Forests and Obama

President Obama batted 1000 on his Supreme Court nominee.  But when it comes to our national forests, he may have been a little quick.  Homer Wilkes is a career bureaucrat with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, which happens to be part of the Department of Agriculture (where the US Forest Service also resides).  But to the chagrin of foresters, forest activists, and more than likely the employees of the US Forest Service, Wilkes was nominated to be the Undersecretary for natural resources and the environment.  

Certainly westerners, who believe the Forest Service belongs in their domain, are upset because the nominee is not a westerner, much less any experience in forests.  In fact, his role with the NRCS has been strictly focused on urban issues.

While President Obama seems enamored with the big environmental issues of the day, such as global climate change, he seems disinterested in land based controversies, as if he can simply throw a little attention toward oil and gas leases, forest issues, national park management conflicts, and they will go away simply by the force of his charm.  It's curious that when President Obama signed the credit card reform act he mentioned nothing about the rider allowing loaded guns into National Parks, which according to Park employees, could be a potential problem (although I am not sure it will be given we probably don't have a clue how many loaded guns already went into the parks anyway).

To turn the huge ship around on global climate change will not only require modifications on greenhouse gas emissions, but also a long and thoughtful look at how we manage our natural resources, particularly forests.  Appointments dealing with national forests and other resource based lands is not a throw-away.  

Every Day is Earth Day

There is a bumper sticker that the Society of American Foresters sells to it's members: Every Day Is Earth Day for a Forester.  It's slightly defensive, but makes a critical point.  Every day should be Earth Day for each of us.

We are caught in an interesting time for environmental policy and politics.  We have a President and Congress who seem motivated to "do something" on top of the list environmental issues like, well, er, global climate change.  Global warming, as it is called in the popular media, is the darling of politicians.  Primarily because "doing something" can appeal to so many constituencies.  There can be jobs created doing "green technologies," or "green building."  Legislation can be passed requiring regulations to be promulgated, hence creating more governmental jobs monitoring emissions.  And we can still keep our lifestyle as long as we are consuming "green."

But talk has been and continues to be all we seem to do.  Frankly, technological "solutions" often contribute to the problem rather than the solution.  So-called green buildings actually require destruction of a current structure, contributing to the waste stream.  How about green restoration?  And encouraging people to consume as long as it's green?  How about not consuming.  Those reusable bags from China probably do far more damage to the environment than driving to the grocery store!

Here in the Pacific Northwest we have been talking about salmon restoration for decades, and still the numbers decline because of lack of political will and constituency demand.  We tinker at the edges while advocating the use of hydroelectric power, generated by massive dams along the Columbia River, one of the major spawning waterways for salmon.  Google, claiming they are the premier environmental company ("do no evil") recently located a massive server farm, using huge amounts of electricity, near The Dalles, in Oregon, which is directly across from a massive power generating dam.  Google gets cheap power, salmon die.  Go figure.

The same thing is true for the Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound, the two premier estuaries in the continent.  Both have been major environmental concerns for decades, yet we continue to overdevelop the adjacent lands (with built green homes, no less) pouring massive amounts of toxic run-off into the waters.  The two estuaries, once filled with lively fisheries and amazingly fresh water, are ecological nightmares.  But we sure love to talk about it.

We have a long long way to go before we can say that every day is Earth Day.  The current economic depression (there, I said it) trumps environmental concerns for most Americans.  The good news is that perhaps as we scratch our heads and examine how we spent our way into this mess, we realize that spending our way out of it might not work.  And that, alone, will go along way for Earth!

As an aside, I want to direct you to the Frontline piece done by Heddrick Smith on the Chesapeake and Puget Sound.  You can find the link to the video by clicking on the title to this post.

Paper or Plastic

Today's news is from Colorado, where the state legislature turned down a proposal to ban plastic bags.  This would have been the first state wide ban on plastic bags in the nation.

As I have written before, these kinds of either/or laws usually have unintended consequences.  In Seattle, there is a proposed fee for bags, adding what seemed, at the height of the economic boom, a minimal amount to a grocery bill, but if you don't bring your own bags and have to purchase ones from the store, could add to your overall grocery costs.  It's these kinds of bans that always make me wonder whether policy makers think only of how they live versus how many of their constituents live.  

