There is widespread belief, currently, that financial markets are well equipped, and should be given the responsibility, to deal with environmental management. In this context, the commodification of nature would appear to serve useful purposes. This article argues that, from the viewpoint of environmental practice, these perspectives do not make a lot of sense, in large part because nature follows rules that are entirely different than those of financial markets and because the limited knowledge that specialists have of many natural processes prevents meaningful monetization. I also point out that, fortunately, within economics, a subdiscipline known as ecological economics tends to advocate caution in this area and offers much-needed common sense amid overwhelming market rhetoric.
Environmental Practice 16: 1–3 (2014)