First a quick update: California's legislature has passed the ban on shark fins that I wrote about a few weeks ago. It is quite likely that Governor Jerry Brown signs it.
Second, Nicholas Kristof wrote a nice piece for the NYT on Sunday that brings up a point that is not discussed enough, namely the importance of actual outdoors experiences (wilderness or not) in building a constituency and support for environmental and conservation measures. While he doesn't get into the more complicated questions of socioeconomic privilege, class, and cultural constructions of nature that are increasingly present in American society (which I briefly mentioned near the end of this post) it is nice to see a major columnist talking about this often neglected aspect of environmental movement building.
Third, a student from my alma mater has written a very nice piece for the NYT's Green Blog about his experience with the Student Conservation Association working in the wilderness of Nevada's Basin and Range country. I have a number of friends who have done summer programs through them (or with state level equivalents) and all have loved the experience. If you get the chance you should look into it.
Finally, the weirdly named BOEMRE has apparently "accomplished what it set out to do" in cleaning up the regulatory mess left by the corrupt MMS and will be disbanded into other divisions of the Interior Department including the even newer (and less awkward) Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). Only time will tell if this division makes the agency more effective at carrying out its mandates and less susceptible to industry capture.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Polar Bear News
Two pieces of news about polar bears (Ursus maritimus). The first is some good news in an ongoing saga: Charles Monnett, the scientist who documented cases of drowned polar bears and was subsequently suspended by his agency, BOEMRE (the new acronym, since the Deepwater Horizon proved the final disgrace for a notoriously corrupt agency (discussed here)) has been reinstated from administrative leave. While investigations continue into why he was initially suspended and he will not be returning to the same duties, he has at least been temporarily cleared. This is something to keep watching as it develops though I wouldn't expect it to move with any great speed.
The other is much more unfortunate. A security guard working for BP shot and killed a polar bear with what appears to have been an explosive round when it wandered near a worker camp. While BP claims that the bear was killed by mistake and that the guard believed he was firing a rubber bullet to ward off the bear, it is a positive sign that the Fish and Wildlife Service is taking it seriously enough to do a preliminary investigation. There is nothing in the piece to indicate that anything other than what BP claims is the case, but polar bears are a threatened species and it is important to determine the exact circumstances of the death, whether it was preventable (assuming it was unintentional), and whether it was justified.
Threatened and endangered species receive a large amount of protection from the Endangered Species Act. There is a broadly construed ban on any kind of harm to individuals without a permit, and even then allowances are made only for specific numbers taken in specific ways (for example, a dam might be allowed to "take" 2,000 salmon via turbine action per year or a construction project might be permitted to take a nesting pair of owls via habitat disruption). While there is an exemption for lethal force when necessary to defend human life, that does not appear to be the case here, and scaring it off would have been the appropriate and justified choice for the safety of workers and the bear. The polar bear was listed as threatened due to loss of habitat from climate change and much has been written about that threat to the bear including how best to respond to protect it. However, once listed as threatened, unless specific exemptions have been written into the listing rule, the species is broadly protected from any type of prohibited action. In other words: once listed, it doesn't matter why. Any harm is prohibited harm, even if it isn't the kind that caused the listing. This is another piece that bears (unfortunate pun that wouldn't happen in many other languages) watching though I expect it to disappear into the ether without much closure.
The other is much more unfortunate. A security guard working for BP shot and killed a polar bear with what appears to have been an explosive round when it wandered near a worker camp. While BP claims that the bear was killed by mistake and that the guard believed he was firing a rubber bullet to ward off the bear, it is a positive sign that the Fish and Wildlife Service is taking it seriously enough to do a preliminary investigation. There is nothing in the piece to indicate that anything other than what BP claims is the case, but polar bears are a threatened species and it is important to determine the exact circumstances of the death, whether it was preventable (assuming it was unintentional), and whether it was justified.
