INTRODUCTION

In the environmental arena, it is difficult to put a value on resources, as such values often vary from person to person. Biologists and ecologists value ecosystems in a certain way, often arguing for preservation of the balance of nature, genetic information and its potential future value to the public, and the right of every species to exist. The U.S. Supreme Court echoed this natural science perspective in Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill. The Court concluded that the language of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) “shows clearly that Congress viewed the value of endangered species as ‘incalculable’ or in practical terms infinite.” Therefore, both expert natural science and legal opinion suggest that implementation of the ESA ought to be carried out in a manner more consistent with the biblical chronicle of Noah.

Despite the apparent consensus that environmental resources cannot be accurately valued, there has been a recent push toward justifying all environmental initiatives through cost-benefit analysis. Yet in environmental cases, cost-benefit analysis is often skewed, since the costs are easily measured but the benefits are difficult to estimate. Many environmental public goods do not have an immediately referable market price and may be valued in esoteric ways by individuals. A prime example is the benefits that accrue from protection and preservation of endangered and threatened animals.

Opponents of cost-benefit analysis argue that it is impossible, if not repugnant, to put a price tag on saving an endangered species.