What's The New GDP?

Many claim that we have become a culture with a decreasing knowledge of our natural landscapes.  This is not a farfetched claim for most of us could probably name more corporate logos than trees or plant species in our backyards.  However, there is a vast amount of knowledge about our environment preserved by farmers, conservations, and environmentalists alike.  Although most of us may not know this knowledge, it still exists.  And it is a curious thing that we do not take that knowledge into account when determining the measurements for our economic standards.  Pollan dedicates several paragraphs to the benefits of the surrounding forest of Polyface Farm, the external costs that are not taken into consideration, and the almost endless benefits that forest provides. Thompson also discusses how during the colonial revolutions Jefferson and others alike viewed agriculture and ecosystem services as a crucial tool for the revival of the colonies.  I cannot help but wonder how or when this shift from agrarian standards to gross domestic product took place. 

I assume it was a gradual process with the implementation of capitalistic ideals.  But why is it that our economic standards do not take into consideration natural elements and ecosystem services?  Especially considering that the most economists would secretively agree that GDP is not accurate in presenting true numbers.  As Pollan discusses, industrial agriculture on the surface is cheap, but only because it does not take into consideration the costs of pollution, deforestation, soil erosion, etc. Even on a broader sense, there is something to be said about a system that sees an oil spill as more economically beneficial than if that oil tanker had arrived to ports safely (discussed in the video "What is the Economy Worth Anyway" with Dave Batker of Earth Economics). 

 Nevertheless, we have laboriously talked about the faults of GDP measurement systems in other classes, so why is GDP still the reigning economic measuring system?  Is developing a system based on the overall health of a landscape, while still allowing humans to cultivate that land,  plausible?  If so, what would that look like?  Would we run the risk of further commodifying nature by putting a monetary value on it?