Kermit the Frog, a veteran of stage and screen, is seeking the White House in 2012 on the Green Tea Party ticket! PERC fully supports Kermit, a wetland activist, who believes in empowering citizens through property rights and markets to act in their own best interests. Learn more about the Green Tea Party here and don't miss Terry Anderson's oped in The Wall Street Journal today on the same topic.
PERColator Blog
Last year, WWF declared September 22nd as World Rhino Day to raise awareness of the plight of the world’s rhino species, which continue to be seriously threatened by poaching. This year, WWF and the California-based organization, Saving Rhinos LLC, aims to continue that tradition along with various other smaller rhino-oriented organizations.
Given that tomorrow is the official day, it is worth reflecting on why rhinos continue to be threatened and what might be done to save them. Rhinos are poached for their horns, which command high prices in Asia where they are used for medicinal and ornamental purposes. A 35 year ban on international trade in rhino horn has failed to close down markets and prevent poaching. Since the inception of the ban, rhino populations have mostly continued to decline as the black market price of rhino horn has steadily risen to remarkable levels, encouraging increasingly aggressive levels of poaching activity.
Saving Rhinos LLC believes that the solution is to maintain the existing ban and ‘re-educate’ consumers of traditional rhino horn medicines. On the face of it, the economic logic of this approach appears sound: reduce the demand, and the price of rhino horn (and therefore incentive to poach) should also drop. However, Saving Rhinos LLC also proposes destroying existing stockpiles of horn held by government agencies as well as other measures that would reduce the potential supply of horn to the market. In this regard they appear misguided, as economic logic tells us that reductions in supply (both perceived and real) will result in higher black market prices.
Indeed, recent experience in South Africa appears to demonstrate that effect. South Africa stands out as being the most successful custodian of rhinos in the world – in 1900 rhinos were all but extinct there, but today it harbours more than 70 percent of the world’s population. This success is owed largely to the pursuit of market-friendly wildlife conservation policies, but has come under threat after recent attempts to tighten regulations stimulated a surge in new poaching incidents, which you can see in PERC's latest case study. Banning domestic rhino horn trade and imposing restrictions on trophy hunting and live exports effectively restricted supply of rhino horn to the black market and almost certainly drove up the black market price.
Saving Rhinos LLC and similar organizations need to consider that a demand reduction approach may be resisted by consumers. Rhino horn is revered in Asian culture, based on traditional beliefs that extend back thousands of years, significantly predating religious belief systems such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Changing such a deeply-rooted belief system in time to save wild rhinos may simply not be feasible – in which case we may need to consider other alternatives.
In Africa, rhino horns can be quite easily and harmlessly harvested from free-ranging animals, and they regrow. A carefully regulated legal trade in rhino horn, supplied sustainably, with proceeds re-invested into conservation, provides a potential alternative that deserves further consideration.
For further information, please read Saving African Rhinos: A Market Success Story and visit www.rhino-economics.com
PERC recently acqui
red ownership of some valuable real estate in the Florida Keys. To the staff’s disappointment, it was not winter office space. Instead, we adopted a piece of Staghorn coral transplanted by the Coral Restoration Foundation. The property is a gift from the 2011 Enviropreneur Institute Fellows.
Restoring Florida’s coral reefs is the mission of the Coral Restoration Foundation. By planting nursery-grown brood stock in restoration sites, this organization is helping reverse the impacts of hurricanes, boat landings, and nutrient loading.
Brett Howell, 2011 PEI alum, is spearheading an effort to create a market-based approach to coral reef restoration. If you’d like to adopt some transplanted coral, visit this site.
Henry Miller points out in "Let Them Drink Dust" that in scientific disputes spawned by the Endangered Species Act the government usually wins.
But not always. In litigation that has been playing out in California for the last four years, regulators have been so incompetent and dishonest in the federal (mis)management of the state’s water supplies that the courts ruled against them. The U.S. District Court has found repeatedly that federal regulators failed to perform the most rudimentary analysis before ordering massive cuts in water that have reduced California’s supplies by more than a third during the last three years. “This is evidence of [Fish and Wildlife Service] intransigence,” the court ruled in the most recent of these cases at the end of August. “The agency’s ‘lack of data’ apologetic is the premise for the agency to do what it chooses.”Although the court can't fully prohibit the FWS plan as it is part of a larger case that is currently on appeal, the damage will be reduced. But as the judge observed at the end of his opinion, “The agencies still ‘don’t get it.’ They continue to believe their ‘right to be mistaken’ excuses [the lack of] precise and competent scientific analysis for actions they know will wreak havoc on California’s water supply.”In this instance, FWS was proposing to use 300,000 to 670,000 acre-feet of water to flush a handful of minnows called delta smelt a few miles farther west in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. (The lower amount is enough water to meet all of San Francisco’s drinking water needs for nearly two years.)
