Better than Before? By Kris Hoellen

Uncle Cyrus tells Raff, “Just because it gets developed, doesn’t mean it has to be any less beautiful.” I was struck by this statement. While I think the built environment can be absolutely beautiful and designed to fit into the natural environment as well as serve all sorts of critical functions, such as providing access, shelter, mobility, etc., I wonder, what are your reactions to this statement? In my work with infrastructure developers, I frequently hear the sentiment of ‘we’ll leave it better than before’ – a truly admirable goal and possibly achieved if one considers the amount of conservation capital that can be obtained from infrastructure projects to perform needed preservation/restoration work, but again, is this possible – what examples can you think of where the natural environment has been left ‘better than before’ as a result of a development project?

Balancing Nature and Commerce? By Kris Hoellen

Hi all, my name is Kris Hoellen and I work for The Conservation Fund. As a bit of background, The Conservation Fund is a national non-profit, established in 1985 and chartered under a dual mission of both conserving land and water resources, and promoting sustainable economic development. While the Fund has been exceedingly successful in conserving land, over 7 million acres since inception, given its dual charter, we also actively promote the concept of balancing nature and commerce in the areas where we work. But, what is a balanced approach? I have had the privilege of working for regulators, the regulated (specifically, infrastructure proponents) and conservationists, and frequently am asked that question. I would be curious as to your thoughts on this subject – is there such a thing as a balanced approach, what does it look like - what would Raff say is a balanced approach?

Additionally, given my own background, I am a proponent of working within the system, if you will, to achieve positive outcomes, but recognize the role that environmental activists play to effectuate positive change. Raff struggles a bit with his philosophy of compromise versus that of his girlfriend’s full attack mode or ‘aggressive polemics’ as he noted when it comes to the environment. Where do you fall on the spectrum and what are the pros and cons of both approaches?

Looking forward to the discussion!