Some people have argued that the monetary valuation of environmental costs and benefits is important because “some number is better than no number” – without valuation these factors are omitte

 Some people have argued that the monetary valuation of environmental costs and benefits is important because “some number is better than no number” – without valuation these factors are omitted entirely from GDP accounts.  Others say that it is impossible to express environmental factors adequately in dollar terms.  What are two valid points on each side of this debate? (10 pts.) How do you think this debate should be resolved? (6 pts.) Provide a supporting article. (4 pts. )