Instead of being available to help California’s cities and farms recover from the ruinous combined effects of three years of drought and federal regulation, all of that water would simply have run out into the ocean, unconserved, unrecycled and unavailable for any other use.
Dr. Miller is on to something when he asks, "Why hasn’t anyone else in government or academia simply called a halt to this nonsense? The answer may be that careers are at stake — along with so many lucrative research grants and consultancies. Meanwhile, the feds are trying to enforce the Endangered Species Act from inside a hen house in a way that makes foxes of us all."
Even though wolf numbers exceed recovered status according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, many groups continue to oppose their delisting. The debate, fought in both the courts and Congress, has cost individuals and taxpayers millions of dollars (see chart above).
According to the Fish and Wildlife Service [PDF], "Delisting the [Northern Rocky Mountain] wolf population would allow implementation of a more efficient, sustainable, and cost-effective wildlife conservation model, but has been difficult to achieve." In the meantime, the costs of wolf management increases with their population.
Originally posted at Environmental Trends.The Yale Law Journal’s new “Summary Judgment” online series features a set of essays on the Supreme Court’s decision in American Electric Power v. Connecticut, in which the Court held unanimously that suits against utilities alleging their emissions of greenhouse gases contribute to the “public nuisance” of global warming under federal common law were displaced by the Clean Air Act. Contributors to the online symposium include Hari Osofsky, Daniel Farber, James May, Maxine Burkett, Michael Gerrard, and yours truly. My contribution, “A Tale of Two Cases” (PDF), discusses how the outcome in AEP was predetermined by the Court’s prior holding in Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gases were pollutants subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. The essay is based on a longer article forthcoming in the Cato Supreme Court Review that I will discuss at the Cato Constitution Day event on Thursday.
Originally posted at The Volokh Conspiracy.
This summer PERC welcomed sixteen conservationists from around the world for its 11th annual Enviropreneur Institute. The program works with environmental entrepreneurs, or enviropreneurs, who seek a better understanding of how business and economic principles can be applied to environmental problems. For two weeks, participants have the opportunity to interact with leading experts in the field of free market environmentalism, including those who have researched and applied markets and property rights in their environmental work.
Michael Higuera of The Nature Conservancy attended this year's program. He works for TNC in Boulder, Colorado, where he protects land through conservation transactions across the state. Michael began his career practicing transactional law in Denver, but discovered that finding solutions and bringing people together resonated with him more than the process of litigation. We thank him for answering our questions. For more of PERC's Q&A series, see the Q&A archives.
Q: What types of conservation transactions are you currently facilitating?
A: I am primarily responsible for obtaining conservation easements on large ranches (over 10,000 acres) in eastern Colorado in order to preserve shortgrass prairie and protect native bird and wildlife species. These transactions are funded by private donations, landowner donations, and public funds from sources such as the lottery, the Division of Wildlife, and federal programs. In addition to that responsibility, I am working with a small group of people to determine ways to bring private capital into our conservation work and land transactions. We have been exploring ways to engage the private sector in acquiring properties with significant biodiversity value and are considering using an investment vehicle such as a real estate investment fund. The fund would manage the properties for a profit while also protecting their biodiversity by placing a conservation easement on the land. The sale of the conservation easement would help the fund acquire the property at a lower basis thereby increasing the operating return on its investment. Similarly, my project at PERC’s PEI program sought to find ways to work with oil companies to manage drilling operations in an environmentally sensitive manner. The common element between the real estate fund and the oil company ideas is finding market-based incentives that make it attractive for those ventures to promote conservation on their properties.
Q: What might some incentives be for the companies to conserve land tracts used in part for drilling?
A: We cannot use a conservation easement to address drilling for oil because mineral rights are very different than surface rights which can be protected by easements, but my idea was inspired by the success of the conservation easement as way to facilitate the acquisition of property rights that are valuable to TNC’s mission to protect biodiversity. The crux of my project at PEI was exploring ways to create incentives for oil companies to work with conservation organizations like TNC to plan their projects to avoid sensitive areas and minimize impacts. The most ambitious way to do that would be for companies to create a product that is differentiated in the marketplace from others by the way in which it was extracted. We certainly see this in the organic food market, fair trade certifications, and in the forestry markets. Unlike the conservation easement model that relies in part on public funding and tax incentives, this model would rely on the consumer to pay for the conservation benefits.
