“We will mine more, drill more, cut more timber.” — James Watt, Ronald Reagan’s first Interior secretary.
As we wait for the incoming Trump administration to identify its nominee for Interior secretary, we can't help but envision what the outcome could be. Among those said to be under consideration, or jockeying for the job, are retiring U.S. Rep. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah, and Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin, all Republicans who favor energy exploration over conservation.
What shouldn’t go unnoticed is that Donald Trump could place the immediate future of hundreds of millions of acres of publicly owned lands — lands that all 321.4 million Americans have a vested interest in — into the hands of a politician who hasn’t shown they have the country’s best interests in mind when it comes to fracking regulations, public lands stewardship, or environmental protection.
- Rep. Lummis has supported legislation that would give states control over fracking regulations on federal lands in their state; has opposed the Obama administration’s climate change program; signed legislation that opponents said “would prevent the EPA from protecting the world class fisheries of Bristol Bay, Alaska” from the proposed Pebble Mine; and voted along the lines of the League of Conservation Voters just 5 percent of the time during her eight years in the House.
- Rep. Bishop has tried time and again to restrict the president’s use of the Antiquities Act to designate national monuments; helped found the Federal Land Action Group, FLAG, which works to transfer federal lands to states; declined requests that he denounce “Bundy-style thuggery and lawlessness on our nation’s public lands;” and been criticized for introducing legislation that opponents claim would weaken the Clean Air Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the National Forest Management Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Wilderness Act.
- Gov. Fallin has embraced pro-oil policies in Oklahoma; been criticized by the Sierra Club for having “been an absentee governor on all important environmental issues in our state during her term;” signed legislation that prohibited local governments in Oklahoma from banning hydrologic fracking; and in October led a day of prayer “to thank God for the blessings created by the oil and natural gas industry and to seek His wisdom and ask for protection.”
If you believe James Conca, a contributor to Forbes on energy and the environment, who on November 10 wrote that “energy in the new Administration will be just what the industry ordered,” you can further appreciate how any nominee Trump chooses for Interior will be bad for public lands management if you oppose energy exploration, want additional national monuments, and support federal land ownership.
And there has been much speculation over whether Mr. Trump could rescind monument designations bestowed on such places as Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument in Maine as well as Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah.
The prospect of the next Interior secretary being a hard-line conservative who believes lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management or U.S. Forest Service should either be given to the states within which they exist or simply opened up to more energy exploration and logging is understandably concerning to those who appreciate public lands for recreation and habitat conservation and oppose rampant, loosely regulated fossil fuel energy production.
Then, too, there’s the economic return from preserving public lands. According to the Center for Western Priorities, one study indicates that 90 percent of America’s public lands already are open to oil and gas leasing, while just 10 percent are set aside for recreation, conservation, and other uses. Too, it's been demonstrated that counties with more protected lands, such as national monuments, perform better economically than counties without such protected areas. Additionally, surveys conducted by Colorado College conclude that majorities of voters in Western states believe public lands should remain under control of the federal government.
While the National Park System may not be directly impacted by energy development under the next administration, it very well could be adversely impacted by land management along its borders.
At the end of the day, we should question whether an Interior secretary who believes in aggressive energy exploration, reducing the size of public lands ownership, and weakening environmental regulations would be acting in the best interests of the entire U.S. population or simply in the interests of a fraction of that population and industry heads.
Comments
Well the answer to your last question is clear it would be in interest of the entire population. Everyone benefits from lower energy and raw materials costs. The percent of the gains that would go to "a fraction of that population and industry heads" is minimal.
One of the primary purposes of the federal government is to protect the interests of the minorities amongst us. If not, the selfish "speaking for the majority" will rape and pillage, as Watt wanted to and as Bishop et al would. Some, obviously, who speak for the selfish, would have you think that is laudable. Once a mountain is gone, it is gone. Once a lake is filled with pipeline spillage, it is gone. Once a speciwes population is extinct, it is gone. Apologists for rape and pillage of the environment have no more moral or ethical high ground than apologists for any other sort of rape.
Glad to see you support the electorial college Rick. As to removing mountains, filling lakes or losing a species, non of those are necessary by products of the extraction industries. And if you want to talk morals, the price of higher energy costs hits hardest and most disproportionatley on the poor. But I guess in your mind, it is OK to rape them.
