There was a climate lawsuit filed against the government in Malaysia for failure to act on deforestation, because the government failed to keep it's promise on protecting 50% of forest cover. It just shows how environmental issues are almost always economic discussions first. Forest gets evaluated by timber value, land value, developmental potential, production output etc. But the ecosystem itself, water regulation, biodiversity, climate stability, usually comes secondary instead of being the main value. I just picked up a book called Earth 2035 and it says something similar, how modern systems mostly value natural resources based on what can be extracted, sold, and converted into growth. This pretty much explains why most environmental decisions feel somewhat predictable. A forest rarely gets priced as an ecosystem, it gets priced as a usable output. The system isn't miscalculating, it's not failing, it's operating exactly the way it was designed to.…