We study the tradeoffs between using Pigouvian taxes and targeted bans to promote conservation when political economy concerns are relevant. A land use tax on emissions reduces emissions at least cost to aggregate domestic welfare, but involves large losses to proda moreucer surplus. These losses can generate political pushback. A land use ban is potentially less efficient, but does not impose losses on inframarginal players. Avoiding these losses can enhance political sustainability. We apply these ideas to tropical forests in Brazil and Indonesia. In Brazil, we show empirically that agricultural producers react to stronger environmental regulation by increasing their political support for pro-agricultural politicians. In both Brazil and Indonesia, we show quantitatively that bans can help to navigate this resistance. Bans and taxes are similarly effective at reducing carbon emissions, but bans are much less costly for agricultural producers. Our findings indicate that bans may be more politically sustainable than taxes.