By Author:Iain MurrayJonathan H. Adler Amy Ridenour Tom Tanton Steve Hayward Randal O'Toole Michael DeAlessi Joel Schwartz IMGrant Andrew Morriss J. Bishop Grewell Chris Horner Marlo Lewis Carlo Stagnaro Pete Geddes John Downen John Baden Jane Shaw John La Plante Fred L. Smith Ken Green Ben Lieberman By Category:AgricultureAir Quality Biotechnology Brownfields CAFE Standards Climate DDT/Malaria Energy Energy Independence/National Security Environmental Alarmism Environmental Economics Environmental Risk European Union Extinction Federal Lands and Parks Federal Programs Federalism Forests International Media Oceans Pollution Population Poverty and Hunger Precautionary Principle Private Conservation Property Rights Recycling Sustainable Development Tragedy of the Commons Transportation Urban Planning and Sprawl Water Wildlife By Month:September 2007April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004
Powered by
Site design by |
No New Ideas?
Posted by Jonathan H. Adler · 26 July 2004 ·
I certainly have my differences with the Bush Administration over environmental policy, but former Interior Secretary Stewart Udall's claim that the administration has "not put forward a single positive new conservation concept" is simply false. See, for example, this speech by Assistant Interior Secretary Lynn Scarlett on "Private Stewardship and Conservation Incentives." More broadly, the administration has sought to reintroduce notions of greater local control and the use of incentives in the place of coercive regulations to advance conservation. These approaches are promising, if underutilized and often ignored by some of the Administration's less inspiring environmental appointees. Of course, these approaches are also anathema to the D.C.-based environmental establishment, so it's no surprise that Udall ignores them.
|