Dominic Rayner, Murray Gray, Phil Murray and Ian Foster respond to the Dasgupta review on the economics of biodiversity
Prof Sir Partha Dasgupta says we are all economic “asset managers” in our relationship with the environment (Economics’ failure over destruction of nature presents ‘extreme risks’, 2 February) and that the “natural capital” of forests, seas and so on should be ascribed a value, and that their annual regeneration should be viewed as equivalent to the yield on a government bond.
If that is the way economists would like to measure nature, fine. But beware the implications for conservation: is your new road going to be more valuable than the woodland it displaces? Will it generate a higher annual return on investment than the value of the woodland’s performance in making leaf litter, harbouring biodiversity, absorbing carbon and providing a green space for people and their dogs to walk? If yes, goodbye woodland, hello tarmac.