1. What “life support services” does Earth’s ecosystem provide? It provides arable soil, waste treatment, clean water, and clean air.
2. What were Costanza and his 12 colleagues attempting to do? They wanted to see how much the ecosystem services contributed economically to human welfare.
3. Why do you think economists had “failed to account” for ecosystem s ervices? The replacement costs that they had were not a legitimate way of determining value, i think that only the people can determine the value because they are the ones who pay for it.
4. Explain Costanza’s method of calculating the cost of replacing ecosystem services with technology. Costanza's method to replace ecosystem services with technologywas to get accurate quantitaive data.
5. How much economic value does our Biosphere provide according to the article? The biosphere provides at least 3.3 trillion worth of ecosystem services each year.
6. Why did people (environmentalists, ethicists, and economists) criticize Costanza’s study? The people critized Costanza's method because they thought it was a bad idea to put a price on priceless services that can't be calculated.
7. How was Costanza’s second study different? It was different because now they included earth's land surface and the ocean and it would be about 4.4-5.2 trillion.
8. Why does Costanza conclude that “conservation in reserves represents a strikingly good bargain?” Costanza concluded it because conservation of earth's resources are good and we should practice it.
9. Why do you think that some ecosystem services, such as nutrient cycling or water treatment is so valuable?I beleive that those types of systems are valuable because their natural resources can die or run out.
10. Do you agree with Costanza’s conclusion? If so, how can people be convinced to draw the same conclusion? If not, why not? I agree with Costanza's conclusion because we do need to conserve our natural services so we don't run out. People should inform about damages and consequences.