They argue that as a living thing, a tree has a right to protection regardless of its monetary value and that we have a moral duty to protect them.

5. Imagine a group of environmental economists use the ecosystem services approach to determine that the economic value of a tree is approximately $1,000. This is based on the benefits they provide, such as shade, erosion control, carbon sequestration and scenic enjoyment. Suppose this is about $500 more, on average, than the value of each tree as timber at that time. When the economists publish their findings, a group of environmental ethicists argue that this approach is wrong-headed because it devalues the intrinsic value of trees. They argue that as a living thing, a tree has a right to protection regardless of its monetary value and that we have a moral duty to protect them. Both the economists and ethicists claim they are trying to protect the trees.
-Which approach do you find more compelling? Explain why.
-Which approach do you think would be more effective? Why?
The source is not necessary