By Catherine Rampell
The World Health Organization is expected to release a report on its investigation into the origins of the novel coronavirus in the coming days. Among the many theories is the unproven belief that it was passed on from bats — leading to much public fear of the mammals. But the growing threat to bats could mean bad news for us too. Special correspondent Catherine Rampell reports.
…
Catherine Rampell:
Environmental economist Eyal Frank tries to measure what exactly we lose when we lose a species.
Eyal Frank:
How much is it worth for you to preserve polar bears or pandas or butterflies?
Catherine Rampell:
Why do we need to put a dollar value on a panda or a butterfly?
Eyal Frank:
If we don’t inform those policy discussions about what is the value of a species, we’re essentially implicitly assuming a value of zero.
Catherine Rampell:
The sudden loss of bats, though, can show how nature adds value. First, in the year or so following white-nose syndrome’s arrival in a county, farmers revenues plunge about 50 percent.
Eyal Frank:
Because they have fewer products to sell and or they just have lower-quality product, and they receive a lower price for it.
Catherine Rampell:
Insurance claims for insect damage shoot up 30-fold. Then, like organic farmers, conventional farmers seem to adjust pest control strategies, and expenses go up.
Eyal Frank:
There is a very big increase in insecticide use.
Catherine Rampell:
Which has downstream effects for human health.
Eyal Frank:
Because they are toxic by design. And I find that indeed infant mortality rates go up. And I can mostly attribute that to the births that are conceived during the pesticide application season between April and July.