For instance, many environmentally aware people try to limit their shopping trips.  Once at the store, they may buy for a whole week, half a month, or even a month.  Let's assume they buy once a week, requiring four bags.  And let's assume the policy maker goes to the store every  night on their way home from the office, plus, maybe once on the weekend.  They may use 6 bags.  But they also use fuel, wear and tear on their transportation vehicle, additional energy to produce those bags...you get the drift.  

I think we should really focus our efforts on education rather than the bag issue.  First, the production of bags provide jobs, most often union wage, health care provided jobs.  Why risk that?  Second, many health experts will tell us that limiting trips to the grocery usually leads to healthier purchases and hence, better eating habits.  How about instead of creating whole new bureaucracies that monitor and enforce bans or collect revenues from fees, we try some education on using cloth bags (which, of course, many are made with cotton, not exactly the most environmentally friendly material, or are made in China which think about the carbon footprint of getting those over to America) or recycling paper bags?  Public service announcements on shopping lists, limiting trips, and recycling.  Instead of charging a fee for bags how about following the examples of Whole Foods who gives a credit if you bring your own bag?

It's time for new thinking, not instinctually reaching for "no" or bans that create consequences down the road which we knew would happen.

Can You Hear Me Now?

This has been a theme of mine for years but it bears repeating every time polling results come out like the ones above from the Pew Research folks.  This data indicates what we all know: the economy is the highest priority for everyone.  But of particular interest is the one on the bottom, yes, that's right, global warming.  It's at the bottom.  A mere year ago, in the glow of Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize and Academy Award (could that be any cooler, to receive both awards?), global warming was probably hovering close to the number one concern of Americans.  What changed?  

Certainly we didn't "solve" global warming.

At the risk of boring those of you who have heard this story way too many times, I will share what the environmental movement does all too well.  It says "no."  Years ago I had to attend an event at an National Audubon sanctuary in Southern California.  This place is gorgeous, right out of a western movie.  Dry vegetation, a draw, rolling hills, mountain lions, right on the Western flyway.  To get to the sanctuary you drive through Orange County gated communities with huge stucco houses.  Finally, you get to the entrance of the sanctuary only to be greeted with a large plywood sign that says: No pets, No smoking, Not a public entrance, No unauthorized personnel. No...

My rant on the negativity of environmentalists was finally picked up by two trend observers Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus in their fabulous essay The Death of Environmentalism: Global Warming Politics in a Post Environmental World.   Environmentalists, they warned, could no longer rely on old scare strategies to energize diverse and complex communities of people to attend to global warming issues.  Rather, in a post environmental world, they asserted, collaborations of people would focus on positive actions rather than negative restrictions, in order to have impacts.  Of course, their essay was immediately derided by the environmental community, and unfortunately, largely ignored.

But yesterday's Pew polling results require us to re-examine what is wrong with the institutional environmentalist message.  Several days ago I was reading some newsletter that shows up in my email mailbox.  And one of the writers in the newsletter, James Kunstler who wrote The Geography to Nowhere (1993) which was a fabulous critique of suburbia, had an article which caught my eye.  Kunstler was gazing into a crystal ball, forecasting the end of the world as we know it.  The theme of his essay was unless we immediately form small communities relying solely on locally produced food and forgoing any means of transportation short of walking and bicycles, we are doomed.  Wal-Marts and large chain stores will be gone, no more mega-farms, and better find a wood burning stove, soon!

The "no" folks are absolutely delighted with this economic meltdown.  It gives them a chance to say all the politically correct things about the evils of consumption, suburbia, highways, and banks.  But they preach to the same people.  It's always interesting that the membership numbers of environmental organizations stay close to the same.  They are not engaging a diverse population, but rather, continue to talk to the same people.  Diversity, every environmentalist should know, is healthy.

But, as we can see from the polling data, saying "no" and publishing essays which demand that people hitch themselves to a plow because there is no way we're going to buy food at a grocery store anymore, is short sighted and to be frank, doesn't work.  It's what I have said for years, when our lives are just fine, we are willing to support environmental issues, especially if it involves really cool concerts and pretty string bags.  But when we are worried about buying food, concerns whether it is organic or local, or free range go out the window.  Whether it is cheap is what matters.  Spending money on expensive front loading washing machines or re-doing windows to save energy seems frivolous when you're worried about simply paying the mortgage.

