Mainstream Economics is mostly concerned with what is called “Ricardian land,” named for David Ricardo (1772-1823). The value of land in his scheme is a locationally-based value, and its prices depend mostly on nearness to activities, people, coastlines, transportation corridors, etc. Beyond the locational value of land, it is nothing more than a stable physical platform (given that we live in a gravitational world) upon which man’s activities can occur. This meaning of land ignores land’s intrinsic, ecological worth, and the ecological functions and services that land provides us and to other living beings (indeed to the biosphere itself).

In fact, (no secret to your readers here), all economic value derives from that which is either mined or harvested, with, of course, man’s labor, tools and ingenuity added. We ignore land’s comprehensive worth at out peril. Further, our GDP calculations treat the extraction of the treasures of our earth as “income,” just the opposite of what should be done. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to incur a (-) depletion charge which would be subtracted from GDP? Our national accounts provide no method of recognizing the diminution of ecological capital that we use up every year, or that we destroy by turning it into a sink for our wastes.

So, to call the destruction of earth/land “development” is curious indeed. Development in this definition can destroy land’s capacity to operate as an ecological system. Herman Daly and Joshua Farley have the following list of ecological services (in their textbook “Ecological Economics: Principles and Practices”):

● Energy transfer
● Nutrient recycling
● Gas regulation (CO2, O2, SO2)
● Climate regulation
● The water (hydrological) cycle
● Disturbance regulation (flood control, wind protection, drought recovery, species adaptation)
● Water regulation (water storage)
● Waste absorption
● Erosion control and sediment retention
● Soil formation
● Pollination
● Biological control
● Habitat or refugia (including conditions which allow for and promote species reproduction)
● Genetic resources (genes allow for variety, adaptation, medicine, etc., etc.)
● Recreation
● Cultural (science, spiritual, artistic, education, etc.)

“Land” is more than just a level platform — it is “natural capital” (just can’t get away from econ. lingo…) that we humans did nothing to create. We were fortunate and blessed to inherit it from the ages. Economic activity as we think about it and as Econ. defines it is only a few hundred years old, not even a blink of an eye in earth time. I encourage my students to think of this list of ecological services in terms of the rainforests. Once we “develop” the rainforest, it is destroyed forever, and its services with it.

We need to begin to think of land as a bank of resourses (both renewable and non-renewable), and as a source of ecological services that sustains life.

It’s timely that you should post this column. Carol King was interviewed today on MSNBC about the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act (NREPA), a bill being sponsored by an increasing number of members of Congress. See:

http://www.wildrockiesalliance.org/issues/nrepa/

for details. It’s time we adopt a new definition of “land.” Or better yet, replace the mundane term land with a more robust one such as the biosphere.