There are repeated calls to “harmonize” laws between jurisdictions, as simplicity is meant to engender compliance and therefore improved outcomes. Universality and uniformity is considered desirable due to equality concerns, and the reduction of transaction costs and bureaucratic red tape beneficial to business. Reforms may be hampered however if the heterogeneity appreciated by geography is overlooked. Rather than being forced into an idealised conformity better outcomes may be possible if local differences were respected and reflected. Equally problematic may be the absence of common purpose. Attempts at harmonization in the USA and Australia suggest that agreement is critical otherwise protection will be forestalled by conflict between commercial and conservation interests. Unless such contestation is harnessed for generative reform, and the facilitation of broader support for the environment, protection will continue to regress. Harmonization of common (and higher) purpose is critical for making what currently appears impossible - improved environmental protection - possible.