Money-centered approach dilutes and undermines the message. It's as if we could fix the problem by throwing a lot of money at it.
But we can't revive the dead. Neither genocide nor ecocide can ever be undone. It's only through understanding this finality we understand the gravity of the tragedy and why the perpetrators deserve the harshest possible punishment.
I wholeheartedly agree with the message of the article in general, but money-centered framing is beyond weird.
First, the environment knows nothing about human abstractions such as money. So why even try to measure ecocide in USD?
Second, ecocide is basically eco-murder on a very large scale. We measure the "cost" or a human murder spree or genocide not in USD but in lives taken. Why shouldn't the same logic apply here?