Threatened and endangered species receive a large amount of protection from the Endangered Species Act. There is a broadly construed ban on any kind of harm to individuals without a permit, and even then allowances are made only for specific numbers taken in specific ways (for example, a dam might be allowed to "take" 2,000 salmon via turbine action per year or a construction project might be permitted to take a nesting pair of owls via habitat disruption). While there is an exemption for lethal force when necessary to defend human life, that does not appear to be the case here, and scaring it off would have been the appropriate and justified choice for the safety of workers and the bear. The polar bear was listed as threatened due to loss of habitat from climate change and much has been written about that threat to the bear including how best to respond to protect it. However, once listed as threatened, unless specific exemptions have been written into the listing rule, the species is broadly protected from any type of prohibited action. In other words: once listed, it doesn't matter why. Any harm is prohibited harm, even if it isn't the kind that caused the listing. This is another piece that bears (unfortunate pun that wouldn't happen in many other languages) watching though I expect it to disappear into the ether without much closure.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Sharks and Rhinos
Last week I saw two articles that I thought would be interesting to juxtapose. The first is a piece from the NYTimes on the increase in the theft of rhino horns as trade in legal horns has become more difficult (the increased CITES and EU restrictions have also apparently increased poaching, but are on the whole a positive. Rather than loosen restrictions it would be best to increase commitments and support for conservation and anti-poaching forces and economic development to alleviate the poverty that makes poaching and trafficking a desirable way to earn a living). The second was a short piece in the LATimes about the advancement of a ban on the sale of shark fins through a legislative committee in the state senate.
First off, some housekeeping: I am not a vegetarian, though I do try to eat responsibly. I also am not opposed to hunting or fishing generally (and have partaken in those activities), but especially not as game management techniques where other top predators have been removed or when dealing with invasive species. I also do not want to get into a big philosophical or ethical discussion about the propriety of having all these specimens of endangered animals floating around the developed world. Yes, specimens are necessary for scientific study and the expansion of knowledge (and increased awareness of biodiversity). Yes, more specimens were taken in the days of colonialism than were necessary, and for less than noble motives. But they were and we have to move forward from that point. You can't return a stuffed rhino to the wild, any parallel to the Elgin Marbles is superficial and ultimately false.
Now, onto the actual comparison. Both rhino horn and shark fin soup are traditional Chinese medicines and foods. That's pretty well established. However, there is much more general condemnation of the former than the latter. While use of rhino horn is portrayed as ridiculous, observe the outlandish list of purported powers it has, "aphrodisiac," cure for cancer coupled with the commentary from a scientist that ingestion would be "about as healthful 'as chewing on your fingernails.'" There is no room for cultural differences. It is represented as dangerous, destructive, and misguided, based on superstition not on science.
Contrast that with the proposed ban on shark fins. While there is already a ban in other western states, the battle in California is getting heated as it constitutes a much larger economy than its Pacific neighbors. In the short piece on finning, the dispute is framed as conservationists versus those seeking to preserve their cultural heritage (whether perceived or constructed, shark fin was long a food for the elites in certain regions and has only become more widely consumed as technology and economic development have reduced costs and increased incomes). While the tone of the article does convey a bit of he said/she said, it does ultimately appear to come down on the side of science and conservation, strengthened by the quote from a state assemblyman who is originally from China, grew up with shark fin soup, and has since come to reject it (as have a number of other prominent Chinese people including Yao Ming). The accompanying photograph illustrating a shark finning vessel, lines strung up with fins (sharks presumably lying dead and bleeding on the ocean floor) also serves to make the point: finning is brutal, cruel, and damaging to the health of ocean ecosystems (as well as to the sharks). It's also incredibly unhealthy for human consumption. As top predators, sharks accumulate toxins such as mercury at very high levels via biomagnification. In many species these toxins can reach hazardous levels.
I know that's a lot of material to pull out of a blog item, but I thought it made for an interesting comparison, and one that gets back to one of the things I want this blog to explore: what is the real value of nature and the biodiversity of life? Does it have its own inherent value? Is it simply a social construct? Does one culture or society's value or construction take precedence over another's? Should it? What are the processes and circumstances that lead to a change in these constructions and how can they be enabled or impeded?
None of these have clear answers, and answering one might destabilizing your answer to another, but they are definitely worth thinking about. I try to keep them in mind as I go through life (even when I'm not writing here, which I should do more often) and I hope you do too.
First off, some housekeeping: I am not a vegetarian, though I do try to eat responsibly. I also am not opposed to hunting or fishing generally (and have partaken in those activities), but especially not as game management techniques where other top predators have been removed or when dealing with invasive species. I also do not want to get into a big philosophical or ethical discussion about the propriety of having all these specimens of endangered animals floating around the developed world. Yes, specimens are necessary for scientific study and the expansion of knowledge (and increased awareness of biodiversity). Yes, more specimens were taken in the days of colonialism than were necessary, and for less than noble motives. But they were and we have to move forward from that point. You can't return a stuffed rhino to the wild, any parallel to the Elgin Marbles is superficial and ultimately false.
