Last year, riding the buzz over dying bees, the Obama administration announced the creation of a pollinator-health task force to develop a “federal strategy” to promote honeybees and other pollinators. Last month the task force unveiled its long-awaited plan, the National Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators. The plan aims to reduce honeybee-colony losses to “sustainable” levels and create 7 million acres of pollinator-friendly habitat. It also calls for more than $82 million in federal funding to address pollinator health.
But here’s something you probably haven’t heard: There are more honeybee colonies in the United States today than there were when colony collapse disorder began in 2006. In fact, according to data released in March by the Department of Agriculture, U.S. honeybee-colony numbers are now at a 20-year high. And those colonies are producing plenty of honey. U.S. honey production is also at a 10-year high.
He goes on to describe how market forces cause beekeepers to enhance the bee population, in spite of other forces that cause decline.
Note that the title of this post is supposed to be (bee?) a pun.
I recently attended an informal presentation by an officer of the local beekeepers assoc. Fascinating is an understatement. Among other facts: a lot of commercial agricultural fertilization occurs through cross-state-borders trade. Beekeepers “truck” colonies from low demand (usually due to season) places to high demand places. They go where the fees (after expenses) yield the highest incentive. Presumably fees reflect local bee supply demand plus value of the crop.
In other words, the asset formerly know as the “bee” (more precisely, the “bee colony”) is not only growing, but its “turnover rate” has been increasing as well!
This article gives an interesting take on the situation
http://www.wired.com/2015/04/youre-worrying-wrong-bees/
This line of thinking provides us with sustainability… subject to short term cost benefit analysis.
The burden of proof should be on the other party. Has there ever been an good historical example of capitalist unsustainable ‘exploitation’ of some valuable resource that was only remedied through government intervention?
I think the best examples might be tragedies of the commons such as issues with open-sea fisheries and perhaps hunting the dodo bird and other species into extinction or severe endangerment.
Many economists say that the answer to these sorts of problems is more capitalism, by which they mean clear and strong property rights in currently unowned, wild animals, and a legal market for unconventional livestock farming operations that satisfy the demands of hunters and consumers of the exotic-substances produced by these animals.
Still, while it’s a bummer not being able to see a live dodo, the real value of the existence of any particular species besides the commercial demand is hard to estimate, especially when most people treat it as a sacred value that cannot be priced.
I’m all in favor of using the markets where it works, and ultimately, I’m not worried about Dodo’s, I’m worried about people. But everything can’t be solved with ownership. The incentives and time frames just don’t always line up.
An example of government intervention – the removal of lead in gasoline and paint.
Lead pollution is not a ‘resource exhaustion / unsustainability’ problem.
Depends on our semantics. If non-toxic air is owned collectively it could be a resource sustainability issue with an ownership solution.
One question is whether government is part of the solution or the problem. The answer is of course both at the same time.
See? The millions of dollars and the long acronym thingy worked.