Center for Environmental Policy Holds Annual Lunch and Presents First Environmental Innovator Award
2005-09
The Center for Environmental Policy’s Annual Luncheon, held on Thursday, July 28, 2005 marked the third annual gathering of elected officials, businessmen, members of the media and ordinary citizens with an interest in free market environmentalism.
Todd Myers, Director of the Center for Environmental Policy (CEP) opened the event with an overview of the CEP, and its goals of protecting the natural world, while nurturing economic growth. Mr. Myers said the Center works to debunk environmental myths, from refuting the flawed methodology used to measure spotted owl populations to costly LEED green building standards to poor land management. Using the freedom provided by the market, rather than top-down limitations imposed by the government, CEP believes we can make rational decisions which benefit our society, our businesses and our environment.
Guided by those goals, Mr. Myers recognized Chris Bayley’s leadership in using the principles of market rationalism to capitalize on voluntary incentives that help farmers protect land in Washington. Mr. Myers proudly presented Mr. Bayley and his organization, Stewardship Partners, the first CEP Environmental Innovator Award.
Chris Bayley spoke briefly about his work with farmers, noting that some environmental activists consider them untrustworthy stewards of the land. Yet Mr. Bayley’s experience has shown the strong conservation ethic of farmers, as well as their interest in protecting the natural value of their property. Taking advantage of this conservation ethic, Stewardship Partners is marketing agricultural goods as Salmon Safe, in response to the growing market for natural and organic foods, as well as reflecting the environmental awareness of farmers. The nonprofit group’s website is www.stewardshippartners.org.
Next, the president of the Portland-based Cascade Policy Institute, John Charles, Jr., presented the keynote speech titled “From Environmental Activist to Natural Capitalist.” He narrated his personal journey from an activist who was invigorated by the environmental crisis he saw around him, to the free market advocate he is today. He stressed the importance of maintaining a rational dialogue and outlined how the mainstream environmental movement has strayed from its initial goals of protecting our natural resources. He described how we can restore and maintain a reasonable balance between environmental protection and economic well being.
Mr. Charles considers himself one of many activists who grew up in an environmentally aware community who are now looking for alternative ways to stay loyal to their environmental foundations. Born in Pittsburgh, Mr. Charles heard stories from his parents about how the air quality was so bad that streetlights came on in the daytime to help students find their way to school. At the time critics of pollution were told it was like “money in the air,” demonstrating how the economic well being of the city came at the cost of the health and environmental sacrifices of its citizens.
Even in Mr. Charles’ generation, pollution continued to be a problem in the New York/New Jersey area where he grew up. He remembers early Earth Day events as important occasions, because pollution was obvious and ubiquitous. Today, he said, Earth Day has become a non-event, commemorating past victories and obscure, unobservable crises. Feeling alienated by the pollution and the smokestacks of the New Jersey turnpike region, Mr. Charles joined the Environmental Defense Fund in New York City, a prestigious market-conscious environmental organization, which gave him an initial foundation in market-driven environmentalism.
Mr. Charles later moved to Oregon and became the executive director of the Oregon Environmental Council (OEC), a position he held for 17 years. Over that time, he witnessed the steep decline in industrial pollution. The effort was so successful that wood burning stoves in homes became the primary source of air pollution, a battle not likely to be won against Eastern Oregonians. Mr. Charles began to examine market solutions more closely after hearing free-market environmentalists discuss how electronic devices and value pricing can be used to reduce road congestion. That same year, the Oklahoma Turnpike became completely electronic, using what economists refer to as rational road pricing to control the levels of traffic.
In the 1990s, Portland’s Metro agency began its 20/40 planning process. Mr. Charles found the urban transit goals counterproductive and inappropriate. He drafted testimony critical of the plan. After reading it, his employers at the Oregon Environmental Council objected to his arguments, despite the fact that the same arguments appeared in recommendations given by Metro’s own consultants. Even so, OEC’s board rejected his 12 pages of testimony.
Mr. Charles had at first favored Portland’s Metropolitan Area Express (MAX), yet he later found it inefficient and a waste of taxpayer money. Additionally, in a report for Metro, planners found the high population concentration and few freeway miles per capita of Los Angeles an ideal model for the transportation planning of Portland. The culmination of these contradictions, complications and outright absurdities eventually turned Mr. Charles away from light rail.
His decision to challenge the logic of light rail, however, was stifled because of a lack of serious debate. Mr. Charles reported advocates of light rail are unwilling to engage in a rational and open discussion. Mr. Charles chose to leave the environmentalist community and join the Cascade Policy Institute, a local, free-market think tank. Highly influenced by theories of public choice, rational ignorance and the theory of concentrated benefits while dispersing costs, Mr. Charles began to examine free market solutions to environmental problems. As Mr. Charles had observed in Oregon, the larger environmental crisis was apparently over. It seemed that most environmental organizations do any more is spread fear of future crises in order to fund their own frivolous public campaigns.
