The environment has always been an element of economics, whether we like it or not. Classical liberalism arose during one of the most enduring and powerful co

The environment has always been an element of economics, whether we like it or not. Classical liberalism arose during one of the most enduring and powerful colonial exercises ever seen on the planet. So yes, indeed, a hole dug in the earth has more value than the earth itself, in that context. In a closed system, it boils out a little different, as we've been aware since at least the days of Malthus and Mill. Granted, it's quite a bit harder to get that coveted "Highest Paid Professorship in Academia" when you're doing ecological economics, but money doesn't make something true. Counterpoint: there is a lot of money there to be made here, because things like drinking water and air have effectively infinite prices. Imagine saving the world . . then charging everyone rent. The "space parasol" versus global warming could even make this a reality for some deep-pocketed bastards. I get so very, very tired of birdsie-woodsie environmentalists, when the hard-ass utilitarian arguments are so frickin' obvious . .