A story in yesterday's New York Times was headlined "G.O.P. Plans to Give Environment Rules a Free-Market Tilt," yet what the article described could hardly be considered Free Market Environmentalism. The story predicted that the direction of environmental policy would not change much during a second Bush term. A federal energy bill still tops the agenda (nothing free market there), as do efforts to "improve" the use of science under the Endangered Species Act (ditto). The article notes oceans will be a big issue in the coming years, but gives no indication the administration or congressional leaders plan to push ITQs and other market oriented reforms. It's no wonder the administration received a grade of C+ from PERC.

Is there anything likely to move environmental policy in a free market direction? Perhaps. The article notes that the administration hopes to expand efforts to rely more upon incentives to encourage conservation. This is a positive step, as incentives are often preferable (and often more effective) than prescriptive land-use controls. In addition, the Senate Environment Committee plans to make the administration's "Clear Skies" plan the top agenda item in the new Congress. While many FME types are critical of cap-and-trade schemes, I would argue that the architecture of "Clear Skies" would be a welcome replacement for New Source Review. Alas, these initiatives are as close to "free market" as the administration's announced plans appear to get.