I have always been fascinated by the commoditization of nature. I would argue that the reason for the downfall of our environment can largely be attributed to the fact that we have taken many natural resources and turned them into products that can be bought and sold. Humankind has done this for individualistic reasons: we saw the opportunity–because people need trees for wood and animals for food–and we realized we could claim these items for our own and sell them for a price. The only limit that has historically been put on the extraction of natural  resources was a lack of human capital and technology.

But industry realized fairly quickly they could only harvest so much before nature was unable to replenish itself. The Hudson’s Bay Company began one of the earliest conservation efforts at the turn of the 20th century because of dwindling beaver populations. Of course, they weren’t really trying to save the beaver for nature’s sake, but for their own monetary gains.

A more recent example is the commoditization of water. The Story of Stuff Project describes how most consumers thought the idea of bottled water was completely ridiculous at first, being that water comes free from the tap. The only way soft drink companies could get people to start buying their new product was through fear tactics – they told consumers that tap water was unsafe. And it worked! Every convenience store and sporting event sells bottled water now in substantial quantities.

Fast forward 40 years, and consumers are thinking twice about how valuable bottled water is for them. Many countries, especially in the developed world, have learned that their tap water is of highly comparable quality to bottled water. Moreover, the planet doesn’t need more plastic bottles to deal with (even if they are “30% plant-based”).

San Francisco is one city that’s gradually getting rid of this commodity. We noted some serious flaws with this plan in class. But I want to delve deeper into why this is the only commodity that is being so seriously scrutinized, to the point where it is being taken off the shelves. I think the reason is likely because we have an identical alternative to bottled water (tap water), so consumers wouldn’t be totally deprived of this resource. But would such a severe measure ever be placed on salmon, for instance? We have meat substitutes that aren’t at risk for extinction like this fish population. Yet, I don’t think many people are ready to sacrifice this delicious food option for tofu.

At what point are we unwilling to commoditize nature, at least to the extent that we do now? After all, we would never pay for air. Right?