“Ecological impact seems to be an abstract scientific fact that is measurable though not necessarily palpable; something discussed by experts and not felt by ordinary people on a daily basis. When a city tree is felled, hardly anyone considers the annual loss of cubic meters of oxygen. Yet on a sunny day, many inhabitants will definitely regret the disappearance of its refreshing shade. Second, appreciating green spaces for their ecological significance is risky because it amounts to considering solely their instrumental value, which may result in appreciating them in terms of efficiency. From this perspective, one might rationalize replacing a tree with some equally effective “ecological device.” For now, nature stands protected but only because it is less expensive than its ersatz counterparts. Were costs to reverse, it could become extremely difficult to persuade technocratic societies to protect nature for its productive potential alone.”