News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Zelensky leaves White House after angry meeting by _heimdall on Saturday March 01, 2025 @09:43AM (#43219646)
I completely agree outside of economics. I put much higher value on a forest than lumber. Economically, though, where is the forest ever accounted for?
Re:Zelensky leaves White House after angry meeting by Juliate on Saturday March 01, 2025 @12:19PM (#43221406)
In your strategic business plan, by IFRS accounting standards (existing and developing).

You have several options, account for it as lumber (but... well), or as a carbon sequestration well (so you could get carbon credits, IAS 38), or as an ecosystem providing services (several frameworks under work here), or as a contingent liability or asset (IAS 37, can be in the balance sheet if the probability of event/impact is high/certain).

Even if you forget to account for it, your insurance likely will remind you about it.

Re:Zelensky leaves White House after angry meeting by _heimdall on Saturday March 01, 2025 @01:05PM (#43221804)
Once someone can "own" the forest, that be a bit of a cheat around the whole idea. I'm thinking out loud here, but I think all of you're examples are actually valuing the financial mechanisms rather than the forest itself.

The carbon credits are given economic value, its just not a physical resource like lumber so its harder to distinguish that the credit holds the value rather than the forest.

Re:Zelensky leaves White House after angry meeting by Juliate on Saturday March 01, 2025 @05:25PM (#43224371)
You ask me how to account for it. In accounting, that’s how, and you can get creative too.
Re:Zelensky leaves White House after angry meeting by _heimdall on Sunday March 02, 2025 @07:47PM (#43237064)
Sure, but in those accounting mechanisms are you valuing the forest or the financial asset the paper ownership of forestland grants you?

I'd expect the lumber or carbon credits, for example, to be the actual asset accounted for rather than the forest itself.