You are here

Share
Requiem For America's Best Idea


Op-Ed | Do We Love The National Parks Enough?

By William Lowry

People love the national parks, to the point where many, including Kurt Repanshek in his compelling column in a recent edition of the Traveler, worry that we are loving them to death. I argue that, in at least one respect, we are not loving them enough.

The parks are one of the few issues today that inspire Americans, regardless of ideology or political party. Americans have backed up their talk with action, even voting for increased taxes for parks and other open spaces. Even Congress overcame its polarization and in 2020 passed a bipartisan measure - the massive Great American Outdoors Act -  that dedicates nearly two billion dollars per year for much needed maintenance and repair projects in the national parks. This was a crucial step, but the dangers the parks face are far greater than maintenance and repair can remedy: the existential threat of climate change.

My friend Michael Yochim, who passed away in 2020, tackles this question in his important new book, Requiem for America’s Best Idea: National Parks in the Era of Climate Change, which will be published later this month by High Road Books. He focuses on climate changes occurring in the crown jewels of the park system: Glacier, Olympic, Yellowstone, Yosemite, and the Grand Canyon. While many of us claim to love the national parks, Yochim not only loved them, he lived them. He worked for the NPS in Yellowstone, Yosemite, Sequoia and Grand Canyon for nearly 30 years. And he did much more than work in these places. He was the epitome of someone who did what Edward Abbey always advised, do what you can for wild places but also take the time to enjoy them.

In his book, Yochim meticulously documents the effects of climate change on the park system:

1) Snowpack levels are down as much as 40 percent in these parks over just the last few decades.

2) Half of the glaciers in Olympic are gone. Nearly all will disappear from Glacier by 2030.

3) Water levels on the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon during the megadrought, the worst in the West in 1200 years, have dropped to levels that triggered the first ever mandatory cutbacks in water usage.

4) Fires are increasing in size and severity throughout Yellowstone, Yosemite, and elsewhere in the West.

5) Pine beetles are thriving with shorter winters and devastating entire forests. Plant and animal species have been impacted by changes in habitat like never before.

6)  Sea level rise will likely inundate freshwater ecosystems in the Everglades in our lifetimes.

And these situations will only become worse if we don’t take actions now to address climate change and its causes.

What makes Yochim’s warning even more powerful is his story. In 2013, Yochim was diagnosed with ALS, the devastating neurological disorder better known as Lou Gehrig’s Disease. The disease ended Yochim’s long career and ravaged his body. It's usually fatal to people within just a few years. Yochim fought it for eight, as the disease destroyed the ability of his body to function while his brain, trapped inside, remained active.

During those years, he knew he was dying, but he didn’t want the parks, as he and so many of us know them, to die as well. In the last few years of his life, the only thing he could use were his eyes. So, with an eye-tracking machine, he would pick out letters to make words and then put them together into sentences. It would take hours to write a single paragraph. But he persisted and wrote this book with just his eyes. Mike died on Leap Day 2020, working at his computer, writing me a gentle reminder that he had asked me to finish the book if he could not. So, with some help from Mike’s brother, Brian, and a mapmaker named Eric Compas, we finished the writing, collected the photos and coordinated the maps. The final product is a call for action and a warning about the consequences of not doing so. 

Addressing climate change requires more than just words and promises. Neither party is doing enough. The Biden administration, even while acknowledging the impacts of oil and gas drilling, announced in November that it will continue to sell oil and gas leases on large tracts of public land in the American West. Republican opposition in Congress continues to prohibit far-reaching climate change legislation. Nor is the American public unified in demands for action. In spite of reminders nearly every week of the dangers from climate changes in the form of massive fires, droughts, storms, and wild temperature swings, many Americans are blasé about the issue. In a poll last year, Gallup found almost exactly as many people who view the seriousness of climate change as exaggerated (38 percent) as those who see it as underestimated (39 percent). I encourage the 38 percent to go to one of their beloved national parks sometime.

The national parks are wonderful places, where families have bonded, where people have enjoyed some of their greatest experiences, where some have been inspired to do amazing, even death-defying, things. Think of Alex Honnold doing the free solo up Yosemite’s El Capitan in 2017. People plan their vacations around the parks, take photos, collect passport stamps. And they bring millions of dollars into local economies.

The parks are there for all of us. And we own them. No wonder we love them. But now it’s time to take care of them. Nothing guarantees their existence, at least not in the form we find so inspirational. Even while we worry that we are loving the parks to death from excessive use, we are not loving them enough. Perhaps we can heed the compelling words of a dying man and finally take serious actions to protect them as if we do in fact love them. 

William R. Lowry is Emeritus Professor of Political Science at Washington University in St. Louis who long has studied environmental and natural resource policy in the United States. He is the author of Repairing Paradise, The Restoration of Nature in America's National Parks.

Traveler footnote: Requiem for America’s Best Idea – online launch event hosted by Left Bank Books – March 15 at 7pm CT. Register here.

Support National Parks Traveler

Your support for the National Parks Traveler comes at a time when news organizations are finding it hard, if not impossible, to stay in business. Traveler's work is vital. For nearly two decades we've provided essential coverage of national parks and protected areas. With the Trump administration’s determination to downsize the federal government, and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s approach to public lands focused on energy exploration, it’s clear the Traveler will have much to cover in the months and years ahead. We know of no other news organization that provides such broad coverage of national parks and protected areas on a daily basis. Your support is greatly appreciated.

 

EIN: 26-2378789

Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places

A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.

Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:

  • Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
  • Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
  • Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
  • North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
  • Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
  • Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
  • Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.

