odum's radical suggestion to use the language of ecosystems (i.e., emergy or energy memory) to describe economies, rather than using the language of economics (i.e., services) to describe ecosystems, reverses this erasure of the ecosystem worker. Considering the current dominance of economic forces, however, implementing such solutions would require social changes similar in magnitude to those that occurred during the 1960s. Niklas Luhmann argues that such substantive, yet rapid, social change requires synergy among multiple societal function systems (i.e., economy, education, law, politics, religion, science), rather than reliance on a single social sphere, such as the economy. Explicitly presenting ecosystem services as discreet and incomplete aspects of ecosystem functions not only allows potential economic and environmental benefits associated with ecosystem services, but also enables the social and political changes required to ensure valuation of ecosystem functions and related biodiversity in ways beyond their measurement on an economic scale.

No abstract

No abstract

Abstract:In the US, carbon capture and storage (CCS) has received most of its attention when coupled with the fossil fuel industry as a mitigation strategy for climate change. CCS, which is constituted as a broad suite of capture and sequestration technologies and techniques, does not preclude coupling with other energy industries such as bioenergy (bioenergy and CCS or BECCS). In this paper, we examined news media coverage of CCS and biomass individually in locations throughout the US where these technologies are being explored to determine how they are perceived and what possibilities lay in their coupling for climate change mitigation. From our analyses, we found that individually, both CCS and biomass are perceived generally as beneficial for energy development by the news media, though they are not often mentioned in combination. Combined references do, however, speak to their value for climate change mitigation and as an alternative to fossil fuels.