Just a short quote, that summarizes it all: “Consider that the president and CEO of the Nature Conservancy today, Mark Tercek, is a former managing director and partner at Goldman Sachs.”

I found out it’s a deeper and older trend than I thought; see http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.html
“The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment assessed the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being. From 2001 to 2005, the MA involved the work of more than 1,360 experts worldwide. Their findings provide a state-of-the-art scientific appraisal of the condition and trends in the world’s ecosystems and the services they provide, as well as the scientific basis for action to conserve and use them sustainably.”

Here’s another pop song:
What goes up
Must come down
Spinnin’ wheel
Got to go ’round.

The basic idea is that the economy is a (small) part of the Nature, not the other way round. They’re giving money a power that it just can’t have, since Nature cannot be included in any artificial (manmade) construction.

Moreover, it’s not Nature providing us with services, rather it’s us taking for our survival/benefit, from some points in the natural cycles, wether organized structures (raw food: vegs, meat) or waste (oxygen). Just like any other species (albeit not at same degree).

We’re not enjoying gifts that would have been put there for us, instead we’re mining our environment, in a way that can be harmful if too intensive. And that’s actually what we’re doing: destroy our real capital, actively and increasingly.

HT Odum had to keep changing his terms for net energy and emergy as society changed and people either compromised the labels by using the term but watering it down with redefinition, and/or when he refined the science. Fossil fuel work equivalents, coal equivalents, solar equivalents, embodied (and net) energy, transformation ratios, and finally emergy. The term embodied emergy was my favorite, but it got absconded with by some Russian scientists who put a whole different meaning on it, so HT had to move on with the label. I still use the words embodied energy sometimes, because it is so descriptive of what we are talking about. I wish he had stuck with that term.

just a little remark about your comment above: I don’t like very much the expression “ecological services” (that are provided by the biosphere).
It can too easily be viewed as anthropocentric, and suggests an intentionality that doesn’t exist in real world. Our dear greedy friends could be tempted to value these services, in the purpose to make money out of that. They actually have been trying for some time:

“Earth Index is published in the financial sections of newspapers around the world to put nature on the stock exchange, with price for bees, fish and more”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/08/coral-reefs-worth-four-times-as-much-as-uk-economy-earth-index-finds

See also:
http://www.speciesbanking.com
http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com
etc…

I know this is certainly not what you meant, but unfortunately I haven’t any ready phrase for replacement.