post

What would you like to see from PERC?

We have a new poll on PERC’s Facebook page asking this question and we would love your input. What would you like to see more of from us at PERC?

  • Print publications (Policy Series, Case Studies, PERC Reports, etc)
  • Blog posts and other commentary on timely issues
  • Workshops, fellowships, and programs for professionals, students, journalists
  • Updates and stories from PERC enviropreneurs
  • Other (please leave us a comment)
Let us know what you think. Leave us a comment here or on PERC’s Facebook page.

Comments

  1. Other — I would love to read more about the history of some environmental policies (ESA, CAA, CWA, etc.) Maybe links to suggested readings (articles, books) by PERC scholars?

  2. More economic, social and legal analyses of environmental laws and policies, and not so much those relating to rural/land use and agricultural matters, but those affecting/relating to the commercial sector. For instance, consider the Lacey Act:

    1) Jurisprudence – eg how can someone be held liable for the knowledge of an illegal act, under a foreign law, by an unknown third (fouth, fifth etc) party, and in another country?

    2) Regulatory effectiveness – Has Lacey been effective at stopping illegal logging, or is illegal timber just being re-routed via furniture and other manufacturing in places like China to enter the US as non-regulated finished and complex products?

    3) Regulatory efficience – has it been cost effective (considering costs to broader society/tax-payers and also individual companies).

    4) The role of non-accountable non government organisations (for instance the EIA) in setting the priorities of law enforcement, and NGO rights to initiate investigations – is this of net-benefit or cost? See interesting case at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904787404576530520471223268.html#articleTabs%3Darticle (initiated by the NGO, the EIA I believe)
    Is this a disproportionate response? It will be interesting to see the court’s verdict.

    5) The application of Lacey to timber (about 5 years ago?) appears to have followed Yandle’s “Bootlegger/Baptist” model. I would think that its advocates would have been the green movement/activists, legal activists, the domestic timber industry and Unions. It would be good to see some work done on this history from a “public choice theory” viewpoint.

    Such an analysis wouldn’t just benefit the USA – Europe and Australia will soon introduce similar laws. My concern is that their cost will out-weigh any benefits, and that Third Party Litigation will not be done for the public good, rather, for the gain of narow sectional interests such as to bring publicity to environmental and legal activists. The businesses targetted will suffer badly, via such adverse publicity – if they are judged innocent, who will compensate them for their loss of “good-will” and reputation?