Ooooh. The tit for tat Kurt hates.
"At the end of the day, we should question whether an Interior secretary who believes in aggressive energy exploration, reducing the size of public lands ownership, and weakening environmental regulations would be acting in the best interests of the entire U.S. population or simply in the interests of a fraction of that population and industry heads."
A good question, Kurt. However, why did no one ask it of Ken Salazar or Sally Jewell? In the category of "agressive energy exploration," what is wind and solar? As for "reductng the size of public lands ownership," what about the 40 million acres "designated" for those projects? Is a wind turbine any less disruptive than an oil rig? Ask the eagles, hawks, owls, and bats, that yes, were deemed "expendable" by the Obama Administration while it weakened the Endangered Species Act. As for serving "industry heads," Mr. Obama served many, led by Jeffrey Immelt at GE.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at what is deemed "journalism" by the press these days. Mr. Trump gets a call from Taiwan, and suddenly he is breaking four decades of diplomatic protocol. Mr. Obama calls Raoul Castro, and is suddenly hailed as opening a new era with Cuba. Mr. Trump saves 800 jobs at Carrier, and suddenly is criticized with not saving enough. And look at the "incentives" that cost! Yes, and here in Washington State, our last two Democratic governors gave Boeing $7 BILLION in tax breaks, and again were hailed as saviors of the middle class.
When a Democrat does it, it's diplomacy. When a Republican does it, he's selling out. You think the American people didn't see that in the last election and ask: "Why are journalists taking sides?" Now with 33 governorships, 66 houses out of 98 legilsatures, the House of Representatives, the Senate, AND the White House, we're going to have to get along with these folks, and no, I don't think they're going to destroy the public lands any worse that the last bunch we put in office. In fact, didn't fracking triple on President Obama's watch, or am I being "unfair?" Pogo: "We have met the enemy, and he is us." He isn't just the President-Elect.
Dr. Runte is right when he speaks of the blame plague that has infected us these days. The idea that "The Other Side" can do no right and "Our Side" can do no wrong is perhaps our biggest nataional problem.
When will we finally grow up and begin to remember that what we MUST do is learn to sit down and talk rationally with one another to seek sensible, middle-of-the-road compromises to our challenges?
Extremist websites pouring out fake news stories and the suckers who believe them are ruining our nation.
But how do we bring that nonsensical garbage to a stop?
And here I must respectfully disagree with Dr. Runte, for as I read his post above, I see the same kind of one-sided blame game being played as the post is filled with inflammatory rhetoric.
Remember that old saying, "Be the change you want to see in the world." Perhaps if we ALL were to begin to state our opinions in less incindary terms, it would be a good beginning.
(( And Kurt, is there any way you guys could increase the type size in the box used for posting comments. My old eyes are having trouble seeing it. Holding a magnifying glass and typing at the same time doesn't work very well. ))
Just home from the gym where I watched President Obama's speech to military personnel at ??? military base. It was broadcast on FOX. Judging by the amount of applause, his talk was welcomed by the troops. It was basically a reiteration of his foreign and military policies for the last 8 years and a clear message to the incoming president that some of the inflammatory statements of the campaign would place us in grave danger if they are actually put into play. Following the speech, three FOX talking heads and a man named NIgel Farage -- a British politico who let the Brexit effort -- popped up the disect the speech. It was as if we had all watched a different talk and not the one delivered.
This is a great example of what I meant in my previous post today. The network response was entirely slanted and very heavily biased. Obviously designed to inflame viewers' opinions.
I'm afraid, based on what I've seen so far of our new president, that our national parks and public lands may very well be among the least of our worries. It appears that we are heading into a four-year run of Celebrity Apprentice -- except this time it will really be reality TV.
At a time when we need to come together, I'm afraid the preferred tactics of our TV "news" networks and even the new president's coterie will be to continue to divide us in hopes of maintaining their power.
That's downright frightening.
Lee...
Robert A. Heinlein wrote many novels which had a common thread of a 'future history'. The books largely written in the 40s and 50s, looked forward and one notable step on the Future History chrono=logy was 'The Crazy Years'. which most of us have thought referred to the 60s. I'm beginning to think that the Crazy Years are resuming right about now. If only RAH were here to help steer us through safely.