Natural value

“Valuing Maine’s Natural Capital,” a new study from the Manomet Center for Conservation Science, provides important analysis that should factor into all serious discussion about development in Maine.

Considering just the benefits of Maine’s current environmental conditions to the state’s inhabitants, the report pegs the value of Maine’s natural resources at close to $15 billion annually. It does not factor revenue related to tourism, hunting, fishing and other nature-based businesses.

Acknowledging that a host of variables make it difficult to assign specific values to “ecosystem services,” the study’s authors strive to establish a cost-benefit framework in which “social costs or benefits can be directly weighed against competing market opportunities .”

Until now, government discussions about development have typically assigned no value to such factors as greenhouse gas sequestration, natural flood control capacity, wildlife habitat, pollination systems and underground water tables. The study uses replacement costs and other value measures to calculate the rough worth of Maine’s beauty to its people.

With tools now available as a result of the research contracted by Manomet, “cost-benefit analysis, which normally fails to include any significant costs to the environment, can now incorporate some environmental considerations,” the study states. One example cited in a Bangor Daily News report about the study is $146 million that a pristine Sebago Lake watershed saves taxpayers by providing a natural filtration system for the Portland Water District’s 200,000 customers.

In addition to adding important context for future discussions about development, the report helps debunk the notion that efforts to safeguard watersheds and ecosystems hurt Maine’s economy

On the contrary, environmental stewardship makes good business sense.

Needs work

Ball State University’s Center for Business and Economic Research last week released its 2012 Manufacturing and Logistics Report Card. The report grades all 50 states, compared to other states, on a variety of economic factors.

Maine received the following grades:

— Manufacturing: C

— Logistics: D-

— Human Capital: B

— Tax Climate: D

— Worker Benefit Costs: F

— Expected Liability Gap: D

— Global Reach: D+

— Sector Diversification: C

— Productivity and Innovation: D+

While the validity of all such national analyses suffers by the grapes-to-watermelons comparisons of small states like Maine to behemoths like Texas and California, the fact that a university rather than an industry or advocacy group generated the study enhances its credibility.

The highest grade, for human capital, stands as a credit to Maine’s hardworking, well-educated work force. The lowest grade, for worker benefit costs, highlights the economic pains caused by a health care system that politicians from both major parties have failed to manage.

Greater investment in research and development could boost the innovation score.

Other low scores point to leadership problems and indicate that 2010’s change of philosophy at the State House either hasn’t worked or needs more time. Voters will update those grades in November.