My preference in terms of environmental policy is to actually see on-the-ground results as opposed to spending money. There's often a misconception that the more you spend, the more results you get. I think the commissioner said earlier that in her auditing she looks at the results. I don't think she said she looks at the dollars spent. Obviously, results for dollars spent are important. But again, when I look at the natural area conservation plan, something like 800,000 hectares of very valuable and precious southern working landscape has been conserved. Can you expand on that program which to me has been a major success?
On March 10th, 2015. See this statement in context.