Now, onto the actual comparison. Both rhino horn and shark fin soup are traditional Chinese medicines and foods. That's pretty well established. However, there is much more general condemnation of the former than the latter. While use of rhino horn is portrayed as ridiculous, observe the outlandish list of purported powers it has, "aphrodisiac," cure for cancer coupled with the commentary from a scientist that ingestion would be "about as healthful 'as chewing on your fingernails.'" There is no room for cultural differences. It is represented as dangerous, destructive, and misguided, based on superstition not on science.
Contrast that with the proposed ban on shark fins. While there is already a ban in other western states, the battle in California is getting heated as it constitutes a much larger economy than its Pacific neighbors. In the short piece on finning, the dispute is framed as conservationists versus those seeking to preserve their cultural heritage (whether perceived or constructed, shark fin was long a food for the elites in certain regions and has only become more widely consumed as technology and economic development have reduced costs and increased incomes). While the tone of the article does convey a bit of he said/she said, it does ultimately appear to come down on the side of science and conservation, strengthened by the quote from a state assemblyman who is originally from China, grew up with shark fin soup, and has since come to reject it (as have a number of other prominent Chinese people including Yao Ming). The accompanying photograph illustrating a shark finning vessel, lines strung up with fins (sharks presumably lying dead and bleeding on the ocean floor) also serves to make the point: finning is brutal, cruel, and damaging to the health of ocean ecosystems (as well as to the sharks). It's also incredibly unhealthy for human consumption. As top predators, sharks accumulate toxins such as mercury at very high levels via biomagnification. In many species these toxins can reach hazardous levels.
I know that's a lot of material to pull out of a blog item, but I thought it made for an interesting comparison, and one that gets back to one of the things I want this blog to explore: what is the real value of nature and the biodiversity of life? Does it have its own inherent value? Is it simply a social construct? Does one culture or society's value or construction take precedence over another's? Should it? What are the processes and circumstances that lead to a change in these constructions and how can they be enabled or impeded?
None of these have clear answers, and answering one might destabilizing your answer to another, but they are definitely worth thinking about. I try to keep them in mind as I go through life (even when I'm not writing here, which I should do more often) and I hope you do too.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Mining and the Media
A few weeks ago Interior Secretary Ken Salazar extended a moratorium on new mining claims on federal lands surrounding the Grand Canyon. The effect of this was to temporarily extend the suspension of new claims he imposed two years ago for an additional six months pending (unnecessary) additional scientific review. The ultimate outcome is likely to be the withdrawal of these lands for 20 years (which is the longest they can be removed from availability under current law without additional statutory action). This is a significant event because it will close off most of the threat of uranium and other hard rock mining in that area. There are a few existing, but inactive, mines that might be allowed to reopen (it will depend on whether they are deemed abandoned claims), and a few other new claims that might be perfected, but most of the claims that were filed near the end of the Bush presidency are likely to be worthless. This is because withdrawals of public lands are always made subject to valid existing rights. However, a right is not valid and existing just by being made. The way hard rock mining works in the United States is that a claimant must show that he or she (or it for corporations) has made an actual discovery of some mineral, has taken steps to physically occupy the land, and that the discovery would actually be economically rational to develop. It is not enough to say "it is likely that there is uranium on this claim" or "we believe uranium is on this claim" or "we want to look for uranium here." If there has not been an actual discovery on the date of withdrawal then the claim is not a prior valid right. (This is relevant to closed mines because if they were closed due to economic reasons, whether commodity price or cost of extraction or some combination, and remained closed for a long enough period, the right might have been abandoned. There is currently litigation over whether the current owners of those interests are able to "revive" their mining claims or if they are now subject to the moratorium).
However, what I am more interested in today is not the actual issue (which, while technically complicated, is fairly easy to give a brief overview of) but how it is covered. National media is generally quite bad at environmental reporting. This is particularly true of the New York Times (the Washington Post rarely even bothers so is hardly worth mentioning) which often reports from its DC or New York desks and relies on email statements (though since this was a DC action it is actually appropriate here). It also often does little to provide background or context for its pieces (its Green blog is generally better but rarely gets published in the print edition, unlike many of its other blogs). The Los Angeles Times does a better job of providing context and background, even in short articles, and relies much less on he said/she said and false equivalencies (lazy journalistic practices common in environmental reporting, most notoriously when discussing climate change). It also often sends reporters to the actual vicinity to do articles (and being located in the West tends to cover more issues in more depth since they are more likely to be relevant to the readership).
