The following text discusses environmental economics.
The concept of "ecosystem services" quantifies the benefits humans derive from nature. Pollination, water purification, carbon sequestration, and recreation represent different types of services that, if lost, would require costly human substitutes. Economists have estimated that global ecosystem services are worth trillions of dollars annually—more than the entire world economy. This framework has influenced conservation policy by demonstrating nature's economic value, though critics worry that monetizing nature risks reducing it to a commodity and neglecting intrinsic worth that cannot be priced.
What tension does the text present regarding ecosystem services valuation?
Valuation helps conservation but may reduce nature to a commodity
All economists reject the concept entirely
Ecosystem services have no monetary value
Nature has only intrinsic value, not practical benefits
Correct Answer: A
Choice A is the correct answer. The framework "has influenced conservation policy" but critics worry that "monetizing nature risks reducing it to a commodity and neglecting intrinsic worth."
- Evidence: Policy influence vs. commodity reduction concern.
- Reasoning: Practical benefits vs. moral downsides.
- Conclusion: Tension between utility and potential commodification.
Choice B is incorrect because the concept "has influenced conservation policy." Choice C is incorrect because "worth trillions of dollars annually" is stated. Choice D is incorrect because practical benefits are central to the concept.