1. Although many people claim to believe in small government, those are often the same people who support a large defense establishment, massive prisons, and social security. We need to remind small government activists that the above are all government programs. We should indeed try to trim our bloated government, but government has a definite and proven role to play in protecting public goods. The Civilian Conservation Corps and public infrastructure fit that niche perfectly. Instead of “small” or “large” government, we need smart government. That means less debt, fewer special subsidies, and more targeted modest investment in public goods.

2. Yes, many vital landscapes are ugly and unappealing at first look. This surely makes for a tougher sell than the Grand Canyon. On the other hand, beauty is culturally constructed, at least in part. Leaders need to make a case to the public about why a wetland is beautiful for what it adds to the human condition. Leaders should also emphasize how the replacement of wetlands with strip malls is EXTREMELY ugly, boring, and annoying. The human condition craves diversity, and there is a profound beauty in liveable spaces.

I think we can build a public consensus for the role of government in public goods and the preservation of beauty for the human condition. We can do that by enlisting our best young minds and bodies — through a Civilian Conservation Corps.

Thanks again, Courtney.

1) How are we to overcome the visceral horror fiscal conservatives have about establishing and expanding government institutions? I am often tempted to downplay the resemblance of the CCC to what we need, because I worry that it will alienate its opponents further, but I am at a loss for alternatives. How do we make government investment in conservation organizations palatable again?

2) The Grand Canyon is an interesting example. Exactly as you said, it is one of the triumphs of the National Park Service, in large part because it has an important political advantage: it’s incredibly beautiful. The inspiring and picturesque places, however, are not necessarily the ones that have the most valuable in terms of the ecosystem services they provide. Many landscapes with less breath-taking views (eg wetlands) are, in fact, converted to strip malls, even though they represent much greater value to public health, scientific research, biological diversity, and raw resources for economic development. How can we engineer a shift in rhetoric to make not just conservation, but ugly conservation (http://endangered-ugly.blogspot.com/) politically palatable for the first time? In either of these tasks, what role do you see for academics outside the movement of conspicuously hardcore (and thus less politically credible) eco-warrior types?