From Environmental Capital:
Are environmental goods—be they polar bears, tropical forests, or clean air—best preserved with a dollar sign on them? Or does the attempt to put a price on everything lead to knowing the value of nothing?
...
At the heart of the debate is whether the same tools that can determine the economic wisdom of a building a new factory serve to protect the environment generations into the future. It got fresh legs this month with a back-and-forth at Grist by two eminent law professors and self-professed environmentalists.
Richard Revesz, the dean of New York University School of Law, wants environmentalists to embrace and improve economic tools, especially the art of tallying up costs and benefits of any given policy. Lisa Heinzerling, professor of law at Georgetown, says environmental “cost-benefit analysis” is an oxymoron, because it’s unable to tally many of the environment’s intangible benefits (“the first warbler of spring.”)
Of course, you know what we think about this in general: benefit-cost analysis helps prioritize environmental quality improvements and helps improve the efficiency of environmental resource allocation.
I'll read the two pieces above and offer some comments at a later date. I'm sure that you will breathlessly await.
