eLearning

address solar energy–driven flows all the way to the
global level as a basis for value. The debate between
economists and ecologists on those issues some-
times has been quite heated. We argue that both
economic and ecological approaches are trapped by
a hegemony of cost–benefit analyses (whethermon-
etary or energy flow based) and implicit assump-
tions of a global and stable equilibrium.
Several assumptions behind cost–benefit analysis
underlie both economic and ecological approaches
to valuation. First, they share a myth of objectivity.
For many economists and ecologists, it is assumed
that the correct values to use in decision making are
‘‘out there’’: pre-existent, natural, discoverable, and
(in some sense) good. For economists, the assump-
tion is that people have measurable but unex-
pressed preferences over states of nature. For bio-
physical analysts, the assumption is that states of the
world can be judged according to objective mea-
sures of ecosystem function.
Second, both kinds of valuation share a belief in
deep commensurability that relates to the way
systems are believed to operate. Because neoclassi-
cal economists find it useful to assume people are
rational, calculating, optimizing consumers who
constantly trade-off benefits and costs at themargin,
their values can be measured in the currency of
their comparisons—utility—or in the currency of
the market—money. Biophysical economists (typi-
cally ecologists) view ecosystems in much the same
way: at the systems level there is a process of
self-organization driven by optimization through
selection. The currency of this optimization most
often suggested is energy. In both cases, however,
comparisons made by analysts have salience be-
cause they are using the very currency they believe
is used by the optimizing, self-organizing agents that
populate the system in question. And if values are
commensurable, then the analyst can use some
variant of cost–benefit analysis to make decisions
objectively, by applying the appropriate weights to
the goods and services being compared.
Third, both traditional economic and biophysical
valuation typically are undertaken with a norma-
tive premise—that ecosystem services should be
valued in the prescribed way. For economic valua-
tion, this is valuation by individuals according to
their own preferences, through something that at
least resembles a marketplace (although it may be
rather artificial). For energy analysts, valuation is
done (by an expert on behalf of ‘‘the system’’)
according to principles of ecosystem self-organiza-
tion, so that the resulting energy stocks and flows or
other biophysical indicators are considered right. In
either case, changes away from the optimum (the