Only in economics can you get away with statements like this.
To compare policies that affect natural assets and human assets, we need to be able to measure those assets with the same index. If not dollars, then what? "Utils"?
Once you pick the units, then we can argue about the methodology for measuring.
It depends what you mean by loss. I consider loss as inability to use an asset, in this case the use of pasture. The pasture might have a value of $1B but is that it's true worth? Could you re-build that particular non-renewable pasture again to it's previous worth at this cost?
Lets use a concrete example. It's quite possible pasture in Fukushima, Japan has sustained a $1B loss. How would a $1B gain in skills ever replace lost pasture in this case? This is a real loss. No asset management shuffling can replace that loss of pasture.
The dollar value given to some assets, in this case natural assets do not reflect the true value, just what the market finds valuable at that time.
It'd be funny if the implications didn't make me so sad.
I can think of lots of ways to capture it's essence quantitatively. Life expectancy, social mobility, marriages. savings rate....