For this Earth Day, Hoover Institution scholars explore the intersections between environmental mandates and education policy. They also look to the origin of US wildlife and conservation agencies to explain why such organizations are necessary to maintain the natural realm. Finally, a host of Hoover scholars take on the subject of climate change and explain why it requires a measured, rational approach.
Featured Analysis
Environmental Incentives vs. Environmental Mandates: Lessons for Educational Policy
This essay by Hoover senior fellows Terry L. Anderson and Dominic Parker examines the parallels between government intervention in education and in environmental policy. Anderson and Parker argue that both sectors frequently face calls for increased regulation, under the assumption that only government mandates can ensure high standards—whether in educational outcomes or in environmental conservation.
The authors highlight that although regulations often appear promising, they can sometimes be more detrimental than beneficial. They reference economist and Hoover Fellow Thomas Sowell’s perspective that policies should be evaluated based on the incentives they create rather than the noble goals that inspired them. Anderson and Parker caution against hastily embracing regulatory approaches without considering potential unintended consequences.
The essay contends that private entities, whether in schooling or environmental stewardship, may be unfairly criticized for underinvestment in critical areas such as education for underprivileged children or the maintenance of biodiversity and clean ecosystems. However, the authors suggest that incentives often yield better results than top-down mandates, fostering creativity and engagement that are essential for lasting improvements.
Good intentions do not always translate to effective outcomes, they assert. The challenges of enacting and administering sound regulations further complicate their effectiveness.
Anderson and Parker’s insights urge policymakers to consider leveraging market-based incentives to achieve both educational and environmental goals, drawing on historical successes and avoiding the pitfalls of poorly designed regulations.
Read more here.
The Creation and Extent of America’s First Environmental Agencies
A paper coauthored by Parker and Indiana University law professor Dean Lueck, “The Creation and Extent of America’s First Environmental Agencies,” published in the Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, examines the formation and evolution of US state wildlife agencies from their inception to their current status as modern administrative bodies. The study seeks to understand why these agencies were formed and how they have expanded or contracted over time.
The authors develop a theoretical framework suggesting that the demand for administrative agencies is driven by the costs faced by private landowners in coordinating and self-regulating against overharvest, as well as by the state's capacity to enforce regulations. Lueck and Parker empirically test this framework by examining data on the timing of state wildlife agency creation from 1870 to 1920, as well as changes in agency budgets from the mid-20th century onward.
The study finds that earlier and more extensive development of state wildlife agencies is associated with higher state capacity and greater private contracting costs. States with smaller landholdings and weaker trespass rights tended to form agencies sooner and invest more in them. Additionally, the agencies in these states are less focused on nongame species, reflecting the higher costs and lower profitability of managing these resources privately.
Read more here.
The Factual Context of Climate and Energy Policy
To preserve economic growth and global stability, Edward Teller Fellow Steven Koonin argues in an essay for the Tennenbaum Program for Fact-Based Policy, the globe must take its foot off the decarbonization gas pedal. Looking to experiences in Germany, the Netherlands, and elsewhere, Koonin writes that “overly severe emissions regulations can destabilize the political landscape.” He says energy affordability should take precedence when discussing energy policy, and climate scientists need to take more time and effort in developing accurate models of what the impact of temperature rise will be.
He argues that current climate impact projections, which rely on computer models of the ocean and atmosphere, are often imprecise at smaller scales. He warns against the exaggeration of climate science's urgency, suggesting that such exaggerations can lead to unnecessary eco-anxiety, particularly among young people.
Koonin critiques the feasibility of achieving global net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by midcentury, labeling it a fantasy and predicting that net zero by 2100 would be a significant achievement. He emphasizes the resilience and complexity of existing fossil fuel–based energy systems, noting that these systems require slow, steady changes over decades rather than rapid overhauls.
Read more here.
Highlights
Climate Anxiety and the Objectivity Crisis
The PolicyEd video “Climate Anxiety and the Objectivity Crisis” featuring Senior Fellow Dominic Parker deals with the psychological impact of climate change narratives on public perception and mental health. The video examines how exaggerated or alarmist rhetoric can contribute to anxiety and a loss of objectivity among the public and in academia. It urges a balanced and fact-based approach to climate communication to maintain public trust and rational decision making.
Watch the video here.
Climate Change Is Not an Apocalyptic Threat—Let’s Address It Smartly
In this research essay for the Tennenbaum Program for Fact-Based Policy, Visiting Fellow Bjorn Lomborg emphasizes that while climate change is a real concern, it should not be portrayed as an apocalyptic threat. Lomborg argues for rational and data-driven approaches to addressing climate issues, promoting policies that are sustainable and economically viable. He points out that foreign aid has pivoted drastically away from providing for basic needs in the Global South toward climate actions in those places, leaving citizens there worse off. He advocates for innovation and gradual transitions rather than drastic measures based on fear.
Read more here.
Energy Policies That Harmonize Three Securities
In a Tennenbaum Program essay, Senior Fellow Arun Majumdar writes about how to develop an energy policy that blends concerns about economic, national, and environmental security into one cohesive plan. Citing major technological shifts such as the falling cost of solar and wind energy production, as well as the oil shock induced by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Majumdar splits his recommendations into one set for the next five to ten years, and another grouping for the time beyond that.
Read more here.
Horsepower or Kilowatt Hour?
In this PolicyEd video, Senior Fellow Terry L. Anderson demonstrates that despite a host of government incentives promoting clean energy, fossil fuel consumption in the US actually went up between 2020 and 2022. Programs to encourage Americans to buy electric vehicles and make their homes more energy-efficient came up against the realities: Clean technologies often involve higher costs, EVs take hours to charge in most instances, and replacement parts are typically more expensive compared to those for traditional gas-powered vehicles and appliances. Anderson says successful energy transitions, historically, must been driven by market forces and consumer preferences rather than government mandates.
Watch the video here.
Upcoming Event
Market vs. Mandates Conference
On May 13, 2025, the Hoover Institution will host its third annual one-day conference Markets vs. Mandates: Promoting Environmental Quality and Economic Prosperity. As in previous years, the conference will foster discussion and debate on how markets and regulatory frameworks can best govern environmental concerns while also promoting economic growth and safeguarding individual freedom.
Read more here.
Fellow Spotlight
Dominic (Nick) Parker is the Ilene and Morton Harris Senior Fellow (adjunct) at the Hoover Institution and the Anderson-Bascom Professor of Applied Economics at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, where he has won several awards for research and teaching. He is a senior fellow at the Property and Environment Research Center and a regular lecturer for the Ronald Coase Institute and the Ostrom Workshop.
In addition to serving editorial roles at three leading journals in environmental economics, Parker contributes to economics, science, and law journals. His research includes studies of environmental markets and property rights, mining and energy booms, land use, fishery and wildlife regulations, water trading, and the political economy of policies toward Indigenous people.
For more insight on important environmental issues visit: https://www.hoover.org/research/topic/energy-environment
