As Congress starts thinking about changings to the Endangered Species Act, here is more evidence of free market environmentalism in Texas (Aware of political ecosystem ...):
The safe harbor programs are widely acknowledged as one of the most successful blends of public and private initiatives to further conservation. They mimic the pollution credit trading programs that cut the amount of acid rain falling on New England.
Update: free market environmentalism and replace with "a recognition of the importance of property rights and economic incentives." Thanks to a comment from Biopolitical.
The factors affecting the changing 'tude about property rights seem to be, surprise, the incentive to give them up and the lack of attractive alternatives:
When his land was threatened with condemnation for a refuge for the warbler and the endangered black-capped vireo, Mr. Russell said he pointed out that local residents were not favorably disposed to federal biologists.
And, he recalled with a grin, he said that if he went to court over the government's proposed price for the land, "the judge and jury are going to be my kinfolk." But when a representative of Environmental Defense offered to broker benefits for him, including almost $1,800 an acre - or about $250,000 - for the perpetual set-aside for the warbler, his attitude changed.
"The reason we're strong property rights advocates is we want to preserve the land," Mr. Russell said. As for the money, he said, "It's a benefit to me, and I'm mercenary in that respect, but at the same time this is a benefit to everyone else."
...
But, Mr. Wolfe added, the shift in attitude paralleled a shift in economics. "The historical ranching and grazing economy has been going away," he said. Landowners are looking for other ways to make money. One possibility, he said, is leasing the land to hunters. Another is making it ready for nature tourism by conserving the ecosystem.
The WSJ also has an article on ESA today (Act faces an overhaul) which focuses, naturally, on the costs to business of the ESA:
Business groups have pushed for changes in the law for more than 15 years. One, the National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition, has grown to about 150 member organizations ranging from county governments to ranchers to utilities. They have pressed their case with lobbying and congressional testimony to advocate overhaul of the ESA.
Only 10 of the 1,304 species listed since the law's inception have been "recovered," or saved to the point the species can be removed from the list, Mr. Lynn said. "The critical habitats cause tremendous delays and don't provide additional protection for endangered species."
One of the ESA's most-vocal critics is the National Association of Home Builders, which says the law restricts development and drives up home prices. Jason Lynn, the group's legislative director, also contends that it isn't even effective in its primary mission.
The US House of Reps voted in September to get rid of the critical habitat designation component of the ESA. The Senate will be more inclined to keep critical habitat in the ESA or find some compromise.
I've seen some economic research that finds that critical habitat is not so cost effective in protecting species. What is effective is government spending on the species. See here and here.
Using economic incentives sounds great, of course, but in terms of converting the endangered species act from command and control to incentives, you have to wonder where the federal government will get the money [another update follows in italics] for this reform effort when it is already strapped for cash.