|
Below is an article from yesterday's Christian Science Monitor that I think you will find of interest. And here is a snippet from it...
"For example, Environmental Defense recently teamed up with the Political Economy Research Center to protect fisheries. (Environmental Defense is a national research and advocacy organization with a staff of more than 75 scientists, economists, and attorneys. PERC, based in Bozeman, Mont., studies ways to apply "free market environmentalism" to problems involving natural resources and pollution.)"
Under a Bush Presidency, I expect a few groups such as Environmental Defense will move "hard right". I hope Big-Green Groups that are more moderate than ED will move in the other direction. But, who knows? Perhaps they will simply gravitate to where the access/power is.
Scott
--- begin quoted ---
JANUARY 4, 2001
Natural capitalism
Reconciling ecology and economics to improve everyone's standard of living
By Brad Knickerbocker
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Around the world, there are stark reminders of the impact that economic
decisions can have on the environment: the Dalmatian coast of Croatia
denuded of trees cut for shipbuilding, California's Owens Valley sucked
dust-dry of water to supply Los Angeles, desertification in Africa due
to overcultivation and overgrazing.
That's pretty much been the history of civilization, right up to the
Three Gorges Dam in China - the largest hydropower project in the
history of the world. When completed, critics warn, it will inundate
244 square miles, threatening already-endangered wildlife and forcing
the relocation of at least 1 million people.
To a lesser degree, the reverse is true. Recent efforts to protect the
environment have hindered economic growth: coastal zoning regulations
blocking new resorts, clean-air and clean-water statutes restricting
industrial output, endangered-species laws preventing housing
developments and farming in certain areas.
This apparent conflict between ecology and economy - felt deeply and
fought fiercely by partisans on both sides - is etymologically ironic.
Both words come from the same Greek root - oikos, meaning household or
habitat.
But now there are growing signs that these two contentious symbols of
how we treat - and are sustained by - the earth are coming together.
One is the tendency among pro-environment thinkers and activists to
tout the necessity of factoring in the environment when gauging
economic well-being and setting policy (promoting "Natural
Capitalism,"(See Review) to use the title of a recent book on the
subject).
At the same time, there is a more conservative line of scholarship and
advocacy that emphasizes "market environmentalism" - the belief that
private property and self-interest lead to environmental protection. Or
as Aldo Leopold, conservationist and author of "A Sand County Almanac,"
once wrote: "Conservation will ultimately boil down to rewarding the
private landowner who conserves the public interest."
While no one is proclaiming a new age of peace and love between the
two, environmentalists and free marketeers are finding ways to work
together for mutual benefit.
For example, Environmental Defense recently teamed up with the
Political Economy Research Center to protect fisheries. (Environmental
Defense is a national research and advocacy organization with a staff
of more than 75 scientists, economists, and attorneys. PERC, based in
Bozeman, Mont., studies ways to apply "free market environmentalism" to
problems involving natural resources and pollution.)
What both organizations would like to see - and are pushing Congress to
authorize - is the use of "individual transferable quotas" (ITQ's) as a
regulatory tool to reduce overfishing in the Gulf of Mexico. Set by
management agencies, ITQ's would limit the commercial catch while
allowing fishermen to buy and sell permits. Other environmental groups,
including Greenpeace, argue against any scheme that acknowledges the
right to own a natural resource - in essence, a property right.
But Environmental Defense economist Peter Emerson says "providing
better economic returns for fishermen" has to be a part of addressing
the troubling decline in fisheries around the world. And this in turn
means finding ways to reduce "excess capacity" - the number of fishing
boats scrambling after a dwindling resource.
For free marketeers at PERC, this would be an important step toward
letting commercial markets and property rights help protect the
environment.
While this coming together of interests is unusual, it is not unique.
The two organizations have worked together to promote water markets
(programs for buying and selling water rights in the thirsty West), to
end below-cost timber sales on national forests, and to urge the
"polluter pays" principle in determining who bears the cost of
environmental cleanup.
