Only someone born within the US cultural obsession on monetising everything would interpret this statement as "WEF wants to monetise breathing" because assigning financial value to natural resources had been fundamental to environmental methodologies like Cost-Benefit Analysis since like 1950's. The purpose is not to "charge for air" but to demonstrate that the resources that are granted for free - and used as if they were unlimited - actually do have value and are limited. This is precisely how Cap & Trade emissions trading systems were used to limit sulphur oxide emissions from industry, which led to reduction of acid rains. Previously industry just dumped their pollution "because air is free", so CBA allowed to demonstrate that no, the air pollution actually has a NEGATIVE financial value (cost) and acid rains also are a cost for the economy.