Roanoke Times presented my recent ideas on ecological Services .
There has been several articles in the mail in a few months, too many suggesting that this concept will not go away and that many new articles will emerge in "environmental economics" about the topic of ecological or environmental services..
Ask, is "pumping" a service of the heart? What is a heart to the person if not with "pumping?" Things provide service. Service is also a function, a namable action. Can they be separated; need they be separated?
Are "retarding erosion" and "providing housing for insect-eating birds" not services of forests? The forest with its trees is a resource. It provides many goods and services, among a list of other generalized "benefits."
If we must pay for the benefits derived from forests, let us pay for forests, the well-known resource and then let each person benefit and appreciate as they may be able.
If we need forests for many public benefits, then let us deduct from landowner real-estate or land-use taxes an amount that wise people think appropriate, the amount we the people are willing to forego in public tax income for the likely un-named gains we will receive. The public thus pays for the general public welfare gained from the retained forests of the land owners. If they remove and convert them to other land uses, then let those new tax rates prevail.
Take erosion, costs or water treatment, loss of crop land richness, damage of certain floods as the costs of not having retained forests.
Dare we say "providing many logging jobs" is a service of the forests of the state?
Take the statewide taxes on the financial gains (I-O analyses)from the forest industry and the forest-game hunting industry as the extra monetary gain from forests.
There are alternative ways to value and "pay" for goods and services. Trying to separate them for specific charges requires too many "Solomons," and there are few.