One of the sacred canons of the antiglobalization movement is that globalization of trade is bad for the environment. Free-trade enthusiasts, on the other hand, would have us believe that free markets promote wealth (probably true) and that wealth is good for the environment (possibly true, at least some of the time). The truth is probably somewhat more complex.

Imagine a world in which the ordinary effect of human activity—particularly activity that contributes to economic growth and social development—also protects and restores the environment. Imagine, too, a world in which large scale poverty has been eliminated.¹ This may sound like pie in the sky, but it is emphatically not. Indeed, if we do not make a transition toward this world within the next 50 years, the future will be painful and costly for both humans and the environment.² Making the transition is possible, but it will not be easy.

Protecting biological diversity in Muslim communities presents a paradox. On the one hand, Islamic law, which governs all aspects of Muslim life, has a broad set of principles and mechanisms that mandate respect for all the elements of God's creation, the prevention of waste and harm, and maintenance of the balance of life on earth (mizan). On the other hand, there have been relatively few legal, institutional, or on-the-ground developments to protect biological diversity in many communities and nations that adhere to Islamic law.¹

The Tunnel Before the Light

A number of regulatory innovation efforts were initiated in the mid-1990s in response to a growing consensus that the existing regulatory system, by itself, was no longer sufficient to address new demands or environmental dilemmas unforeseen 30 years ago. Chief among the new challenges are the ever-increasing universe of regulated entities expanding government agencies' workloads and the vexing problems of nonpoint and areawide sources of pollution.

Introduction

The U.S. Supreme Court's latest regulatory takings decision, Palazzolo v. Rhode Island,¹ is significant for its rejection of what I term the positive notice rule.² It also confirms the narrow scope of the categorical rule, developed in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council,³ for government actions that work complete takings of property.

Introduction

Introduction: The Portland Miracle

The most stringent¹ anti-sprawl measure adopted by any American state is Oregon's urban growth boundary (UGB) program.² A UGB is a line designating "areas already marked by 'urban-type' development, within which that type of development is to be channeled and encouraged, and beyond which such development is to be discouraged or forbidden."³ Thus, a UGB discourages development of new suburbs, and encourages development in older cities and suburbs.

Introduction