Lecturing this week about protecting biodiversity on private land and property rights, the following positing by Dan Farber focusing on environmental risk and government action and referencing the work of Richard Epstein who contributed to the New Zealand property rights debate courtesy of the New Zealand Business Roundtable, is a fortunate stroke of serendipity. Referring to a recent New York Times article dealing with the clash between government protection and property rights in high-risk zones, Farber observed:
It’s easy to complain that the government should have kept people out of harm’s way. But when it tries to do so, it is often met by claims that it has violated the Constitution. Those claims should have their limits. One of the most notable parts of the article involved Richard Epstein, the intellectual father of the property rights movement. Speaking of the recent Omo landslide, Epstein said:
“The case is a no-brainer in favor of extensive government regulation in order to protect against imminent perils to life and health. I’m a property guy, but I’m not a madman.”
Although not mentioned in the article, it’s also noteworthy that Epstein is a supporter of the public trust doctrine. His views are more complex than many people (probably including many of his would-be followers) realize.
Clearly, all is not what it appears to be, and the debate about the appropriate domain for environmental regulation is complex, but shares some basic common denominators – that there is an appropriate place for regulation, notwithstanding that regulation may affect property rights.
Epstein’s comments are particularly interesting in relation to climate change adaptation and mitigation in light of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report published on 31 March.