What makes this issue such a good one for contrast is that both papers covered a similar event that is fairly easy to explain, with a complicated but generalizable backstory, and predictable views on both sides. Given that, it's stunning to see how different the articles (both short) were in their treatment.
The NYT relied on a summary of Secretary Salazar's statement for a full half of the article, provided a single sentence indicating this was part of a continuing issue, then dove right into discussion of the economic impact on uranium prices and demand (with a nod to the Fukushima Daiichi reactor crisis in Japan, irrelevant as the uranium market is only incidental to the issue in the article). It then spends the remaining half of the article presenting the issue as a standard partisan Democrat/Republican and environmentalist/business dispute. Note how it said that environmentalists had been displeased with Secretary Salazar for earlier decisions and implies that this might appease them. It also finds two Representatives (one of whom did not represent Arizona) to give their opposing take. While I agree with Rep. Grijalva, I find it lazy of the reporter to rely on predictable talking points that could have been about any environmental issue. There was no effort to get additional comments or place either of them in a broader context. There is also no mention whatsoever of the General Mining Act of 1872, which is the driving force behind the issue in the first place. For John Broder, a report nominally on an environmental beat (but who often writes on the DC "goings on") it is a particularly disappointing piece, as if he decided to phone it in.
The LAT did a better (but not perfect) job. It also managed to do this in a much shorter article, indicating that good reporting is not necessarily longer reporting. It starts by coming straight out and saying that a long term withdrawal is the final goal and contextualizes it by reporting on the 2000% increase in claims. It also discusses the reasons people (and not just environmentalists) are opposed to mining: watershed protection, contamination, and aesthetics. It also goes to a bit more effort to get comments. While it, too, solicited comments from both sides, it at least sought out members of interest groups (a local conservationist and a mining industry lobbyist) and said that people and politicians were on both sides. Good job for engaging in slightly better and more thorough reporting. More bonus points for reporting that this is just one of many parks under threat from such activities on its borders (unlike the NYT which allows readers to think this is an isolated incident of interest to only those directly invested in the Grand Canyon). The LAT also ends with a reference to the GML and how it is the source of this and other controversies. While it is a bit trite, omits the source of the relevant controversy, and appears to be an afterthought, at least it is there. More context would be nice, as would weaving it into the actual coverage, but beggars can't be choosers.
Unfortunately the LAT apparently decided that it should remove a reference to the actual issue for final publication, it did appear in the earlier online version, rather than expand and clarify it. Read the final two sentences and compare them to my brief introduction at the top of this post. It wouldn't be that hard to flesh out what was written there to make it informative and correct, but rather than do that the paper axed the paragraph. I suppose that's better than leaving in the misleading and incomplete thought, but it made the final product much weaker and less useful than it could have been.
Overall grades for these articles:
NYT: D
LAT: B-
However, what I am more interested in today is not the actual issue (which, while technically complicated, is fairly easy to give a brief overview of) but how it is covered. National media is generally quite bad at environmental reporting. This is particularly true of the New York Times (the Washington Post rarely even bothers so is hardly worth mentioning) which often reports from its DC or New York desks and relies on email statements (though since this was a DC action it is actually appropriate here). It also often does little to provide background or context for its pieces (its Green blog is generally better but rarely gets published in the print edition, unlike many of its other blogs). The Los Angeles Times does a better job of providing context and background, even in short articles, and relies much less on he said/she said and false equivalencies (lazy journalistic practices common in environmental reporting, most notoriously when discussing climate change). It also often sends reporters to the actual vicinity to do articles (and being located in the West tends to cover more issues in more depth since they are more likely to be relevant to the readership).
What makes this issue such a good one for contrast is that both papers covered a similar event that is fairly easy to explain, with a complicated but generalizable backstory, and predictable views on both sides. Given that, it's stunning to see how different the articles (both short) were in their treatment.
