Is there a hidden tax to nature’s destruction?

What if I told you that you get a bill every time a forest is cleared, a wetland drained or a fish stock collapses?

It doesn’t come in an envelope or hit your bank account immediately. But I guarantee you’re paying for it in some form, whether through your shopping bill, your healthcare costs or your insurance premiums.

Nature destruction isn’t just an environmental issue; it’s an economic drain on every household.

As many will have noticed, food prices have risen sharply over recent years. Nature loss is a key contributor.

Around 75% of the world’s food crops rely on pollinators such as bees and butterflies. Habitat destruction and pesticide overuse are decimating these species, resulting in lower yields, higher prices and even greater investment required to feed a growing population.

Fisheries tell a similar story. Over 3 billion people depend on fresh water and marine food as their daily primary protein source. However, overfishing and habitat destruction are collapsing fish stocks. When fisheries decline, prices spike, jobs disappear and coastal economies suffer.

Nature is also a crucial ally in helping us adapt to the impacts of climate change. Natural ecosystems function as natural defences; coastal wetlands absorb storm surges; healthy forests prevent wildfires; and floodplains soak up heavy rain.

Mangrove forests alone provide an estimated $65 billion in flood protection each year, shielding 15 million people globally. Yet, in many places, we’re cutting them down for shrimp farms and luxury tourism developments, all in the name of economic growth. This often leaves the future of local communities less secure.

Is the trade-off worth it?

Without these natural defences, the financial impact is catastrophic. In 2024, the United States faced $182.7 billion in climate-related disaster costs. As a result, insurance companies have hiked premiums by as much as 57% in a single year – pinning the cost of nature destruction once again to the consumer.

Some areas – California, for example – have been deemed uninsurable by major providers, with others likely to follow.

However, the financial gains could be huge when you flip things around and actually look at what can be achieved when we commit to protecting, restoring and investing in nature.

Restoring 350 million hectares of degraded forests and aquatic ecosystems by 2030 could generate $9 trillion for local and national economies by boosting agriculture, fisheries and tourism sectors.

In Yorkshire, UK, a local council chose to invest in a natural flood management project costing just £2 million over a proposed concrete wall project estimated at £20 million. The result? Successful protection of the town from a one-in-25-year flood.

When it comes to our health, trees and green spaces have been proven to reduce stress, lower blood pressure and improve mental health.

Trees – the lungs of the planet – also have a big impact on our own lungs.

In one year in the UK, natural vegetation, such as woodlands, plants and grasslands, removed 1.4 billion kilograms of air pollutants. This significantly reduced lung and heart-related hospital admissions and even air pollution-related deaths.

Despite all this, governments are pulling back from nature spending. Notably, the US and UK governments have reduced future funding for nature over the last few weeks. Local governments are bulldozing green spaces for urban sprawl. Wetlands are being drained for agriculture and development.

Commercial fishing companies are trashing the seas and potentially the delicate natural marine balance that protects our planet – and our governments are allowing them to do so.

In 2025, we should not still have to make the case for protecting, restoring and regenerating nature. Nature is not a “nice to have” – something governments can protect when budgets allow. It is essential for our societies, economies and all life on earth.

We need to rethink and reimagine nature as a core part of our economic stability. It is not an optional expense – it is a financial imperative.

Some are already leading the way. In March, Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global embarked on a groundbreaking path by integrating natural capital risk across its entire portfolio, ensuring that environmental factors, such as biodiversity and ecosystem health, are embedded into its financial analysis.

The World Economic Forum has made biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse the second-highest threat facing us in the next 10 years. That makes the case stronger to build the reduction and mitigation of this threat into every government and business decision.

Instead of subsidizing harmful agricultural and extractive practices that put communities at peril, governments and businesses should start investing in ecosystem resilience. And financial institutions should begin treating nature as an asset class rather than an externality.

The good news is that with protection and focus, nature can bounce back. Habitats will heal and the solutions are out there. But if we don’t start to invest in nature now, our debt will only get bigger and those who are the least responsible will ultimately pay the highest price.