top of page
Pflnze auf dürrer Erde.jpg
Photo: Pixabay Royalty-free
Photo: Pixabay Royalty-free
Our goal is to preserve our native flower meadows.

Life as we know it finds a natural limit and an end when we deprive nature of the opportunity to regenerate sustainably!

The global overexploitation of our planet's natural resources and the unchecked destruction of the most species-rich ecosystems on earth are increasing at an undiminished rate, despite the frightening forecasts of scientifically based climate and biodiversity studies and despite the increasingly loud, warning voices of leading ecologists.


Even today, humanity would need 1.7 Earths to be able to maintain its current lifestyle.

The "Earth Overshoot Day" calculated annually by the Global Footprint Network makes it clear when the ecological resources of a calendar year are used up. For this purpose, the global ecological footprint of a year is set in relation to the annually available biocapacity.

In 2022, the worldwide "Earth Overshoot Day" was reached on July 28th. For Germany alone it was May 4th, for Austria April 6th !!

So we need 3 planets earth.

Earth Overshoot Day 1970-2022.jpg
Wie viele Erden benötigen wir.png
Bevölkerungswachstum 1750-2050.jpg
co2 Konzentration in ppm - Mauna Loa.png

The prosperity principle of unbridled GROWTH and the EXPLOITATION of almost endless plantar resources, which has been lived for more than 100 years, is no longer tenable. The resources of our planet are almost exhausted, not least in view of the constantly growing world population - meanwhile there is less and less space for more and more people. This is nothing short of A NEW REALITY.

A rethinking across society towards a more sustainable way of life and economy that takes into account the consequences for nature and future generations is therefore necessary.


The majority of economists sees and thinks of people from the very beginning as a selfish creature (homo oeconomicus), who basically only cares about their own advantage and thus creates prosperity for everyone in a wondrous way.

This image of man and the resultingLiberalized capitalism's way of doing business, which in a world with finite resources relies less on constant, capital-increasing growth, is no longer sustainable. A system that rewards selfishness breeds selfishness and that urgently needs an update. We need a reconsideration of the values that sustain people in their cooperative aliveness.

The capitalist paradigm of "shareholder value" must give way to that of "common good".

What will determine the prosperity of people tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, we need new terms and concepts that express what our society will find important in the future.

After a certain level of prosperity, additional monetary growth (income) no longer makes you happier.(EASTERLIN PARADOX)


It is considered certain that planetary destruction through resource robbery does not lead to more growth and

increasing the money of individuals at the expense of the common good should no longer be called added value.


Limits to growth should mean overcoming ecological and social damage.

Economic growth in its current form = climate change/growth of the climate crisis (Mauna Loa curve)

Overview of methods for evaluating ecosystem services (by Nele Lienhoop)


Price-based methods - direct market prices
Here, the direct prices to be paid for ecosystem services on the market are used for the assessment. Market prices are usually only available for utility services (products of agriculture, forestry, energy, fisheries, etc.).
Example: The wood turnover as a measure of value for the raw material production performance of a forest (supply of society with the raw material wood). 


Cost-based methods Replacement costs
This method considers the costs that would have to be incurred to technically replace an ecosystem service. Here the market price of the technical substitute or equivalent is the decisive variable.
Example: The cost of aquaculture facilities as a measure of the habitat value of a natural aquatic ecosystem for fish production. 


avoidance costs
The costs that (can) arise from negative environmental influences and that are avoided through ecosystem services are relevant for this assessment approach. Here the market price of the potential damage is the decisive variable.
Example: The (potential) cost of flood damage as a measure of the flood protection performance of a natural floodplain. 


opportunity cost 

In this approach, the economic returns lost in the course of providing ecosystem services (the cost of forgoing the best alternative) are used as the basis for the assessment. Thus, with this approach, the yield from the best alternative ecosystem use is the decisive variable.
Example: The economic returns that could be realized with a river expansion to increase inland waterway transport, but which are forgone in order to ensure a good ecological water body status and the associated ecosystem services, as a benchmark for the value of these services. This is based on the assumption that the benefit of the implemented option must at least correspond to the costs of forgoing the alternative option, otherwise the alternative would be implemented

External costs or negative externalities are negative effects on biodiversity that are not reflected in current market prices and are therefore not taken into account in the economic decisions of those who cause them.

