One argument against this position is that economic environmentalism cuts both ways. Sure
Sure, marine preserves produce an economically beneficial surplus of salmon. Also, the oil reserves in the Arctic national wildlife refuge are worth more than 500 billion dollars.
In the case of Arctic drilling, I think the moral argument against destroying wilderness is the only viable option.
The amount of oil that can be safely burned is finite. Meaning there's only so much air to burn, and it should be auctioned off at market value, thus it gets more and more expensive over time. We pay for garbage disposal, why not pay market rate for carbon disposal too, it's the most capitalistic and scalable way to solve the problem.
Instead of trying to have this type of accounting many lobby to simply not pay for it because it would make their business less competitive with other energy businesses.
As for the alaskan wilderness, that could become profitable farmland or residental area later on as the climate warms. Being a wilderness experience would increase the value of the real instead whereas being oil contaminated would make it a lot less desirable.
There is a strong economic argument for keeping oil in the ground now, though. Namely, that the planet will cease to support a functioning global economy under runaway warming.
Interesting thought. I know nuclear plants are required by law to set aside a part of revenue for eventual long term storage of the waste.
You could have that for coal plants.
Of course we already have quotas and trade which is designed for something similar.
Sure, marine preserves produce an economically beneficial surplus of salmon. Also, the oil reserves in the Arctic national wildlife refuge are worth more than 500 billion dollars.
In the case of Arctic drilling, I think the moral argument against destroying wilderness is the only viable option.