We should take a lesson from the Obama campaign.  By simply using the word "hope," President Obama energized millions of people from diverse backgrounds and ages.  Environmental issues such as land use, energy consumption, and natural resource extraction are deeply entangled with economic health and sustainability in this country.  Decisions about what exactly is "green energy," how to use our national forests, are suburban and ex-urban land developments still relevant will increasingly become part of the national dialogue as we roll up our sleeves to bring the American economy back to work.  We need to talk in messages of hope, not sound bites of negativity as we seek to address these issues, especially if we want to engage a whole country, not just the choir.

Roll Up the Sleeves

Today is the first day of President Barack Obama.  And while we celebrated yesterday, today is a day to get to work.

There was a fascinating article in Politico today, seven reasons to be healthily skeptical of this new President.  I think it is a good read and especially highlight the concerns about the lack of media oversight.  

Here is my list of priorities for Obama's first few months:

• The economy:  It seems to me while the federal government can not get the "fix" in place and cranking, it can outline, as soon as possible, exactly how it views the various proposals creating a healthy economy.  Much of the talk in Washington, DC is about the stimulus package, which mostly consists of tax credits and some modest infrastructure funding (not as much as every Tom, Dick, and Harry governor and mayor had hoped).  But the stimulus package, alone, will not "fix" our economic ruins.  We should also be hearing about re-aligning the banking industry, new standards on securities markets and securities issues, some form of taxation on excessive compensation packages to deter corporate leadership from managing their institution for short term gain only, a road map for reigning in health care costs as well as providing affordable care for 100% of Americans, and a plan for housing, employment, and affordable higher education.  Without looking at the economy holistically, all the policy makers will be doing is treating symptoms not the illness.
• War: Personally, I think it is unrealistic to bring the troops home from Iraq immediately.  Apparently President Obama is now looking to withdraw troops over the next 16 months.  Just trying to get material and people back to Kuwait for shipping will require some savvy logistical thinking (good thing that is what the military is good at...think Normandy).  On the other hand, Afghanistan seems to be the focus of much attention after being neglected during Iraq.  My fear is that we will become Afghanistan's next USSR.  As I understood our mission, we entered Afghanistan looking for al Qaeda, particularly the leadership responsible for recruiting, training, financing, and plotting the attacks on September 11, 2001.  Hopefully we will become more focused on that mission.  The President has already made steps to bring the United States back in line with international conventions on torture, and I applaud him for those choices.
• The Middle East: It goes without saying that the wars and relations in the Middle East are linked.  While it appears the Israeli attacks on the Gaza have stopped for the time being, truly it seems that each Administration inherits an even greater mess with even more barriers erected to finding a peaceful solution to Israel's sovereignty, Palestinian homelands, and Israel's relations with other Arab nations.  It's a priority only because it affects our interactions with other countries in the Middle East, as well, these days, with other Muslim countries.  
• Global Climate Change: I put this here because if I said the environment eyes would glaze over.  Global warming and global climate change have become the current jargon for talking about the environment.  But in reality, another way of looking at this issue is through economics.  How do we provide for people without trashing the Earth?  Thinking about the economy is holistic terms also means thinking about how we treat our land, water, vegetation, wildlife.  Which isn't to say we stop logging or mining, but how can we do these things in ways that we are not exporting our problems, providing jobs, and sustaining the natural world?  It's probably, to be frank, one of the easier problems for President Obama.  On the other hand, we have some tricky international issues regarding ocean based fisheries, where massive industrial fishing fleets have contributed to depletions of whole fishing stocks.  Many of those fish are just offshore of our boundaries.  
• The pup:  Ok, you made a promise to your daughters, Mr. President.  Get the puppy.  Your goal here is to fulfill a promise to your children, not please various interest groups who expect you to do what is politically correct.  And if you thought dancing late at inaugural balls was tough, wait until the puppy needs to hit the Rose Garden at 2:30 AM!

Saving Utah One Auction at a Time

Just before the holidays the Bureau of Land Management, a federal agency within the Department of Interior, held a controversial oil and gas lease auction.  The lands where the leases are available are in southern Utah, and a number of the areas are adjacent to Arches and Canyonlands National Parks, among other places in that neck of the woods.

Tim DeChristopher, a 27 year old graduate student in economics at the University of Utah showed up at the Salt Lake City Bureau of Land Management office anticipating that he would participate in the protest outside the doors while the auction proceeded inside.  Instead, apparently on a whim, he registered as a bidder, got his paddle with the number 70 on it, and began bidding on 13 lease parcels for a total of $1.8 million.  That is until the other bidders, all with oil and gas companies, realized DeChristopher was "not one of them," and called the cops.

