“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
Kurt - I was making a general observation not a comment specific to the Traveler. I think you do a good job of destingishing opinion pieces from those that are reporting the news.
We are facing either a promising future or a major disaster.
At this point, I find very little about which to be optimistic.
Lee, along with the interminable election cycle Kurt describes, we have a veritable maze of checks and balances. In his own frustration, President Obama reached for executive orders, only to find that the courts rarely went along. Mr. Trump will find the same. Sure, he is not about to appoint a cabinet from Portlandia. No matter, they, too, will have no choice but to obey the rules.
What we need to remember is the culture and not the politics all the time. In general, those who provide our natural resources are part of the Republican Party. In general, those who provide our social services are part of the Democratic Party. But what social services would we have to provide if lacking the natural resources to provide them? In this election cycle, the Democrats forgot the providers--the farmers, truck drivers, machinists, mill workers, construction workers, etc. etc., who have suffered from income redistribution meant to "level the playing field." The Democrats and the Press could only call them white. The Establishment neither understood them nor did it understand history. These were the very people on which The New Deal (and the Democratic Party) had been built.
They rebeled, and every good historian saw it coming--and sees what is coming now. Mr. Trump is no more in love with the Republican Party than FDR's working class. He just used it to get where he wanted to be. The fact of the matter is, he knows how to talk to the working class. My father, a machinist, would have voted for him in a heartbeat. Take from me and "give" to someone else without asking about my needs? my family? I believe in charity, father would have said. But taking my job isn't charity.
The mother who showed my brother and me the national parks had just buried that hard-working man. He had virtually died on his feet--working six, ten hour days every week to support not only our family, but a mother, father, five sisters and their husbands trying to recover in war-torn Germany.
At least he had a good paying job. Now most working stiffs don't even have that. Some academic at Harvard calls it free trade. Some academic at Cornell calls it deregulation. They haven't a clue what FDR would have called it. After all, they don't know a lick of history. FDR would have called it communism. If you take from my people just to give to other people, how is that charity and not stealing? The last straw, history will show, was the word "dreamer." If your kids can dream, but my kids can't dream, again, how is that charity and not stealing?
It was close, but only because Mr. Trump acted like a nut (Peggy Noonan). A sane man with the same message would have taken ten more states. California? Forever dreamers. Massachusetts and New York. Dreamers, too. The rest would have gone redder than red.
We who have been blessed with so much need to remember that this country came from hard-working stock. We who hear from the Press that it is all about race, class, gender, and diversity need to remember that is Portlandia speaking and not the country. The country is still hard-working stock--and still wants to work and succeed. There are still pockets of racism, yes, but for the most part the country doesn't care. If you work hard and play hard, you are an American. If you ask me to give it up, I will remind you of that history.
The national parks will be just fine, certainly no worse than they were under an Interior Department flush with a nobility of self-importance. We're saving the planet, Al. Don't you get it? Yeah, I get it. When you can't do the job you have, you might as well reach for God's. And she isn't talking this morning now that Mr. Trump's pick for EPA has been pilloried by the Press as "a denier!"
Well, at least he seems to understand the working class. For now I'll take comfort in that.
While I agree with much of what Dr. Runte wrote above, I must doubt the last sentence: "Well, at least he seems to understand the working class."
I'm not at all sure of that.
The great American philosopher, Garrison Keillor had this to say: http://www.sltrib.com/csp/mediapool/sites/sltrib/pages/printfriendly.csp...
I also know that, If we work together to achieve it, environmental preservation and economic values of our resources are not incompatible. But profit margin greed makes working together much more difficult.
Lee, I also respect Dr. Runte and many of his accomplishments. That said, I disagree with his post. Mr. Trump is a master demagogue, at least in my view. he taped into the politics of fear, intolerance, bullying, beyond the pale attacks on anyone in disagreement. I do agree that the economics of neo-liberalism, trickle down, or whatever one wants to call it (both parties bought into it), has led to much anger and frustration, the rich are richer, the poor poorer. I do hope Dr. Runte is right about the checks and balances, but it remains to be seen by a new administration coming into power that has shown little respect for government or adherence to the role of said, let alone any respect for the rule of law. I must admit it will be interesting to see it play out.
Ron - the media has you blinded. Trumps win had nothing to do with fear, intolerance or bullying. As long as the left continues to believe that to be the case, the Republicans will win at the voting booth.
Ron - I agree with you. Trump's win had everything to do with fear, intolerance, and bullying. As long as these are the tactics of the right, closer comes the day when they find how painful the equal and opposite reaction will be.
Rick, so you really believe half the country is into fear, intolerance and bullying? Keep thinking so and we will keep electing officials with an R by their name.