|
<br />
<br />DEC"07"9B 09,55 FROM,M,B.S.S,
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />The conference did not limit this focus to 10 rural
<br />setting, howo:ver, as the mOre famiJiar the s of indus-
<br />trial ecology :md commercializing en . nnumtalism
<br />were explored in det:liI. The flow 0 ood, energy,
<br />water, and other ecosystem.<Jcriv p!'oducts from
<br />rural to urban .setting.! Is also orId influenced by
<br />incentive strUcrures that c manipul2ted to make
<br />valuing nature's service ore likely to occur in the
<br />economic sense, W e balance accounting, product
<br />take back p , material flows efficiencies, and
<br />other examples ggest that there Is real economic
<br />gold to be ed in the indU$tri2I and commercial set.
<br />tIngs, And' companles:md consu''l1e:s do the .' t
<br />thing" th respect to e:coS)'SU'ms because 0 ' centive
<br />moti lions built around ecosystem servi production
<br />c:a city, who cares whether it is bec of economic
<br />or of moral incentives?
<br />The final theme of the com ce is one that has
<br />resonated throughout enviro ental Law for some
<br />time-uncertainty. The lion from care1illly
<br />designed research Is the loss of ecosystem services
<br />may be nonJinsar ctlon, such that we: may cross
<br />thresholds back which we cannot easily return
<br />and which w 'll not identify until after we have
<br />passed th . For ex:unple, It III2Y be that global warm.
<br />ing ca no perceptible global environmental ange
<br />un threshold Is crossed, after which ch e comes
<br />. furiously, im:verSlbly. and with pos' feed-
<br />back-the scenario SOlllC have hypo ized for dec:p
<br />ocean currents, We don't know l:ther that will hap-
<br />pen, but do we want to find 0 . Research into nonlin-
<br />ear eCosystem dynamics th has made playing with
<br />uncertainty. more ous game and the precau.
<br />tionary principle a compelling policy question.
<br />.-\bout ten tes of the thrcc-day conference was
<br />devoted to the reform Issue, Professor James
<br />Salzman OU ed for the eco-cconomists why Law
<br />reform - be needed if they want to put, theo to
<br />actio . point they seemed to .ccc:pt, and outlined
<br />for e Lawyer in the audience (I.e" me) t fonns
<br />this law reform might take in the imm 'ate ruture
<br />based on existing law. Oearly, as r ch on cCosy!r
<br />tern senice v:tlues is refined, It d Influence the
<br />p'rocess of natUral resource ge assessment under
<br />CERCIA, the Oil Pollution and similar fedCllll and
<br />state laws. One stc:p , what if evidence of causa-
<br />tion and value becom sufficiently developed to with.
<br />stand tOrt law proof dards? Could there be a new
<br />form oftOrt, an e tort, to capture damage to one's
<br />ecosystem sc 'e ownership? Finally. he suggested
<br />that L~w reeo may focus on the identification and
<br />protecti f ecosystem service indicators and the
<br />explicit ge between them and the incentives strUC,
<br />tures. he spoke, I envisioned perhaps a floating
<br />ecoS)'$tem use taX based on periodic quotes of some
<br />measured environmental variable that could be repon-
<br />ed along side traditiOnal economic perfonnance Indica-
<br />
<br />10=870 247 8827
<br />
<br />PAGE
<br />
<br />2/4
<br />
<br />totS. (For more on this tOpic e James SaIzm.an,
<br />Valuing Ecosystem Service, 24 EcoLOGY L.Q. 887
<br />(997)), To be sure, nei r he nor anyone else has the
<br />taX r,1te or the indicat ironed out yet, but the frame-
<br />wOrk for even g along these lines has camed at
<br />least this colle of eminent ecologists and econo-
<br />mists, togeth 0 less, intO territory that was previous-
<br />ly unheard for either discipline not tOO long ago. A
<br />no less nilnt point for law is that, In ad 'on to
<br />buil' new lega.l frameworks around ecosystem
<br />seevi s concept, some existing legal r ' es pose bar-
<br />rle that may become the tatgets 0 onn. Water
<br />tS, fedenlland multiple use dates. below-<:O$t
<br />timber sales, taX and subsidy <:s, and other
<br />entrenched featureS of the resent legal strUcture
<br />affecting how ecosyst are used are likely to
<br />be more closely scru' 'Zl!:d with the new tools of
<br />ec<>economic:s.
<br />I a.tn not
<br />jump on the conomics bandwagon.
<br />uncontt~ iaI movement even in 10 gy and eco-
<br />nomic and it carries with it profo d policy implica-
<br />tio each person ...ill have to w ,Real-world
<br />examples such as the New Y City effOrt are still few
<br />and far between. making movement subject to .
<br />'Show me the money!' enge, I suspect, however,
<br />that the ecosystem . ces movement in ecology and
<br /><<onomles will n easily be turned around, and I sug-
<br />gest it will be dent for all SONREEI. members to
<br />keep track of their progress, maybe even join 'em.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Are We Selling the
<br />Environment Down the River?
<br />
<br />Vickie V. Sutton
<br />
<br />The American Heritage Rivers [nltia!ive is a regula-
<br />tory watershed management program implemented by
<br />a 1997 ""ec:utive oreler of the Clinton administration
<br />which has drawn substantial oppOSition from members
<br />of Congress and advocates of state regulatory powetS
<br />and privllte propcny rights. Designed and promoted by
<br />Kathleen McGinty's Council on Environmental Quality
<br />(CEQ), the new fedCllll program o."tends and delegates
<br />federal regulatory influence without benefit of authoriz-
<br />ing leg.l.slation Or even an underlying fedc:ral rule.
<br />Critics have challenged its consistency with e:xisling
<br />fedc:ral and State environmental, natural resource and
<br />property laws and sevc:ral areas of established coostiN-
<br />tlonal law as well.
<br />
<br />[)r>, Sutton is frmner assistant director, Office of Science and
<br />TechnoloGJ-' Policy, E:<ecutive Office of the President, during
<br />tbe Busb admini$Zf'arion.
<br />
<br />,.,,,..
<br />
|