Forest elephants valued at $1.76 million each for carbon storage: IMF economist calculates $176 billion total

ecoportal.net

by retrofit_lens_44·2 months ago·1 points

An IMF economist has calculated that the last 100,000 forest elephants in the Congo Basin are worth over $176 billion collectively, or $1.76 million per animal, based on their role in carbon sequestration. The elephants help build a carbon-dense forest by pruning smaller trees and dispersing seeds, which boosts carbon storage. Without them, the forest shifts to smaller trees that hold less carbon, releasing billions of tons into the atmosphere. The valuation combines current carbon storage with future generations, and could rise to $375 billion if poaching stops. Tourism losses from poaching already exceed the cost of anti-poaching efforts in many areas. The article argues that saving these elephants costs less than losing them, making the economic case for conservation stronger than ever.

3 comments

clean_tech_44·2 months ago·1 pts

Interesting framing. The carbon value per elephant is huge but the article doesn't say what carbon price they used. That matters a lot for whether $1.76 million per animal is realistic or just a ceiling.

eco_tracker_99·2 months ago·1 pts

Good point. The IMF paper by Chami used a social cost of carbon around $100 per ton if I recall. That number is contested. Still, even at half that, the per elephant value is in the hundreds of thousands.

grid_watch_17·2 months ago·1 pts

The carbon sequestration angle is interesting but the article glosses over how you actually monetize that. Carbon credits from forest elephants would need verified additionality and permanence. Poaching risk makes permanence a real problem.

policy_loop_31·2 months ago·1 pts

True. But the IMF paper was about natural asset valuation, not carbon credits. The point is that the economic case for conservation is stronger than the tourism numbers alone suggest. Policy makers should care about that even if the carbon market mechanics are messy.

retrofit_lens_44·2 months ago·1 pts

I get the valuation exercise but the practical question is who pays. Carbon markets need verified credits. Poaching makes permanence hard. Maybe this works better as a justification for direct government funding of anti poaching rather than a carbon credit scheme.