Free market solutions
to environmental
problems
POLITICAL ECONOMY
RESEARCH CENTER
502 South 19th Ave.
Bozeman, MT 59718
406-587-9591
E-mail questions or comments to perc@perc.org
Contents
- Issues in Brief
The Endangered
Species Act
Environmental
Education
Environmental
Federalism
Superfund
Fee
Hunting
PERC's OPINION
The Endangered Species Act is not working and reforms are needed. Only eight out of the more than 1,400 listed species have recovered since the act was passed in 1973. This is not a success story by any measure.
The far-reaching powers vested in federal agents to control landowners' use of their property have not worked to protect endangered species and may have had the opposite effect. Some owners manage their land to keep listed species out for fear that their rights may be restricted. The act ignores the important positive role that private landowners and institutions have historically played in protecting rare fauna and flora.
A few changes could go a long way toward making endangered species and their habitats assets, rather than liabilities. The most fundamental is to eliminate the penalties for altering habitat. Without fear of penalties, more private property owners would be willing to help protect the plants and animals on their land. If property rights are restricted, landowners should be compensated. Furthermore, rewards could be paid to landowners who host endangered species.
However, the nation's capacity to devote resources to preserving biodiversity is finite. "Setting priorities for preservation goals is both rational and scientifically defensible," says Richard Stroup, PERC senior associate. Narrowly focusing on saving an individual species may not be the best use of limited government funds. It may be better to follow the example of the Nature Conservancy and protect several species in a broader region.
A clear indication that some balance must be restored to the Endangered Species Act came in a 1997 Supreme Court ruling. The decision allows private property owners who have suffered economic losses because of environmental laws to challenge those laws.
Any reform of the Endangered Species Act should restore landowners' rights, create positive incentives to protect species and establish priorities to guide federal action in preserving biodiversity.
For more information see "The Endangered Species Act: Making Innocent Species the Enemy," PERC Policy Series PS-3, by Richard L. Stroup, PERC senior associate.
Related
Sites:
U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service
Thoreau Institute
National ESA Reform Coalition
Competitive Enterprise Institute
National Center for Policy Analysis
PERC's OPINION
Across the country, children are learning that the earth is getting dangerously hot, that acid rain has destroyed vast numbers of lakes and rivers, and that organic food is safer than food grown with pesticides. Some children are frightened about their future; others pester their parents with simplistic solutions to complex problems.
"Many environmental materials in the schools usually tell just one side of the story," says PERC Senior Associate Jane Shaw. "Rather than introduce children to the spirit of scientific inquiry, they try to turn them into automatons‹and scare them as well." Heavily influenced by activist environmental groups, schools emphasize worst-case situations and express hostility to normal activities such as logging and farming," says Shaw.
PERC is actively working to correct these problems:
- A new book, A Blueprint for Environmental Education, just published by PERC, offers a road map for introducing economics to environmental education. It shows how this controversial field can adopt more realism and foster critical thinking in students. Edited by Jane S. Shaw, the book brings together lively essays by educators and economists who point out current problems with environmental education, introduce economics as a solution, and illustrate the relevance of economics.
- Regnery Publishing, Inc. has published Facts Not Fear: A Parents' Guide to Teaching Children About the Environment, by Michael Sanera and Jane S. Shaw. This book helps parents provide a more balanced view of many environmental issues. The book is jointly sponsored by the Alabama Family Alliance, the Arizona Institute for Public Policy, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and PERC.
- The National Council on Economic Education has published a middle school and high school curriculum developed by PERC. EcoDetectives, by Mark Schug, John Morton, and Donald Wentworth, is suited for social studies, history, and current events classes. This self-contained package of 18 lessons applies basic economic concepts to the study of environmental issues.
- PERC is preparing Environmental Examiner, a newsletter for high school students, that offers an ongoing way of communicating balanced environmental information. It includes articles and activities dealing with current environmental topics.
- PERC is working with the Canadian Council on Economic Education to develop materials that will treat environmental issues more objectively.
- PERC is sponsoring teacher workshops around the country.
- PERC holds an institute in Montana every summer to introduce teachers to market solutions to environmental protection.
Related
Sites and Articles:
Hoodwinking
a Nation
Dispelling
Popular Myths
Environmental
Myths and Realities
Global Warming
PERC's OPINION
Growing federal control over natural resource issues and environmental policy has produced some questionable results. Citizens have been saddled with enormous costs and tangled in bureaucratic regulations. Many Americans think it is time to re-examine the role of the national government and consider returning environmental policy to state and local governments.
Since 1993, the number of regulations proposed or issued by the Environmental Protection Agency has increased 20 percent. The costs of complying with national environmental regulations have risen from $53 billion in 1980 to over $150 billion today. Local governments have been waylaid by unfunded mandates Communities have battled the EPA over disruptive clean-ups, which they felt were unnecessary. Property owners have been forbidden to farm, log or build on their property in order to protect wetlands and endangered species.