Comments

 

 

Actually, ecbuck, Your argument appears to be BS, as you backed your un-explained statement with a single reference from a Right Wing, North Carolina Newspaper, not affiliated with any scientific organization, who appears to have an axe to grind. The article was written by Guy K. Mitchell who is the founder and chairman of Mitchell Industries, a diversified manufacturing company based in Birmingham, Alabama, who is not apparently a scientist..

 

Meanwhile, here are some of my references to support my assertion, that appear for the most part to be from a great number of Real independent scientific organizations. The source of this list is https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change.

 

Do scientists agree on climate change?

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists - 97 percent - agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here.

READ MORE

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming
"The scientific consensus on climate change," N. Oreskes, Science, Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686, doi: 10.1126/science.1103618 (2004).
"Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," J. Cook et al., Environ. Res. Lett., 8 024024, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 (2013).

ADDITIONAL CITATIONS

"Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming Environ," J. Cook et al., Res. Lett. 11 (2016) 048002, pp 1-7, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 (2016).

"Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," P. Doran et al., EOS, Vol. 90, Issue 3, Pages 22-23, doi: 10.1029/2009EO030002 (2009).

"Expert credibility in climate change," W. Anderegg et al., PNAS, Vol. 107 no. 27, 12107-12109, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107 (2010).

"Meteorologists' Views About Global Warming: A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members," N. Stenhouse et al., Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 95 No. 7, pp 1029-1040, doi: 10.1175/ BAMS-D-13-00091.1 (2014).

"Scientists' Views about Attribution of Global Warming," B. Verheggen et al., Environ. Sci. Technol., 48 (16), pp 8963-8971, doi: 10.1021/es501998e (2014).

"The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists," J.S. Carlton et al., Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (2015) 094025, pp 1-12, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025 (2015).

 

                                                                                                                                                                    


Ranger,  a simple google search will generate you dozens of articles from a broad range of sources as to why the claims of universal agreement are wrong.   I thought you would make the effort to reads Cook's work and see for your self the absurdaty of his claims.  Here are a few from multiple sources.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everyth...

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/do-97-worlds-scientists-believe-man-has-c...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-co...

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/climate-change-no-its-not-97-perc...

 

The fact is Cook actually found that 97% of scientist that believe climate change is man made believe it it is man made.  The hundreds of paper's that didn't name man as a cause were excluded and thost that said man had a slight impact were weighted the same as those that said man was the primary generated of change.

The mere fact that virtually every prediction made by the AGW models have proven to be horribly wrong should be enough to tell you the "scientists" have no clue how much if any of a link there is.

 


This site is so much more enjoyable when the far-right troll is not posting.


I'm certain many minds will be changed by this climate change discussion. Good use of everyone's time. 


 

 

I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree..

 

My argument is not with your assessment of Cooks work, as that methodology may indeed have some flaws.. ( I did read it..)

 

My argument is that a MUCH greater percentage of reseach produced by real, unbiased scientists and organizations over the last few decades, who have no specific political motivations, do indeed support Anthropogenic Global Warming.

 

Your argument against AGW is, unfortunatly, mainly specious as most everything you continue to present as "Proof" against the existence and impact of AGW has been produced by individuals and organization who, while they may be scientists, are undeniably producing results that Primarily support a specific political message, in direct contradiction of verified, peer supported scientific research..

 

 

 


My argument is that a MUCH greater percentage of reseach

And that just isn't true as Cook's raw data showed, 66% percent of climate change papers that he reviewed made no reference to man being a cause, much less the primary cause.  All the "studies" that supposedly show the majority believe man is the primary cause are just as flawed.

I find it funny that you call the scientific method specious.  You develop a theory.  You create a prediction based on that theory.  You test your prediction in lab test or better yet in real life but it doesn't provide the predicted outcome.  The scientific method says its time to change the theory not to ignore the results.  That's not specious.  That is how science is actually conducted.

 

 

 


 

There is ZERO evidence of a man-made climate catastrophe 100 years from now. There cannot be. Those who look around and see evidence of global warming today do not and cannot distinguish those events as being either man-made or natural; they look exactly the same and, in most cases are within natural variability.   All concern over Climate Change relies on one thing alone: our ability to predict the future.  The only tools we have for this are crystal balls and the computerized climate models.  Those models, using hundreds of assumptions, predict somewhere between a slight cooling and a near-impossible worst-case scenario, but for some reason it is ONLY the near-impossible worst-case scenario we are asked to worry about and "do something" about. 

 

Yet when these climate models, from the US EPA and the international IPCC, are asked to predict the effects including just one specific assumption-- specific reductions in manmade CO2-- and depending on how drastic those cuts and how much of the world participates, they predict somewhere between 0.02 and 0.37 degrees less warming, over the next 100 years!  That is negligible. 

 

In simple terms, if the models are right, man-made CO2 is not a problem. If the models are wrong, man-made CO2 is not a problem.

 

One other thing we can do is to look at current trends and simply assume they will continue indefinitely.  The trend from the NASA satellite global temperature record, if extended, says that the earth will warm between 1 and 1-1/2 degrees this century, a little higher than what it did the last century but well below the targets of the Paris Climate Accords.  In simple terms, we need do nothing!  Let's not "do something" that costs dearly and accomplishes nothing.

 

 


 

Sorry Guys, you're just regurgitating the Climate Change Deniers lines..

Your "Facts" are unsupported by science and your references are biased toward supporting your politics..

Neither of which means you are correct..

 

 


INN Member

The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.

Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.

You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

FREE for iPhones and Android phones.