Amazon.com
Hard Green, by conservative engineer-attorney Peter Huber, pulls off a neat trick: redefining the terms of discussion to win by default. Environmentalists will be surprised to learn that
green rightfully refers
only to conservation of wilderness lands--certainly a noble cause, and just about the only green issue likely to fire up traditional conservatives. Well worth reading by those of all political perspectives, Huber's writing is as clear and thorough as you'd expect from someone with his training. His assertions that shortages of fuel, food, and space for waste will be solved by ingenuity seem dazzlingly hopeful, but ultimately his arguments come down to faith. Much stronger are his discussions of privatizing pollution and wilderness protection, which should open eyes across the board. Moreover, his analysis of recycling programs and their ilk gives a much-needed kick in the pants to complacent types who think their garbage sorting is helping anything but their consciences. While it's unlikely to change the political Green movement, much less supplant it,
Hard Green will certainly encourage thinking among the thoughtful--and that might be all we need.
--Rob Lightner
From Library Journal
Huber, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, has written an ultraconservative manifesto aimed at exposing the fallacies of soft green environmental policy and reinvigorating the conservationalist ethic of Theodore Roosevelt. In his introduction, he outlines the difference in thought between Hard and Soft Greens in four important areas; Part 1 surveys the present and future of environmental issues from a capitalist green perspective, and the final section sets forth a conservative environmental platform, with regard to scarcity, pollution, politics, and ethics. A strong believer in free markets, Huber argues throughout that Soft Green modeling results in prescriptions akin to alchemy. His choice of language in differentiating between the advocates of a liberal philosophy vs. a conservative viewpoint is often abrupt and some what offensive, e.g., "rough riders" vs. "wonks," and he tends to generalize from a few examples and a limited bibliography. But this book promises to encourage further debate among environmental policy makers. The paucity of conservative environmental writing prevents comparison of this book to similar titles. Recommended for larger academic libraries.
Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc.
See all Editorial Reviews