Prior to the expansion of national control, states had a rich history of success in solving resource and environmental problems. Before the 1960s, water allocation was guided by state water law. A combination of statutes and common law provided a system of secure water rights and programs to ensure water quality. The diversity in state water policies was a valuable form of experimentation leading to more effective policies. It was not a reason for national usurpation of water policy through the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.
Public land management has also benefited from state policies and administration. A study of state and national forests in Minnesota and Montana shows that the state forests were run far more efficiently and generated revenues to support public schools. The national forests operated at a loss.
One-size-fits-all policies rarely apply equally in a country as large and diverse as ours. Because states are closer to the actual situation, they have a better chance to make appropriate decisions than the national government. And it is easier for citizens to hold local government officials accountable and to monitor local environmental regulations.
It is time to reverse the tendency to solve all environmental problems at the national level. Federalism allows for a larger government role when problems require it, but many natural resource issues can be addressed by local governments and in so doing can reduce costs and respond more appropriately to citizen concerns.
For more information on environmental federalism see "Environmental
Federalism: Thinking Smaller," PERC
Policy Series PS-8, by PERC Associates Terry L. Anderson and Peter
J. Hill.
Related
Sites and Articles:
The New Environmentalism
of State Regulators
Should
Federal Lands be Transferred to the States
Why
States, not EPA should set Standards
People
Matter
Unfunded Mandates
PERC's OPINION
Superfund, the federal program to cleanup hazardous waste, probably does more harm than good. It is costly, unfair and largely ineffective. Superfund cleanups are averaging about $30 million and an estimated 12 years for completion, yet there is often no evidence of serious health risks.
Congress created Superfund in 1980 in response to what appeared to be an emergency at Love Canal, a former industrial waste site. The fear that thousands of abandoned waste dumps were threatening the nation's health led Congress to grant the Environmental Protection Agency enormous authority in the form of emergency powers. These powers are being misused. Those accused of creating the hazardous waste are forced to pay for the cleanup, but are effectively barred from court review during that period, even when a true emergency does not exist. Those who live near the sites are being unnecessarily frightened.
Financing through special taxes made Superfund largely immune from budgetary constraints, while at the same time the EPA's overstated health risks have greatly inflated the cost of cleanups. For example, the EPA frequently assumes that hazardous waste sites will become housing developments and therefore must be cleaned to the point where children can eat the dirt in their yards.
Coupling virtually unlimited powers with vast sums of public money has accomplished comparatively little in cleaning up hazardous wastes and protecting health but has violated citizens' civil rights.
To correct these problems, emergency powers should be reserved for genuine emergencies, not for all Superfund cleanups. Civil rights should be restored to citizens accused of causing harm, and these individuals should have the same recourse to the courts as those who claim personal harm or property damage. Superfund expenditures should be re-evaluated to determine how funds might be better used to deal with environmental problems and improve public health.
For more information, see "Superfund: The Shortcut that Failed," PERC Policy Series PS-5, by Richard L. Stroup, PERC senior associate.
Related
Sites and Articles:
Privatizing
Superfund
The Real
Superfund Scandal
Overhauling
Superfund
Pollution Clean-up:
Government vs. Private Sector
PERC's OPINION
Public land managers are finding it ever more difficult to provide hunters with a quality hunting experience. With low success rates and poor hunting conditions on public land, hunters increasingly choose to hunt on private land for a fee.
Few people hunt strictly for meat, but state and federal agencies continue to manage as if they do, by providing large herds rather than trophy animals. Herds on public land provide hunters little opportunity to take a mature male. Having too few males in the herd also lowers the diversity of the gene pool for elk and deer populations. In sum, crowded conditions, safety concerns, and degraded habitat all detract from the hunting experience. They have opened the door to fee hunting.
Hunters report greater satisfaction when they pay a fee to hunt on private land. Herds are managed for more trophy animals. Access is limited to those who pay, improving success and safety. Unlike the public licensing system, fees reflect the true market value of the game. For example, hunters will pay more for a mature bull elk than a young bull or cow. Fees encourage private owners to make habitat improvements on the land to attract more game.
Access to private land for hunting has become increasingly limited. Traditional ranchers have grown wary of careless hunters who toss trash, leave gates open and damage property. A new generation of landowners not familiar with hunting traditions prefers to "save" wildlife and protect their privacy. Fees encourage landowners to open more private land to hunters.
Wildlife agencies can learn from private landowners who manage successful fee hunting operations. Let the sport pay for itself by charging market-driven fees and hunters will begin to see the conditions they want.
For more information on fee hunting see Wildlife
in the Marketplace, edited by Terry L. Anderson and Peter J. Hill
of PERC, and published by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. in
1995.