Question

question
all of the following statements about property rights and environmental law are true, except:
select the correct answer below:
a clarified and strengthened idea of property rights can strike a balance between economic activity and pollution.
an environmental law built on incentives and flexibility may offer greater promise than a command - and - control approach in certain cases (e.g., the case of endangered species found on private land).
when it comes to negative externalities, if neither party involved has a property right, then the two sides may squabble endlessly, doing nothing to prevent the negative outcome.
when the government undermines property rights by prohibiting a landowner from using his land in a way that may violate environmental policy, it is incentivizing the landowner to protect the environment.

Explanation:

• Option A: Clear property rights can help balance economic activity and pollution as they define who has the right to what, which is a valid point.
• Option B: Incentive - based and flexible environmental laws (like for endangered species on private land) can be more effective than strict command - and - control in some cases, which is a known concept.
• Option C: Without property rights in the case of negative externalities, parties may not take action to prevent the negative outcome as there is no clear - cut right or responsibility, which is also a valid statement.
• Option D: When the government prohibits a landowner from using land in a certain way (undermining property rights), it is more of a restrictive measure rather than an incentive. Incentives would be things like tax breaks for protecting the environment, not restrictions.

Answer:

D. When the government undermines property rights by prohibiting a landowner from using his land in a way that may violate environmental policy, it is incentivizing the landowner to protect the environment.