Reply to Steve Trotter, Wildlife Trusts, England.

“Dear Steve,

Thanks again for your reply and apologies for the delay in returning to you. I completely understand your concerns but disagree with your conclusions. I have two main questions. First, why don’t RSPB & WT (& NatCap Committee), adopt non-financial indices as a metric for gauging the state of nature instead of monetary valuation, as does Singapore? Second, if monetary valuation persists, how do you intend to PROTECT nature from exchange and commodification?

Following this last Committee report, we can all see corporates and banks lining up to take advantage through procured ‘investments’ – apparently, even Oliver Letwin and Liz Truss are supportive (no surprise). The NGOs are in a great position to engage Members about the wider problems on neoliberal economic growth and connection with depletion of nature, yet they are not. It is such a great shame. Further, incommensurability between financial valuation and other key values is simply not being addressed. Money will trump all and exclusivity in conservation will endure.

Yours very sincerely, Ginny.
PS I have published to my blog. I’d be happy to meet one day and discuss further, and thank you for the offer.”


About seasonalight

Ginny Battson, Wales. Writer, Getty Image contributor ~ ecology, enviroethics, intrinsic value of biodiversity, geodiversity, ecoliteracy. Currently studying MA Applied Philosophy.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s