The NYT relied on a summary of Secretary Salazar's statement for a full half of the article, provided a single sentence indicating this was part of a continuing issue, then dove right into discussion of the economic impact on uranium prices and demand (with a nod to the Fukushima Daiichi reactor crisis in Japan, irrelevant as the uranium market is only incidental to the issue in the article). It then spends the remaining half of the article presenting the issue as a standard partisan Democrat/Republican and environmentalist/business dispute. Note how it said that environmentalists had been displeased with Secretary Salazar for earlier decisions and implies that this might appease them. It also finds two Representatives (one of whom did not represent Arizona) to give their opposing take. While I agree with Rep. Grijalva, I find it lazy of the reporter to rely on predictable talking points that could have been about any environmental issue. There was no effort to get additional comments or place either of them in a broader context. There is also no mention whatsoever of the General Mining Act of 1872, which is the driving force behind the issue in the first place. For John Broder, a report nominally on an environmental beat (but who often writes on the DC "goings on") it is a particularly disappointing piece, as if he decided to phone it in.
The LAT did a better (but not perfect) job. It also managed to do this in a much shorter article, indicating that good reporting is not necessarily longer reporting. It starts by coming straight out and saying that a long term withdrawal is the final goal and contextualizes it by reporting on the 2000% increase in claims. It also discusses the reasons people (and not just environmentalists) are opposed to mining: watershed protection, contamination, and aesthetics. It also goes to a bit more effort to get comments. While it, too, solicited comments from both sides, it at least sought out members of interest groups (a local conservationist and a mining industry lobbyist) and said that people and politicians were on both sides. Good job for engaging in slightly better and more thorough reporting. More bonus points for reporting that this is just one of many parks under threat from such activities on its borders (unlike the NYT which allows readers to think this is an isolated incident of interest to only those directly invested in the Grand Canyon). The LAT also ends with a reference to the GML and how it is the source of this and other controversies. While it is a bit trite, omits the source of the relevant controversy, and appears to be an afterthought, at least it is there. More context would be nice, as would weaving it into the actual coverage, but beggars can't be choosers.
Unfortunately the LAT apparently decided that it should remove a reference to the actual issue for final publication, it did appear in the earlier online version, rather than expand and clarify it. Read the final two sentences and compare them to my brief introduction at the top of this post. It wouldn't be that hard to flesh out what was written there to make it informative and correct, but rather than do that the paper axed the paragraph. I suppose that's better than leaving in the misleading and incomplete thought, but it made the final product much weaker and less useful than it could have been.
Overall grades for these articles:
NYT: D
LAT: B-
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Park Budgets
Today is the Summer Solstice and the official beginning of summer. Yes the "summer season" began for many a month ago with the observance of Memorial Day, but now there is no denying it. The arrival of summer means many things: barbecues, long days, gardens and fresh produce. It is also a time when many people leave the cities for the "natural" world, visiting state and national parks in great numbers. Yet this year, many people will find these trips either more difficult or impossible. Here in Minnesota we are only ten days away from a potential shutdown of the state government due to inability to pass a budget. This would force all parks to close as there would be no money for rangers, maintenance workers, or any of the other state funded workers necessary to make them work. While many parks do charge fees for admission, campsites, firewood, and other amenities, these are generally not enough to be self-sustaining (especially since the greater the attendance, the higher the costs of maintaining and patrolling the park).
Even states where there is no looming shutdown are cutting park services, raising fees, or even eliminating parks from their systems. While it is understandable in some respects, state budgets are tight and politicians are loath to do responsible things like raise taxes or cut wasteful spending (e.g. prisons, death penalty, foreign wars, agribusiness subsidies), it is still tragic that parks (and the environment generally) are among the first "luxury" items sacrificed in the name of austerity. It is incredibly shortsighted to shortchange protection given the massive value from environmental and ecosystem services. It is also a good way to permanently undermine support for parks and other environmental protection.
We did not always have public parks in this country. Indeed, many parks, going back to the European tradition, were private estates for landed gentry, royalty, and other wealthy and powerful elites. Places they could escape to, especially in the summer, to avoid the crowds, smells, and diseases of summer cities (remember, this was before modern plumbing). It wasn't until the late Nineteenth Century and conservationists like John Muir that the idea of parks for the sake of protecting something special and wild arose. Yet it would be a huge mistake to romanticize this view. Many people know that Muir was deeply involved in the protection granted to Yosemite Valley and that Yellowstone was the first national park in the history of the world. What many don't realize is that they were not established out of some noble or enlightened concern for nature and conservation. Yes, there were conservationists then (both in the modern sense and in the "Wise Use" vein), but there were also monopolists, railroads, and promoters that all saw parks as their next meal ticket. In fact, many parks were established largely to satisfy different railroad interests. The Great Northern had Glacier. The Southern Pacific had the Grand Canyon. Prior to the official formation of the National Park Service, many parks were de facto private entities, monopolized and run by a handful of concessionaires and railroads. Many were concerned that they would be turned into something as tacky and commodified as Niagara Falls.*
This changed with the establishment of the NPS, but ever since that day it has struggled with a dual mandate: to provide access for the public but also to preserve the natural, biological, and historical features that make parks special. In recent years the NPS has erred (rightly) more on the side of preservation for future generations, which increases the recreational burden on state park systems, many of which do not carry such mandates.This increase in traffic has often been met not with increased funding but with slashed budgets. It is not only the NPS that has a massive project backlog.
