More science, please
This story in today's New York Times highlights some facets of the Western environmental movement little known outside the region: that key initiatives involve private land, not government land; and that they are therefore accomplished in large part by private entities and market-driven measures rather than government fiat.
That should be good news, for both environmentalists and those who favor a smaller federal government. When the notion of a Yellowstone-to-Yukon corridor first surfaced several years ago, some Montanans feared that it would lead to onerous new national parks, wilderness areas, regulations, etc. Meanwhile, some conservationists feared that private-property rights would allow nothing to be done. We can all cheer that they found some common ground.
There is considerable source for worry, however. As the story notes, the key to this compromise was the incredible specificity of scientific data, which allowed the Nature Conservancy and other groups to pinpoint specific streams that required protection. Yet as this site discusses, the Bush administration has a horrendous attitude toward science.
I think even my libertarian friends would agree that there is a role for government in providing unbiased scientific information so that independent parties can reach their own solutions to societal problems. Too bad the Bush administration is squandering this opportunity to put such a visionary philosophy into place.
Join the discussion at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johnclaytonoutreach/
That should be good news, for both environmentalists and those who favor a smaller federal government. When the notion of a Yellowstone-to-Yukon corridor first surfaced several years ago, some Montanans feared that it would lead to onerous new national parks, wilderness areas, regulations, etc. Meanwhile, some conservationists feared that private-property rights would allow nothing to be done. We can all cheer that they found some common ground.
There is considerable source for worry, however. As the story notes, the key to this compromise was the incredible specificity of scientific data, which allowed the Nature Conservancy and other groups to pinpoint specific streams that required protection. Yet as this site discusses, the Bush administration has a horrendous attitude toward science.
I think even my libertarian friends would agree that there is a role for government in providing unbiased scientific information so that independent parties can reach their own solutions to societal problems. Too bad the Bush administration is squandering this opportunity to put such a visionary philosophy into place.
Join the discussion at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johnclaytonoutreach/
