National Ecosystem Assessment

Commentators have called this "an attempt to put a hard economic value on Britain's nature". Natural Capitalism that putting a mometary value on ecosystems makes semse because we put a monetary value on "everything" else, but use ecosystems as if they are infinite.

George Monbiot is sceptical: "When you turn nature into an accounting exercise, its destruction can be justified as soon as the business case comes out right." And "it almost always comes out right." Charles Clover in The Sunday Times observes that 'the agricultural losses incurred by setting aside land to promote a "diverse, flowery landscape" are more than made up for in gains from tourism and recreation; that building on green belt would have a disastrous effect on property values."

Where to start. "Property values" is a euphemism for property prices, which as we know fluctuate widely, whereas the value (utility) of a property doesn't. Then there's use of aesthetic values. We lose agricultural land but we gain tourism and recreation. Sorry, but this is not a sensible comparison. Agricutural land is where we grow food. Food is to eat, to sustain life. Yes you can sell it, but you still have to have food. Tourism may bring in money, but you still need to have food. Recreation is good and helps make us fully human, but you can't eat it.

Quantifying all the natural resources we have is a gargantuan task, and having a single unit to measure their utility - ie money - has appeal. But this must still lead to conserving our natural resources, and not be a device for more financial jiggery-pokery, which adds nothing to the physical world and humanity as a whole.

http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/

"The need for the UK NEA arose from findings of the 2005 global Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), which not only demonstrated the importance of ecosystem services to human well-being, but also showed that at global scales, many key services are being degraded and lost. As a result, in 2007 the House of Commons Environmental Audit recommended that the Government should conduct a full MA-type assessment for the UK to enable the identification and development of effective policy responses to ecosystem service degradation"

"The UK NEA will help people to make better decisions that impact on the UK’s ecosystems to ensure the long-term sustainable delivery of ecosystem services for the benefit of current and future populations in the UK".

Nothing to do with money. We need ecosystems to live, and we can't buy them.

A triumph of faith over experience

"It is homo sapiens's unique capacity for trading that pushes individuals to specialise and play to their own advantages. I am dexterous but weedy, you are strong but clumsy. I make the hooks and you catch the fish". This is a quote from The Rational Optimist, a book by Matt Ridley. He claims that trade is the vehicle that has enabled us to make progress in life expectancy, cleaner air / rivers, falling birth rate etc.

Nonsense. His example of the dexterous person making the hooks and the strong person catching the fish is an example of co-operation, not trade. And why is a falling birth rate progress? What other species, if it could count, would call this success. The rise in life expectancy is surely down to science, and who made the pollution that "trade" is now clearing up. Er, " trade". It's apparently to be congratulated for cleaning up its own mess.

George Monbiot called this  "a triumph of faith over experience"