There is also a new trend toward treating park visitors and the public as "customers" and "consumers" of nature rather than as owners and stewards with a vested interest. This shift is easily seen in the New York Times article linked above on budget cuts. The state of Washington is about to shift to a subscription/membership based funding mechanism that completely eliminates all independent state revenue. While it remains to be seen if this is a viable strategy economically, it is quite dangerous from a policy and perception stand point. I don't want to get into the intricacies of wilderness theory and nature as inherently valuable or only as socially constructed but it is important to understand and emphasize that support for the idea of parks and nature is strongly correlated with the idea that there are a personal interest in and benefit from them. If parks are only supported by those who choose to support them, or are only accessible to those willing and able to pay ever rising admission fees, they will no longer belong to the people but will be more akin to the Gilded Age public in name only parks. As a planner for the Idaho Parks Department was quoted, after all of these shifts in funding, admission fees, and aggressive marketing to middle and upper class park "consumers," "In what way are they state parks anymore?" While I wish the article did more to develop the idea, it's a very good question, and an important one to think about, especially with the summer park season starting up. Are these for everyone or just a select few? Do we all own them and benefit from them or are they the exclusive escape of the privileged? No matter how you choose to use parks (camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, biking, canoeing, skiing, day tripping), you have an interest in the answer to these questions and it's worth thinking about the next time you hear about taxes, budgets, or new fees.
*This isn't filled with hyperlink citations at present, I might be able to set that up at some point, but many are to articles you can only access through an academic subscription. However, if you really care I can provide interested parties with a copy of a seminar paper I wrote a few years ago on the subject that is richly sourced.
Even states where there is no looming shutdown are cutting park services, raising fees, or even eliminating parks from their systems. While it is understandable in some respects, state budgets are tight and politicians are loath to do responsible things like raise taxes or cut wasteful spending (e.g. prisons, death penalty, foreign wars, agribusiness subsidies), it is still tragic that parks (and the environment generally) are among the first "luxury" items sacrificed in the name of austerity. It is incredibly shortsighted to shortchange protection given the massive value from environmental and ecosystem services. It is also a good way to permanently undermine support for parks and other environmental protection.
We did not always have public parks in this country. Indeed, many parks, going back to the European tradition, were private estates for landed gentry, royalty, and other wealthy and powerful elites. Places they could escape to, especially in the summer, to avoid the crowds, smells, and diseases of summer cities (remember, this was before modern plumbing). It wasn't until the late Nineteenth Century and conservationists like John Muir that the idea of parks for the sake of protecting something special and wild arose. Yet it would be a huge mistake to romanticize this view. Many people know that Muir was deeply involved in the protection granted to Yosemite Valley and that Yellowstone was the first national park in the history of the world. What many don't realize is that they were not established out of some noble or enlightened concern for nature and conservation. Yes, there were conservationists then (both in the modern sense and in the "Wise Use" vein), but there were also monopolists, railroads, and promoters that all saw parks as their next meal ticket. In fact, many parks were established largely to satisfy different railroad interests. The Great Northern had Glacier. The Southern Pacific had the Grand Canyon. Prior to the official formation of the National Park Service, many parks were de facto private entities, monopolized and run by a handful of concessionaires and railroads. Many were concerned that they would be turned into something as tacky and commodified as Niagara Falls.*
This changed with the establishment of the NPS, but ever since that day it has struggled with a dual mandate: to provide access for the public but also to preserve the natural, biological, and historical features that make parks special. In recent years the NPS has erred (rightly) more on the side of preservation for future generations, which increases the recreational burden on state park systems, many of which do not carry such mandates.This increase in traffic has often been met not with increased funding but with slashed budgets. It is not only the NPS that has a massive project backlog.
