Some have asked me, after my post on Earth Day, if there’s an environmental group that seems more market-oriented, and willing to try private solutions to bring about conservation.
Well, that would have to be the Nature Conservancy. They purchase land and, in almost all cases, keep the land off the market for further transactions or development. There are some times when they re-sell what they’ve purchased (to increase assets for more vital purchases). Those re-sales make the Nature Conservancy controversial to some environmentalists. These transactions are the exception to the rule, though; I believe that re-sales are sometimes necessary to support the greater mission of the Conservancy.
Two other prominent environmental groups, the Sierra Club (of John Muir’s founding) and World Wildlife Fund, often favor government solutions to environmental problems. I am not a member of either of these groups, but I know from friends who are members that both groups are increasingly receptive to state-regulation to address environmental problems (particularly global warming).
That doesn’t mean that these latter two groups should be off limits to libertarian members. People join societies for all sorts of reasons.
There may be many members of these societies who join simply to enjoy the nature photographs in their publications.
Others may be looking for discounts or promotions for outdoor activities that are offered with a membership. There’s nothing wrong with joining a club, and paying a membership, for the offers that it provides. If a society didn’t want people to join for that reason alone, then it wouldn’t allow easy access to promotional offers.
Some seek sweeping change; some may have only a limited goal.
The more important point is that there’s more than one way, and one group, seeking to preserve the environment.
For me, that means the Nature Conservancy.