Perhaps the most useful history we should be exploring as we try this approac of pricing nature is Progressive era conservation. The case for national forests was chiefly articulated in economic terms, not only regarding the capital locked up in the lumber but the services that forest provide in keeping valuable topsoil where it is and out of the rivers used as transportation corridors (for timber especially) and later for irrigation reservoirs and hydropower.

For instance, this one helps spread the word for “conservationists [who] see [valuing nature] as a new way of persuading policymakers to fund nature protection rather than allowing the decline in ecosystems and species.” It also helps educate people on these connections between the state of our finances and of our environment. As an example:
“… as forests decline, nature stops providing services which it used to provide essentially for free. So the human economy either has to provide them instead, perhaps through building reservoirs, building facilities to sequester carbon dioxide, or farming foods that were once naturally available. Or we have to do without them; either way, there is a financial cost.”
Worthy of debate and discussion yes, but from my perpsective it hardly represents a “stupidly unconcerned rhetorical skirmish”.

That market structures, consumptions levels, and such have dramatic effects on biodiversity and ecological systems is undeniable. So is the former’s ultimate (and often immediate) dependence on the latter. I’m not sure the BBC article was particularly interested is showing the causal arrow pointing in either direction. It was more trained on those who have quit peddling the intrinsic value of nature and are now testing out a price-tag approach.

While certainly worth trying, pricing nature isn’t in itself a plan of action, and I was disappointed to see the article tacitly endorsing voluntary conservation efforts by corporations without even mentioning the idea of regulating companies to require them to account (literally) for what currently they can dismiss as externalities–that is, their effects on biota, soils, climate, and human bodies.