Как перевести статью?

This report to the Club of Rome “aims to guide the noneconomist through [the
environmental] debate and to provide him or her with the intellectual ammunition to
enter into it.” It begins by proclaiming a concern that the debate “threatens to be
dominated by economists.” The book fully justifies this concern.
It is a frustrating book. Twenty-five well-known environmentalists, mostly
economists, are listed in the preface as contributors, with van Dieren described as the
editor, but it is frequently unclear who is responsible for what. This makes life
difficult for a reviewer interested in accurate attribution, especially since the editor
admits that the contributors sometimes quarreled, and that not all of them
"necessarily agree with every conclusion."
The book conveys mixed messages. The conclusion, which appears to be the work of
the editor, makes an urgent plea for "integrating environmental values into the System
of National Accounts" (291), a process which involves the "pricing of nature." But
earlier, chapter 5 (attributed to Paul Ekins), acknowledges the "difficulty and
arbitrariness of attaching money values or appropriate weights" to components of
welfare, such as nature, and concludes that "the search for a single index of welfare is
misguided." (80)The final chapter considers why there should be resistance to putting a price on
nature, and concludes, after some curious theological speculation, that such resistance
is illogical:"Whatever choices are made to correct GDP, they will always entail some
calculation of the costs of depreciation, depletion, or simply consumption of
natural goods, in some way reflecting their estimated value. It is obvious that our
society adheres to an ethic that holds that nature is God, and consequently that any
pricing of nature is an act of blasphemy. This is an understandable reaction, to
which we can only respond that advocates of this view must realize that they
should then take a similar stand towards those who exploit God's nature, an act
which is then logically, also blasphemous." (279)All the contributors appear to agree that GDP, as presently constituted, is not a
trustworthy indicator of “progress” but, despite the book’s title, agreement eludes
them about the degree to which GDP is capable of "correction" to yield an alternative
indicator that better takes nature into account.The final chapter blames the existence of contending methodologies, the jealousy with
which disputatious experts guard their different approaches, and the absence of a
forum promoting constructive debate. It notes, by way of illustration, that in
Indonesia six methodologies have been tried without any conclusions being drawn
about their respective merits. But no clear way forward emerges.The book's main "recommendation" is a call for "the experts to reach a consensus" on
a methodology that will capture "value changes of nonproduced natural assets" in
order that an "Environmentally-adjusted Domestic Product (EDP)" might be
calculated. (294) This appeal is either naive or disingenuous.There is a well-known and insurmountable problem standing in the way of such a
consensus: there is, and can be, no uncontentious method of monetary valuation that can cope with environmental losses. The problem has been endlessly, and fruitlessly,
debated by economists seeking to resolve environmental controversies with costbenefit
analysis. The conclusion to this debate, which economists have been reluctant
to accept, is that there is no objective value of nature waiting to be uncovered by
clever measurement techniques. The "cash value" of every aspect of nature threatened
by "development" - of every tree, every bird, every species, and every cherished view
- is the amount of money that every individual in the world would be willing to accept
as compensation for its loss. If someone has rights to something - be it clean air or
water, a view, or an interest in an endangered