Instead of protecting the natural resources, the government inappropriately uses such resources. According to Sampath (42), placing a price on nature will safeguard the interests of future generations. Consequently, safeguarding biodiversity is the basis of sustainability.
The author is supporting his argument by using the case of England in which the exploitation of natural resources is costing the economy of England. In the second article, the author is campaigning against economic valuation of natural resources within the ecosystem. He is opposed to privatization because he believes that privatization will co modify nature as noted by Juniper (2). Consequently, he is claiming that corporations will take advantage of privatization and this will lead to the destruction of unprotected forests and natural resources. Lack of bioprospecting rules will cost countries like Hawaii since the people will not benefit from the use of its resources in the absence of control measures.
I accept the major claims of these articles because most of the claims are factual. For instance, research indicates that the enactment of laws has positive impacts on the conservation of the environment. Consequently, some of the resources in nature cannot be valued as claimed by the author of the article the great imposters. In England, the natural capital committee discovered that some of the resources had infinite values. Moreover, the committee advocated for responsible use of the ecosystem by private companies. This is an indication that people should be responsible in seeking services from the ecosystem. Indeed, the business community has neglected the natural world (Monbiot 1). Carelessness is leading to the environmental crisis. Henceforth, it is our collective responsibility to conserve the environment because we depend on the environment for our