These "damage costs" arise from overexploitation of natural resources without compensation, overexploitation or pollution of ecosystems,  activities that lead to overexploitation or pollution of ecosystems and have an overall negative impact on biodiversity._cc781905 -5cde-3194-bb3b-136bad5cf58d_


These costs, which are currently borne by the general public, i.e. socialized, should be borne by those who cause the costs, which, as a matter of course, privatize the profits from the value chain. Product value creation einnahmen  are integrated into economic decision-making and "internalised".

The pricing of CO2 emissions and their causer-based, monetary compensation through the purchase of CO2e certificates for the benefit of earmarked project financing to mitigate climate change can serve as a model.

National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina (ed.) 2020: "Global Biodiversity in Crisis - What can Germany and the EU do about it?" Discussion No. 24, Halle (Saale).

According to scientific calculations, we need to protect 30% of our planet to stop the climate crisis and BIODIVERSITY COLLAPSE at current levels.


In order to achieve this, at least US$ 500 billion in NATURE CONSERVATION CAPITAL is needed annually.

One way to provide the capital is to “internalize the external costs”, including those costs that run counter to the protection of biodiversity (damage costs) in the product price.


This can be added to the consumer price (“honest prices”), but better provided by the company by purchasing BIODIV certificates for a specific purpose.


In addition, environmentally harmful subsidies must be reduced (in Germany alone, this is an average of EUR 65 billion pa) and the unlimited growth/profit interests of some lobby groups must also be stopped!


Politicians or possibly other decision-making bodies committed to the COMMON WELL must create globally coherent framework conditions so that the economy is obliged to provide capital for the preservation of ecosystems. The economy was and is innovative and therefore adaptable. All she needs is the right specifications and a realistic time frame in order to adapt to difficult specifications and to implement them.


Especially since the sustainable safeguarding of ecosystem services is also in the very own interest of the economic operators themselves. Because even a company has no interest in being no longer able to exist in 10-15 years, for example because we have reached 2 degrees Celsius global warming and large parts of the planet are no longer habitable.


To do this, the drama of the situation must be made clear, so that the short-term, possibly even economic and growth-inhibiting specifications become dogma. Only then will the economy be willing to move forward voluntarily in order to develop solutions that secure long-term existence more quickly.


But each individual must also be aware that he is an inhabitant of this single earth and therefore also has responsibility for himself and other people. We need a better coexistence with each other but also with nature.


It's about the future of all of us!

Photo: Pixabay Royalty-free

Nature provides valuable 

  • material (e.g. groceries), 

  • regulatory (e.g. regulation of climate and pollination) and 

  • intangible contributions (e.g. learning experiences and inspiration)

for the people (Figure SPM.2). 

These contributions are of vital concern to people's quality of life as they each represent significant economic, social and cultural value (well recognized)2 {2.3.5


Nature's contributions to people, including ecosystem services, are essential for their livelihoods, for the economy and for a good quality of life;
accordingly, they are a prerequisite for the preservation of human life on earth. 

Nature has significant economic and cultural value to the world's societies. For example, it contributes to human health by, among other things, supplying raw materials for the manufacture of medicines, offering food for a varied diet and supporting the maintenance of mental and physical health through green spaces.

MEDIAN VALUES of important regulating ecosystem services are among others

  • regulation of freshwater quantity and quality $1,965 per hectare per year,

  • the conservation of natural habitats ($765 per hectare per year), 

  • climate regulation ($464 per hectare per year) and 

  • air quality regulation ($289 per hectare per year)

  • the pollination ????

  • soil formation (humus) ???

  • flood control and erosion control ??? 

bottom of page