"While they definitely are a conservative organization relative to most
environmental organizations, I have found them always to be a source of
good ideas," says Dr. Emerson.
Terry Anderson, executive director of PERC and a professor of economics
at Montana State University in Bozeman, has watched such partnerships
grow over the years. "The thought that the ideas out of PERC would have
coalesced with ideas from a major environmental group, back in 1990 and
especially 1980 would have been totally unthinkable," he says.
Target: government subsidies
Government subsidies harmful to the environment are targets both sides
enthusiastically aim at. Around the world, governments subsidize
fishing fleets - a main reason why some three-quarters of all fisheries
are in decline. In this country, selling the right to cut timber on
national forests for less than it's worth loses money for the federal
Treasury and threatens biodiversity.
Regulatory gridlock can delay cleanup and end up costing more.
Increasingly, advocates on both sides of this ecology-economy divide
are finding ways to cooperate.
One example is North Carolina's Tar-Pamlico River Basin Association.
Heavy runoff of phosphates and nitrates from farms, dairies, and timber
operations was found to have killed millions of fish due to oxygen
depletion caused by nutrients in the rivers.
Realizing the difficulty of dealing with this "nonpoint pollution"
through federal regulation, the EPA left it to local authorities,
environmentalists, industry officials, and farmers to determine how the
federal Clean Water Act standard would be met.
A system of nutrient caps and pollutant trading was developed that improved water quality - at a fraction of the estimated cost.
Some environmentalists criticize such efforts at pollution trading
(there are others involving air quality) as an official blessing of
"the right to pollute." But the idea, as Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R) of
New York puts it, is to "provide a way, to go beyond technology-based
command-and-control standards and focus on environmental results."
Such devolution of authority for environmental protection - from the
federal government to state and local authorities - is likely to
increase under the administration of President-elect George W. Bush.
Some activists fear this may represent a setback from what's been
perceived as a "greener" attitude by outgoing Interior Secretary Bruce
Babbitt, EPA administrator Carol Browner, Forest Service chief Michael
Dombeck, and other officials. On the other hand, it's a trend that in
fact has accelerated during the Clinton years.
In any case, the public is unlikely to let any administration stray too
far from the save-the-environment trend that dates back 30 years to the
first Earth Day.
Wirthlin Worldwide, an opinion research firm often associated with
Republican candidates and causes, recently reported that "two out of
three Americans say we need to protect the environment no matter what
it costs."
While Democrats were more likely to hold this view (76 percent), most Republicans (52 percent) did, too.
Straightforward capitalism
Meanwhile, conservationists are finding their own ways to connect
economic decisions with environmental protection. The most direct means
here is entering the market themselves.
Defenders of Wildlife, the Nature Conservancy, land trusts, and other
private groups increasingly are applying straightforward capitalism to
environmental protection, putting their money where their mouths are.
For several years, Defenders of Wildlife has compensated ranchers for livestock lost to wolves and grizzly bears.
Last month, the group launched its "Proactive Carnivore Conservation
Fund," helping ranchers pay for electric fences, guard dogs, and other
means of preventing conflicts between domestic stock and endangered
predators.
"We are impressed with the number of ranchers willing to work
constructively with us to solve problems," says Craig Miller, director
of Defenders of Wildlife in the southern Rockies.
The Nature Conservancy, known for buying up natural areas in order to
protect them from development, now has an "EcoEnterprises Fund."
Most environmentalists reject the notion that the "free market" - based
on private property rights unrestrained by government regulation - is
the answer to solving ecological problems.
"Yet worldwide experience confirms an abundance of market-based tools
whose outcomes can be environmentally, economically, and ethically
superior," assert P. Hawken, A. Lovins, and L.H. Lovins in their recent
book "Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution."
For now, advocates and academics will wrestle over the politics of
finding the proper balance between economic necessity and environmental
protection. So too do philosophers and theologians.
"This may be dismissed as a utopian fantasy," warns Dr. John Cobb,
professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology. "But the
alternative is too horrible to accept."
|
- Activism 
