What do you think a court considers when determining the value of environmental damage caused? What is not considered? Do you think the liability laws are sufficient to remedy these types of damages?

I think when determining values of environmental damage the greater values that lie in ecosystem services of the environment are not considered. For example in the week 1 podcast on how do you put a price tag on nature? we learned about the example of salt marshes and the ecosystem services they provide. When considering environmental damage courts don't look at the greater picture of what ecosystem services are being damaged or lost, just what is directly affected environmentally in the plaintiffs claim. For example if there is a case against a manufacturing company for polluting a river only the cost that is determined for pollution of the river is determined and potentially fined. Courts are not looking at ecosystem services from that river, or potential health hazards that have been caused to residents thirty miles down river that may also have been affected. I don't think that liability laws are sufficient in rectifying damages of environmental damages. 9 times out of 10 these are large corporations and a fine or injunction to stop polluting isn't going to hurt their bottom line or have any real effect on change of environmental harm and damage.