Preview
IB DP ESS — HL Lenses: Environmental Economics | HL | Paper 2B
🎯 Learning Intentions By the end of this note, you will be able to:
- Define environmental accounting, ecological accounting, natural capital, and ecosystem services using IB-aligned ESS terminology.
- Explain why conventional GDP-based national accounting systems fail to capture environmental degradation and natural capital depletion.
- Describe the structure and purpose of the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) and its relationship to national accounts.
- Distinguish between different categories of ecosystem services (provisioning, regulating, cultural, supporting) and explain how each can be assigned economic value.
- Analyse the methodologies used to value natural capital and ecosystem services, including market-based, revealed preference, and stated preference approaches.
- Evaluate the strengths and limitations of environmental and ecological accounting frameworks as tools for sustainable decision-making.
- Discuss contrasting worldviews — ecocentric, technocentric, and anthropocentric — in relation to the commodification of nature and the ethics of assigning monetary values to ecosystems.
- Analyse real-world case studies including Bhutan's Gross National Happiness index, Costa Rica's Payments for Ecosystem Services programme, and the UK Natural Capital Committee's accounts.
Real-World Context & Relevance
In 2010, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill released approximately 4.9 million barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico, causing catastrophic damage to coastal wetlands, fisheries, and marine ecosystems. The US government's official damage assessment eventually valued the ecological harm at over USD 17.2 billion — yet for decades prior to this disaster, the degradation of Gulf Coast wetlands through drainage, pollution, and coastal development had appeared nowhere in national economic accounts. The wetlands were being lost, but no balance sheet recorded the loss. This paradox — that a catastrophic spill could be valued but slow, chronic ecosystem degradation could not — sits at the heart of why environmental and ecological accounting emerged as a discipline.
Conventional national accounting, anchored in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), measures the monetary value of goods and services produced within an economy. When a forest is logged, the timber sale adds to GDP. When a fishery collapses, the declining catch simply disappears from the accounts — there is no entry recording the destruction of the fish stock as a loss of national wealth. This structural blindness has been described by economists as "measuring the wrong things" (Stiglitz, Sen, and Fitoussi, 2009). As climate change, biodiversity loss, and ecosystem degradation accelerate, the inability of conventional accounts to reflect environmental reality has become not merely an academic concern but a governance failure with real consequences for sustainability policy.
🌍 Why This Matters Environmental and ecological accounting directly addresses one of the most fundamental failures of modern economic governance: the invisibility of nature in national wealth calculations. When ecosystems are not counted, they are not protected. Developing robust accounting frameworks that capture the value of natural capital is therefore a prerequisite for genuinely sustainable development — and a central challenge for the Environmental Economics HL Lens.
Core Concepts & Definitions
To understand why environmental accounting matters, we must first recognise what conventional economic measurement omits. National accounts — the statistical systems governments use to measure economic performance — were designed in the mid-twentieth century primarily to track market transactions. They were never intended to measure the health of ecosystems or the depletion of natural resources. As a result, a country can