Mr. Charles shared with the audience several lessons he has learned in his transition. First, it is crucial to examine the incentives everyone receives, especially government, in environmental disputes. Programs like MAX demonstrate gross waste of resources and funds. Secondly, before setting out on a campaign for change, we need to have a clear picture of what we are changing, and what a successful outcome looks like. This is a primary problem with the environmental movement, who cannot tell us what global warming is (Mr. Charles noted there are two official United Nations definitions), what level of salmon restoration is satisfactory, what urban sprawl is and what a lack of sprawl would look like. Because there is no ultimate goal, the environmental movement has no limit to spending money on the next crisis, which for them is always lurking just over the horizon. Mr. Charles argues that they now have more money, less work to do and make less of an impact than ever before.
Thirdly, a biased, liberal media cooperates with the environmentalist cause in spreading stories of bad news, crucial to funding the same environmentalist causes. Fourthly, many environmentalists are refusing to leave their networks, for fear of experiencing the same social exclusion Mr. Charles received after joining the Cascade Policy Institute. Activists have a vested social and business interest in continuing to raise money despite the absence of overt environmental problems.
Finally, Mr. Charles referred to those who have successfully extracted themselves from the environmentalist web, like Bjorn Lomborg, author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” and Gregg Easterbrook, author of “The Progress Paradox,” and participants in a swelling environmental debate focused on logic and facts, rather than fear and greed. By restructuring our social networks to move out of the echo chamber, we can open the debate and find practical solutions which enhance all aspects of our lives. Mr. Charles encouraged the audience to invite respected friends and colleagues to future Washington Policy Center events to open the debate to new voices. By expanding the audience’s size and background, he said we can encourage the free and open dialogue needed to evaluate the direction of the environmental movement.
After his speech, Mr. Charles took several questions. An audience member asked him to comment on Oregon’s newly-passed Measure 37, a popular initiative to protect property rights. Mr. Charles praised its electoral success, noting that it passed overwhelmingly in 35 of 37 Oregon counties. He restated one of his key themes, that of connecting with a moderate and thoughtful group of citizens. He noted the support for John Kerry and Measure 37 on the same ballot in the traditionally liberal Portland region. Mr. Charles believes this is an indication that citizens of cities like Portland and Seattle are ready for a levelheaded dialogue about the effects of regulation on the market and the environment, and to evaluate issues beyond party and ideological lines.
Mr. Charles also warned against the uncertainty of regulation, noting the case of some property owners who were unclear about how proposed regulations on logging would affect them. Fearing that if they waited the government regulations would soon eliminate the value of their property, the landowners clear cut their forest lands. In the end, the damage inflicted on their land was far more serious than if they had planned a limited harvest in a deliberate manner, instead of risking the uncertainties of upcoming regulations.
Mr. Charles was next asked to evaluate the Metropolitan Area Express (MAX), Portland’s light rail. Mr. Charles referred back to his initial support, but observed that after moving closer to a rail station to incorporate it into his commute, he realized that Area “Express” was a misnomer because it did not run at an express speed, nor did it effectively serve the metropolitan area. The most recent expansion had cost six million dollars per mile and replaced a heavily used bus service that was nearly profitable. Light rail, on the other hand, while more expensive, created no additional room for commuters.
The criticism of local and national press bias prompted someone to ask Mr. Charles how journalism, particularly environmental reporting, can be reformed to broaden discussion. Mr. Charles related his experiences of being ostracized, noting that inclusion and open mindedness should continue to be a priority of the free press. Furthermore, groups outside the mainstream environmental media flow can easily look to alternatives, like blogs, online PDF publications and Internet publications. The rise of these alternate news sources has already put many media outlets on the defensive and now is the time to use these alternatives to encourage more open discussion.
Finally, Mr. Charles was asked about the role of intelligent government regulation. Government certainly has a role, he said, in maintaining stable markets. By way of contrast he pointed out that Somalia has one of the freest markets in the world, yet an entrepreneur there needs to provide his own police force in order to conduct business, demonstrating the undesirability of a total absence of regulations.
Mr. Charles referred back to Oregon’s Measure 37, noting that when private property owners, who wish to manage their forest lands, see government regulation as irrational and unpredictable, they take matters into their own hands. In some instances, they do more damage because of the uncertainty of future regulation, than if the regulation were never imposed in the first place. Mr. Charles concluded his remarks by noting that clear communication between lawmakers and citizens can and should be developed to maintain a coherent ongoing dialogue about the environmental and market interests.