The New York Times 2010s: on Environment

Mike Parson: Right to farm & ranch, despite environmental critics

Jeb Bush: 1990s: Compensate landowners; 2010s: state-run conservation

Bush insists that he will not contort himself to satisfy ideologues, but his views have already changed--in presentation, in tone, in language and, at times, in substance.

A useful case study: the environment. Before the 1994 election, Bush supported a state constitutional amendment, also backed by big corporations, to compensate landowners hurt by conservation efforts. He held out the prospect of cutting funds for a major program to purchase environmentally fragile lands and declared that "excessive regulation does not mean we are going to improve the quality of water, air or land-use planning."

But Bush met with conservation experts and toured important environmental sites across Florida. When he was elected four years later, "his heart changed," an adviser said.

Pat Roberts: For early farm bill, but final bill had too many subsidies

Frank Pallone: Relax restrictions on over-fishing to help fishermen

The bill would poke holes in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the basic law governing fishing in federal waters. The act imposes ambitious timetables for rebuilding fish stocks and gives scientists a say in setting limits.

The bill would allow the government to consider the economic consequences of fishing restrictions, and prolong the deadlines for rebuilding fish stocks. But the fluke fishery--to name one of many--has not yet been rebuilt. The point of Magnuson-Stevens was to give impartial scientists, not self-interested fishermen, a greater say in deciding how many fish to take from the sea. The health of the oceans has never benefited from putting