Economics Stack Exchange Archive

What are the pros and cons of different techniques for estimating the monetary value of Natural Capital?

Elsewhere on this site, the role of natural capital has come up, for example in its relationship to a nation’s wealth and its GDP

It’s not a new concept - it pops under tangentially in Aristotle; and US President FD Roosevelt mentioned it fairly explicitly in a speech in Havre, Montana, USA, 3 October 1937:

This morning I smiled all the way through breakfast because I happened to see an editorial, not in a paper here but in a Great Falls paper, that talked about “balancing the budget of our resources.” That is something that is well worth thinking about. It said that because we have made money in wasting and eroding large human resources and piled up nominal wealth in securities and bank balances, we have lost sight of the fact that the natural resources of our land - our permanent capital - are being converted into those nominal evidences of wealth at a faster rate than our real wealth is being replaced.

That is well worth thinking about. That is the unbalanced budget that is most serious and it is to balance that budget that the great program of conservation and useful public works is being carried out. The success of that form of budget balancing is just as important to the future of America as that of the Treasury, important as that may be.

What are the pros and cons of different techniques for estimating the monetary value of Natural Capital?

No Answers

There were no answers to this question.


All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.