Environmental law thrives in democracies because they enable information disclosure

Evidence

The experience of the last several decades suggests quite the opposite is true. Environmental protection law has generally fared much better under more democratic forms of government and has not promoted the ascendancy of fascist, totalitarian regimes. Less democratic governments have in fact fared more poorly than democratic polities. One reason for the difference likely has been the fundamental role that information disclosure has proven to play in environmental law, a basic policy that is promoted within democratic government and often viewed as antithetical to more totalitarian governed societies. — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 1104

Categorization

  • XREF: Connects directly to the information-disclosure/NEPA mechanism from ch12 and to ch1’s structural-mismatch thesis. — connects to: NEPA works by forcing government disclosure that citizens could never fund themselves — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 394; Disclosure regulation relies on informed donors and press scrutiny for deterrence. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1346; NEPA’s procedural disclosure mandate produced real environmental protection despite its critics — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 393 (+4 more)
  • recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source

Broader Connections