There is also a new trend toward treating park visitors and the public as "customers" and "consumers" of nature rather than as owners and stewards with a vested interest. This shift is easily seen in the New York Times article linked above on budget cuts. The state of Washington is about to shift to a subscription/membership based funding mechanism that completely eliminates all independent state revenue. While it remains to be seen if this is a viable strategy economically, it is quite dangerous from a policy and perception stand point. I don't want to get into the intricacies of wilderness theory and nature as inherently valuable or only as socially constructed but it is important to understand and emphasize that support for the idea of parks and nature is strongly correlated with the idea that there are a personal interest in and benefit from them. If parks are only supported by those who choose to support them, or are only accessible to those willing and able to pay ever rising admission fees, they will no longer belong to the people but will be more akin to the Gilded Age public in name only parks. As a planner for the Idaho Parks Department was quoted, after all of these shifts in funding, admission fees, and aggressive marketing to middle and upper class park "consumers," "In what way are they state parks anymore?" While I wish the article did more to develop the idea, it's a very good question, and an important one to think about, especially with the summer park season starting up. Are these for everyone or just a select few? Do we all own them and benefit from them or are they the exclusive escape of the privileged? No matter how you choose to use parks (camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, biking, canoeing, skiing, day tripping), you have an interest in the answer to these questions and it's worth thinking about the next time you hear about taxes, budgets, or new fees.
*This isn't filled with hyperlink citations at present, I might be able to set that up at some point, but many are to articles you can only access through an academic subscription. However, if you really care I can provide interested parties with a copy of a seminar paper I wrote a few years ago on the subject that is richly sourced.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Babbitt Speaks
This is not directly park related but it is interesting. Bruce Babbitt was Secretary of the Interior under President Clinton and has impeccable environmental credentials. He is most famous for his roles as the named government defendant in the Sweet Home case that upheld the Endangered Species Act and one of the most important players in the establishment of Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument. Now he is in the news criticizing President Obama's environmental policies, particularly in the areas of land and water protection/conservation and failure to push back aggressively on disingenuous and dangerous Republican attacks (usually based on lies and other forms of disinformation) on a wide range of environmental issues from oil leases to mountain top removal to fracking to greenhouse gas emissions.
That such a high profile former official would criticize a president of his own party in this direct a manner, even in such a gentle way, is certainly notable. It isn't often (though it is healthy and necessary) that you see this kind of behavior. (Indeed, our discourse on the environment as well as all other issues would be healthier, more productive, and more intellectually consistent and honest if we did have more intraparty criticism based on facts and well-reasoned arguments, but that's a side issue). The main point is that while Obama has done a handful of good things on environmental, natural resources, and public lands issues, on the whole there has been a lot of stalling and evasion, not to mention areas (particularly when it comes to oil drilling) where he is actively damaging the future for negligible short term gain. This should be a wake up call to Obama that the environmental community is not happy with him and will not automatically rise to his aid in 2012. It is likely that some will respond to the "better than the alternative" fear-based argument, but that won't raise nearly as much money or inspire nearly as many door knockers or phone bankers. We'll see what he does (but I don't expect him to change his moderately anti-green behavior any time soon).
Update (June 11): The Los Angeles Times agrees and uses pretty strong language and lots of examples. Unfortunately it is buried in the Saturday paper, but it's still the strongest newspaper castigation I've seen of Obama's weak and cowardly environmental record.
Update II (June 13): The New York Times also agrees though its language is much more conciliatory to the administration (however, it appears on a Monday so it will get more views). In a related development, the power plant rules that the Op-Ed cites have been delayed again (announced after publication).
That such a high profile former official would criticize a president of his own party in this direct a manner, even in such a gentle way, is certainly notable. It isn't often (though it is healthy and necessary) that you see this kind of behavior. (Indeed, our discourse on the environment as well as all other issues would be healthier, more productive, and more intellectually consistent and honest if we did have more intraparty criticism based on facts and well-reasoned arguments, but that's a side issue). The main point is that while Obama has done a handful of good things on environmental, natural resources, and public lands issues, on the whole there has been a lot of stalling and evasion, not to mention areas (particularly when it comes to oil drilling) where he is actively damaging the future for negligible short term gain. This should be a wake up call to Obama that the environmental community is not happy with him and will not automatically rise to his aid in 2012. It is likely that some will respond to the "better than the alternative" fear-based argument, but that won't raise nearly as much money or inspire nearly as many door knockers or phone bankers. We'll see what he does (but I don't expect him to change his moderately anti-green behavior any time soon).