Since this is America, he was detained, questioned, and the case was referred to a federal prosecutor.  There is, after all, laws against this sort of thing.

But DeChristopher has not gone down silently.  He began fund raising for the $45,000 necessary to hold his bids.  Within days, he raised the money.  A former director for the Bureau of Land Management, Pat Shea, has volunteered to represent the graduate student.  And DeChristopher is talking seriously about raising the rest of the $1.8 million to buy the leases outright (although there is some discussion whether the current mining law, written in 1872, yes, that's right, will require him to actually mine the lands).  

Of course, the oil and gas companies were ballistic.  One was quoted mentioning a lynching party when they realized DeChristopher was upping the ante on the bidding.  They are probably ballistic over the favorable media attention this auction monkey-wrencher has been receiving.  And thus, the oil and gas folks are encouraging criminal prosecution, alleging since he was not a oil "player" he came to the auction with fraudulent intent.

While DeChristopher's actions seem novel, it reminded me of environmental organizations bidding on grazing leases with the US Forest Service in New Mexico a number of years ago.  The US Forest Service debated the legality of Forest Guardians having grazing leases with no intention of grazing on them, but in the end, Forest Guardians won out.  But at this point, DeChristopher is a hero.  His bidding was noted in Huffington Post, Democracy Now, and Truthout.  He was belatedly written about in the Washington Post and New York Times.

Although I have to also note when he talks about being frustrated with the system and looking for ways to stop the auction, it is the same language the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) cell members used when describing the preludes to their becoming radical.  In other words, they became frustrated working with the system and decided to torch something instead.  To DeChristopher's credit, he worked within the system, and in all actuality probably did a better job stopping the drilling or at least bringing attention to the location of the potential leases, than if he resorted to committing property damage.  In fact, his actions were pretty darn radical in a wonderful way.

Of course, as is always the case when activism plays by the rules and wins, the rules will more than likely change.  Years ago it was all the vogue to buy shares of stock and show up at corporate shareholders' meetings, raise a ruckus, maybe even introduce a new by-law.  People with as disparate backgrounds as environmentalists to Calpers, the largest institutional investor in America (Calpers is the California Pension System) used this method to push for corporations to change.  But corporate executives, not enjoying this kind of brouhaha at their meetings, frequently changed the rules, so that now, most shareholder meetings are PowerPoint presentations on why shareholders should appreciate the fact the executives are acquiring tons of stock options and milking the company until they leave with huge severance packages.

I think if the federal government is going to sell rights to natural resources through this kind of bid process there should be no problem if someone shows up, bids, wins, and comes up with the money, regardless of their intent to log, drill, or graze.  In other words, the highest bidder should obtain the right, whether they intend to use it or not.  Isn't that capitalism?  In DeChristopher's case I imagine it will be fairly easy for him to find some angel who will donate $1.8 million to protect land near the Arches or Canyonlands from oil rigs.  However, if I was a fiscal watchdog for the federal government, I would wonder how it is they are conducting auctions without verifying the assets of bidders in the room?  Do they need someone from Christies or Sothebys to show them how to do it?

Of course, there are lots of land management issues with this particular auction.  It seems to me that many in the preservation community believe that the boundaries of National Parks extend beyond the actual boundaries on the map.  In this case, the Bureau of Land Management, also, like the National Parks under the Department of Interior, manages much of the land outside Arches and Canyonlands National Parks.  And indeed, one of the missions, if you will, of the BLM is to use the land for minerals and grazing.  On a larger policy level, we might want to think about addressing this boundary issue.  Should boundaries of National Parks extend beyond the designated boundary such that visitors to the Parks don't see logging or mining operations (much less ORV use)?  Do we re-configure boundaries, which are somewhat artificial to begin with, by looking at similar ecotopes?  It is, of course, a thorny question, but it seems to me all sides to this issue in Utah, Montana, Wyoming in particular have entrenched to the point resolution seems against each of their interests.  But trying to resolve it through bidding at auctions or protests or pursuing criminal action is, well, not exactly big picture.  

Sooner or later we are going to have to realize we need to find a middle ground...

In the meantime, DeChristopher's donation web site is: www.bidder70.org.