The Club of Rome's "Limits to Growth" report of 1970 stated: "We can thus say with some confidence that... population and industrial growth will certainly stop within the next century, at the latest". The cause of this projected arrest was a projected scarcity of natural resources.

The report's authors did not understand why scarcity has yet to win a race against creativity when markets are free to signal demands and individuals free to innovate. Some of our political leaders still don't appreciate this fundamental truth. Their incentives are to please likely voters not craft better policies.

Vice President Gore exemplifies this practice. He certainly projects environmental concern. While a US senator, he wrote a best selling book, Earth in the Balance. It identifies serious problems including species extinction, population pressures, and aquifer depletion. Unfortunately, many of his proposed solutions are silly, simplistic, and self-serving.

For example, Gore says: "we must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization". This requires collective action which in turn implies more power for politicians.

Many of his proposed reforms will likely be harmful; he's learned little from history. Mr. Gore sees evil and ignorant people and too little government as the sources of environmental problems. In sum, his solution is to place ethical, intelligent people in positions of authority and empower them to pursue good policies. Essentially, Gore wants green platonic despots.

This is bound to fail in national politics. When distant governments decide, ecological sensitivity and economic efficiency are trumped by political considerations. This problem is independent of party. Self proclaimed "conservative", Republicans who claim to favor limited government boast of the federal dollars they bring home. Senator Phil Graham of Texas bragged that if he carried any more pork he'd risk trichinosis.

Many environmental problems could be solved if we could somehow "rewire" people and produce Gore's new environmental man. But this is as unrealistic as the Soviet's and Cuban's efforts to create a "new socialist man." It's far more feasible to create institutions which generate incentives to act responsibly than to change cultures.

The key to environmental protection is not reliance upon new cultures or on political micro management. And it's not dependent upon good people in high places. No society can identify people who can be given power and then trusted to wisely rule.

America's founders understood that good people will not always be in top positions. As we see in the history of the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and Park Service, well intended political programs frequently lead to corruption and environmental harm. Ecology is too important to be left to bureaucracy.

Our vice president has misdiagnosed the causes of environmental problems . Hence, he has mis-specified the cures of our environmental ills. Unless Mr. Gore learns the importance of property rights and incentives for a greener future, he will foster several problems: ineffective environmental protection, inefficient economics, and citizens disenchanted with environmental causes.

Twenty-five years ago my colleagues and I at Montana State University advocated market incentives and property rights as environmental tools. Few considered this a viable option. Environmentalists and journalists considered us "the wild bunch of Montana." We were the academic analogs of gunslingers and cowboys.

But today this emphasis on incentives and environmental entrepreneurship is mainstream. Many environmental leaders now favor market incentives. Likewise, the success of groups such as Trout Unlimited and Ducks Unlimited use of property rights to achieve green goals is gaining recognition.

Environmentalists sometimes use regulation to take property for environmental ends. Taking seems cheaper than buying. It isn't. Actions have unintended consequences. When property rights are threatened, quite rationally, people become short sighted.

America's founders understood the importance of secure property rights. They saw how people in other times and other lands used the government to transfer wealth. To help preclude this they gave us the Fifth Amendment's clause, "... and no property shall be taken without just compensation..." They wanted our laws and regulations to encourage people to focus upon productive, rather than predatory, activities.

This wisdom of the founders is precisely what Gore fails to understand. As policy analysis, his best seller is an embarrassment. While running for president, his posturing, pretense, and poor logic will be exposed. He has little time for a revision.