A conservation drilling plan would provide protections for biodiversity. which is a win for TNC and others who value nature. It could also be a win for the oil company by allowing them to differentiate their product, increase market share, and command a premium at the pump. Consumers who want to be part of the solution would win too.
Q. You’ve discussed the possibility of an eventual fourth pump at gas stations nationwide. What would this new “conservation gasoline” be, and how would it work?
A: The fourth pump is really the home run for this idea and represents something that I think needs to happen in conservation more generally. It represents a way to empower consumers with choices. If conservation is important to people, then people need to step up and vote with their dollars. Part of the reason that I have come to this conclusion is because I have more faith in people’s ability to make change through the market than at the ballot box. The lobbying efforts of the oil industry have proven pretty effective at limiting new regulations. Consumer demand and pressure at companies such as Walmart (that’s now carrying organic food and taking steps to be energy efficient) have resulted in some amazing changes that I do not think could have originated from a legislative process. Another reason this kind of consumer or market-generated conservation has the potential to be so powerful is because it creates self-funded conservation that does not rely on public funding and, if it is successful, it ends up being replicated by competitors who see that it creates value. This kind of domino effect is where you really end up having change happen on its own and at scale. This will also become more important as we enter a time period of less and less government spending in response to the budget crisis.
Q. What challenges lie ahead in creating market incentives for oil companies to conserve land?
A: There are a lot of challenges but the fun thing about working at an organization like TNC is that the possibilities for results at scale are what drive and inspire us, not the hurdles that lie ahead. I think that the primary challenges are building a cooperative relationship with an industry that has not seen it in its interest to proactively work to promote conservation. Another key challenge will be developing a market for this type of product in a market space that did not previously exist. It will be critically important to create a market that has a mechanism to assure consumers that their dollars are making a difference on the ground and really advancing conservation while at the same time that mechanism needs to be user friendly for the oil companies.
Q: What did you take away from PERC’s Enviropreneur Institute that will help you with developing your project?
A: I came away from PERC with a fresh way of looking at problems and new tools for doing so. Additionally, I forged relationships with a great network of people who renewed my enthusiasm for my work and with whom I hope to collaborate in the future. I think PERC also helped deepen my understanding of markets, incentives, and property rights as a way to advance conservation.
For more from Michael Higuera, see his earlier post "What does it mean to be an environmentalist?"
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is trying to become "coal-free" by 2020 but can't find any torrefied pellets, which are a biomass alternative to coal -- they are wood pellets, but have less moisture and are thus more like coal. The price of creating a torrefied-pellet facility is high, and EPA regulations surrounding it are unclear.
The United Nations recently declared access to clean drinking water and sanitation a basic human right. The measure, while non-binding, could pave the way for greater governmental control over water, most likely in the form of subsidized water projects, below cost rate structures, and political allocation of water rights. As Bruce Pardy (PERC Julian Simon Fellow) notes in today's Financial Post, putting our most precious resource under political control may only exacerbate the problem.
The editor of a scientific journal resigns, apologizing for publishing a paper that questions the conventional thinking about global warming.
So, we are having show trials, now? Or just re-education?
Roy Spencer's response is here.
Scientific truth will not be determined by how many people agree with a particular viewpoint but by the testing of one hypothesis against another. That process seems to be being curtailed.



Founded 30 years ago in Bozeman, Montana, PERC—the Property and Environment Research Center—is the nation’s oldest and largest institute dedicated to improving environmental quality through property rights and markets.
PERC’s publications, each designed to resonate with specific groups, move ideas generated at PERC to broader audiences.
Research is at the heart of PERC's work, with a focus on the question: What is the link between economic growth and environmental quality?
The goal of PERC’s programs is to fully realize the vision of establishing “PERC University,” where scholars, students, policy makers, and others convene to expand the applications of free market environmentalism.
PERC's fellowships share a common goal of exposing new scholars, students, journalists, and policy makers to free market environmentalism, as well as enable scholars already familiar with FME to explore new applications.
PERC continues to publish and present a broad range of research and discussion through podcasts, videos, and other multimedia channels.