My friends at Stanford argued that I was implicitly assuming that political liberals are environmentalists while political conservatives are not. This "left/right" partition does a good job today but of course it doesn't lead to a perfect partition of people. I use political party of registration because it is often observable in standard data sets while "environmental ideology" is not easy to observe.
Today's WSJ reviews a book focused on Prince Charles style conservation.
How to Think Seriously About the Planet
By Roger Scruton
(Oxford, 457 pages, $29.95)
(Oxford, 457 pages, $29.95)
Mr. Scruton appears to believe in Downton Abbey style conservation where the Lord (of the Estate not of the Universe) has a desire to conserve nature and to preserve a past lifestyle. Such a hounds and shooting birds life certainly exists in most quarters but 99.7% of the world's people and activity is focused far from this estate. Instead, the bulk of activity occurs in dense cities far from where the Lord lives. He has literally built a spatial moat to keep away the common folk. The real environmental challenges and in a democracy the median voter politics are taking place in the cities and suburbs where people actually live.
Now, I have been interested in some of Mr. Scruton's themes. I have wanted to work with the National Parks Service to see if visiting a national park helps to shape preferences for preservation of such parks. Is nature an "experience good"? The Fresh Air Fund is implicitly based on this view.