HOW HAS Forbes magazine, the self-described capitalist tool, become a green advocate? The influential people at Forbes see markets as the most ethical and efficient means to coordinate much of society.

In contrast, political management implies economic inefficiencies and ecological destruction. These are logical consequences of political incentives.

IN addition to their disappointment with the elections, major environmental groups are learning the pain of limits to growth.

"THE Tragedy of the Commons" appeared in Science magazine in 1968.

Though written by an ecologist, Garret Hardin, the article is a classic of political economy.

Understanding the logic of this article should be a requirement of running for political office. It explains how and why we should expect waste when biological resources such as fisheries are openly available.

IS economics an enemy of ecology? Many environmentalists seem to think so. They portray economists as insensitive number crunchers with Republican leanings, people stricken by a ghoulish preference for money over ecological integrity. The perceived focus of economics - money, business and mathematics - is distasteful to people motivated by environmental concerns.

But greens' conventional wisdom is wrong. Economic analysis can be environmentalism's best tool. By considering how economics can further environmental objectives, we may be able to alleviate greens' allergy to economics.

LAST week, the Mont Pelerin Society met in Cannes, France, to celebrate the work of its founder, Nobel Prize winning economist Friedrich Hayek.

The Mont Pelerin Society is the world's foremost group of classical liberal academic, business and governmental leaders.

Six of its 500 members, including Milton Friedman, Gary Becker and George Stigler, a Seattle native, have received Nobel Prizes in economics. This year's keynote address was given by Vaclav Klaus, Prime Minister of the Czech Republic.

Pacific Research Institute, July, 1994, John A. Baden, editor.
Available through Amazon Books.

EACH summer I'm reminded why John Steinbeck thought that Montana would be heaven if it only had an ocean. This summer, the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE) again hosted conferences for federal judges, seminars for environmental writers, bike trips, and research on environmental economics and policy.

THIS is my last column until I return from Montana next autumn.

While there, I'll continue working on the three E's of environmental policy: ecology, economics and ethics. Only systems that link freedom to act with responsibility for the results of the action work well in dealing with them. Others fail. Linking action with accountability for outcomes is a classic problem of political economy. It plagues efforts to harmonize our environmental and economic interests.

MANY people share my deep concern with improving and protecting the wildlife, watersheds, and recreation values of forests. Good policy links these goods with sound economic practices. All require landowners' confidence in the future. The proposed export ban on raw logs from private lands subverts this confidence and undermines the management required to reach these goals.

IT is easy to understand why some people find banning private log exports an attractive idea. Superficially, it appears to save jobs, reduce domestic timber prices and slow environmental degradation caused by logging. But there are good, ethical reasons why a ban makes little sense. In later columns, I will discuss the likely economic and environmental consequences of a ban.