Update (June 11): The Los Angeles Times agrees and uses pretty strong language and lots of examples. Unfortunately it is buried in the Saturday paper, but it's still the strongest newspaper castigation I've seen of Obama's weak and cowardly environmental record.
Update II (June 13): The New York Times also agrees though its language is much more conciliatory to the administration (however, it appears on a Monday so it will get more views). In a related development, the power plant rules that the Op-Ed cites have been delayed again (announced after publication).
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Point Reyes
First off, apologies to anyone who is reading for not posting in a long time. I've been busy with a number of personal projects and other issues. It's summer now and I'm going to be making a concerted effort to do more posting more regularly.
One of the things I've been working on is some pro bono work for an environmental non profit called the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin on the Point Reyes National Seashore potential wilderness issue. Essentially the issue is this: when the park was created there was an oyster farm operating in Drake's Bay, within the boundary of the park with a lease set to expire in 2012. The enabling legislation for the National Seashore was accompanied by a committee report indicating that all commercial activity in the bay should eventually come to an end. The owners of the reservation for use and occupancy (RUO) sold their lease to the Drake's Bay Oyster Company (which knew full well of the limitations and timeline for termination). Upon the cessation of oyster farming and removal of commercial equipment, this part of the park would become officially designated wilderness (as legislatively determined). However, the DBOC successfully lobbied Sen. Diane Feinstein ("D"-CA and friend to corporate interests of all types) to insert a rider into an appropriations bill granting the Secretary of the Interior the discretion to issue a ten year extension (called a special use permit) of the lease. For more detail on the history of this issue, see the NPS' background page or the EACMarin website.
Under federal law, whenever an agency takes an action that might have environmental effects, it must complete an environmental impact statement (EAS) in fulfillment of its duties under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).* NEPA, however, is merely a procedural statute; it does not determine outcome. The important thing is that the process is done properly and with a full review of relevant facts and meaningful input and feedback from the public. Once the EIS is complete, the Secretary can issue a decision.
What I have been doing is providing background and assistance on NEPA and challenges to a decision made under NEPA as well as providing my opinion on various aspects of the public comment process that goes into developing the EIS. The comment period has closed, now is the time to wait for the agency's decision, continue to pressure it in appropriate ways, and prepare for potential legal challenges to the outcome (there will certainly be a legal challenge either way but because of the deference courts generally give to agencies, especially regarding scientific findings in areas of agency expertise, the agency action will likely be upheld). Still, I will update once there is a resolution.
*This is, of course, an oversimplification. There are different levels of review and different types of findings, but the need for an EIS is the only relevant issue here.
One of the things I've been working on is some pro bono work for an environmental non profit called the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin on the Point Reyes National Seashore potential wilderness issue. Essentially the issue is this: when the park was created there was an oyster farm operating in Drake's Bay, within the boundary of the park with a lease set to expire in 2012. The enabling legislation for the National Seashore was accompanied by a committee report indicating that all commercial activity in the bay should eventually come to an end. The owners of the reservation for use and occupancy (RUO) sold their lease to the Drake's Bay Oyster Company (which knew full well of the limitations and timeline for termination). Upon the cessation of oyster farming and removal of commercial equipment, this part of the park would become officially designated wilderness (as legislatively determined). However, the DBOC successfully lobbied Sen. Diane Feinstein ("D"-CA and friend to corporate interests of all types) to insert a rider into an appropriations bill granting the Secretary of the Interior the discretion to issue a ten year extension (called a special use permit) of the lease. For more detail on the history of this issue, see the NPS' background page or the EACMarin website.
Under federal law, whenever an agency takes an action that might have environmental effects, it must complete an environmental impact statement (EAS) in fulfillment of its duties under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).* NEPA, however, is merely a procedural statute; it does not determine outcome. The important thing is that the process is done properly and with a full review of relevant facts and meaningful input and feedback from the public. Once the EIS is complete, the Secretary can issue a decision.
What I have been doing is providing background and assistance on NEPA and challenges to a decision made under NEPA as well as providing my opinion on various aspects of the public comment process that goes into developing the EIS. The comment period has closed, now is the time to wait for the agency's decision, continue to pressure it in appropriate ways, and prepare for potential legal challenges to the outcome (there will certainly be a legal challenge either way but because of the deference courts generally give to agencies, especially regarding scientific findings in areas of agency expertise, the agency action will likely be upheld). Still, I will update once there is a resolution.
*This is, of course, an oversimplification. There are different levels of review and different types of findings, but the need for an EIS is the only relevant issue here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)