A proposal to protect Pernambuco wood is controversial because the artisanal bow-making industry's impact is negligible. A single maker may use one tree's worth of wood over an entire career, often from old stock. The proposed ban targets a minor user and could harm sustainable cultivation efforts.
Related Insights
The slaughter of 15 million buffalo in a decade did not cause a spike in leather prices. The global supply of leather, particularly from South American cattle, was so abundant that the American buffalo was a disposable commodity. Its extinction was economically insignificant at the time.
The U.S. prevalence for wood-framed housing is a matter of historical path dependency. Unlike Europe, which had largely deforested centuries ago, North America’s immense and cheap timber supply established wood as the default building material, shaping the industry's technology and labor skills.
People focus their environmental efforts on highly visible but low-impact items like plastic bags and recycling. The climate and environmental impact of the food products they purchase—particularly meat—is orders of magnitude greater. This reveals a massive misallocation of public concern and effort.
The American conservation movement was ironically pioneered by sport hunters to preserve wildlife for their own recreational use. Organizations like the Boone & Crockett Club, co-founded by Roosevelt, were created to outlaw the practices of the very market hunters (like Boone and Crockett) they were named after.
Policies intended to curb luxury development, such as a construction freeze, have a counterintuitive effect. They transform the existing luxury housing stock into a limited, finite resource. This artificial scarcity dramatically drives up prices for those assets, making them 'gold' and potentially worsening inequality.
While often romanticized, a widespread shift to pre-industrial, low-yield organic farming would be a climate disaster. The core environmental problem of agriculture is land conversion. Since organic methods typically produce 20-40% less food per acre, they would necessitate converting massive amounts of forests and wildlands into farmland, releasing vast carbon stores.
Regulating technology based on anticipating *potential* future harms, rather than known ones, is a dangerous path. This 'precautionary principle,' common in Europe, stifles breakthrough innovation. If applied historically, it would have blocked transformative technologies like the automobile or even nuclear power, which has a better safety record than oil.
The Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) uses a clever economic design. It offers a small payment ($4/hectare) for existing forests but imposes a massive penalty ($400/hectare) for any destroyed. This focuses financial incentives on the margin, where deforestation actually occurs, making the program more cost-effective.
US policy fetishizes a return to manufacturing, which employs 11% of the workforce. However, protectionist policies like tariffs actively harm the higher-margin, larger tourism industry, which employs 12%. This represents a sclerotic and irrational trade-off that damages a more valuable sector of the economy.
Tariffs on foreign steel don't simply allow buyers to switch to domestic suppliers. A manufacturer of oil industry parts explained that most domestic mills aren't geared for their specific needs or quality requirements (e.g., heat treating). This reveals how tariffs create complex availability and quality challenges, not just simple price increases.