To what extent is putting an economical value on our environmental resources a benefit for our future?

Putting a price on nature has been a controversial issue for many years. While the public opinion converge towards the idea of a commodification of nature leading to the destruction of life on earth, some believe that the protection of nature represent a danger for people and the economy.

This article entitled « driving the economy underwater » and published by The Irish Times focuses on the the assets and issues faced by the concept of natural capital.

So, to what extent is putting an economical value on our environmental resources a benefit for our future ?

Here, the journalist deals with three points of this issue:

-How it is possible to change the common thought about commodification of nature

-The political and economical boundaries

-Juniper’s perspective about investing into nature

Then, I will continue speaking about the dark shades of natural capital.

Putting a price tag on nature is challenging. Some people don't believe it can be done. Some people hate the idea of it. Most will have no idea what it means. Generally, it is assumed that putting an economical value on nature is a licence to trash nature. However, the writer of the book what nature does for Britain » explain that the only reason it could happen is if the policy mechanism are abused. Moreover, Juniper highlights the downside of nature’s exploitation as he blames farms land for generating greenhouse gases and flood risks. That is how his book can be seen an opportunity to showcase the hidden cost of grazing lands. He also believes that turning those lans into water storage or recreational opportunities is more rational. Yet, the real issue rely on convincing farmers to the idea.

That is where comes the political and economical assessment. Indeed, the solution put forward is to allocate subsidies to farmers in order to encourage them into the process. Furthermore, he clarifies the cost triggered by farming like insurance costs, taxes for flood defences or water purification bills. In addition, Juniper’s does not shy away from revealing the ignorance of political institution about the values in the environment, adding that the leaving the Brexit victory did not help. In this sense, the writer shows that the economic development is actually based on healthy natural systems.

In this way, Tony Juniper alleges that the protection of nature is harmful to people and the economy. Moreover, he argues that putting an economic value on nature services is not a synonyme of giving up on defending our original environment. However, he brings out to light the reason why the common opinion is not an enthusiastic supporter of the idea of a nature capital. And the only reason is that people can’t accept the economic argument.

Otherwise, it is also significant to balance Juniper’s thoughts by bring out the arguments that are against putting a price to nature. Indeed, the opponent of natural capital proponents argue that having an economic perspective on nature diminishes us.

So, to what extent can we question Juniper idea of capitalization of nature ?

Generally, the major argument is bases on fact that the earth belongs to everyone and thus that no one is entitled to make a piece of land his property. In this sense, the modern system of enclosure is being sentenced. This long standing issue is represented by Rousseau who asserted that nature does not really belong to men and that is why people should not try to tame it. Nonetheless, countries like England does not shy away from initiating processes related to the commodification of nature. Yet,