You are here

How Will the Next Administration Deal With the Environment?

Share

With the upcoming change in the country's political leadership, is the sun setting or rising on the National Park System? Photo of sunrise from Cadillac Mountain in Acadia National Park by photo by Atutu via flickr.

After eight years of highly questionable management of public lands by the Bush administration, the next administration will face myriad environmental issues when it takes office in January.

But how will it respond? Between the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts and the shambles of the domestic economy, it doesn't seem as if there's much capital -- political or financial -- to be spent on environmental issues in general or the national parks specifically.

Looking back, the Bush administration has exacted a heavy toll from the public landscape. While promising during his first campaign to wipe out the National Park Service's ever-burgeoning maintenance backlog, which in 2000 was pegged about about $4.5 billion, President Bush failed to make hardly any inroads on that front. The result is that the backlog now is guesstimated at somewhere in the $9 billion range.

The Bush administration also did away with the popular National Parks Pass, a $50 gem that got you into any and all of the national park units as many times as you could squeeze into a calendar year. It also seemed to place a greater value on volunteers in the parks than full-time park rangers.

More recently, the administration is in the process of rewriting gun regulations in the parks, moving beyond the general allowance of firearms as long as they're dismantled and stored out of reach to permitting concealed weapons permit holders to pack their sidearm 24 hours a day.

This administration also has been questionably lax on air quality regulations, moving to rewrite the rule book in a fashion that would lead to greater air pollution at a time when more and more national parks are reporting air quality problems.

And, as the Traveler noted recently, under this administration the U.S. Bureau of Land Management has been kowtowing to oil and gas interests as well as the off-road vehicle lobby. And then, of course, there's the long-running snowmobile drama in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks that refuses to go quietly away.

While Dirk Kempthorne's arrival at the head of the Interior Department was an upgrade over Gale Norton, his legacy will not necessarily be sparkling in all corners. After all, under his direction the BLM moved recently to rescind the rule that allows Congress to direct Interior officials to withdraw public lands acreage that could be in danger of degradation. Interior also has a poor record on the Endangered Species Act; recent directives could seriously jeopardize future decisions involving species at risk.

And don't forget how the administration has been handling the recovery of the gray wolf in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, moving to remove ESA protections from the species only to restore them after a federal judge questioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's logic.

One could go on and on. But we need to turn the page on this administration and look ahead to the next one, whether it be led by Barack Obama or John McCain. As we've noted in the past, either one would be a substantial upgrade over President Bush when it comes to environmental issues and, in particular, concern for the national parks.

Still, one needs to question how much desire, and how effective, the two would be when it comes to protecting the environment. While Sen. McCain has professed his love for national parks and being environmentally conscientious, he has most recently come out strongly in favor of off-shore drilling. Sen. Obama also has endorsed off-shore drilling, although with caveats. Beyond that, he certainly hasn't jumped on the "drill, baby, drill" bandwagon as much as the McCain-Palin ticket has.

And, according to a recent story in the San Francisco Chronicle, Sen. McCain's talk is somewhat on the cheap side.

McCain was an early advocate of adopting measures to address global warming and says he favors laws to protect parks, oceans and air and water. His lifetime record in Congress shows that he voted three out of four times against legislation described as pro-environment by conservation organizations.

The groups are voicing concern that McCain has praised U.S. Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts as model jurists. The two have consistently ruled in favor of limiting regulation of business, including cases under environmental law.

Beyond the candidates' pledges and voting records, how much has the political landscape changed? Will the winner of next month's election hold steadfast to their past comments that the parks need better funding and that the Centennial Initiative is a good idea? Already the pundits are saying the economic realities of today portend ominous times when it comes to addressing environmental needs.

Now, the National Parks Conservation Association has been running a public awareness campaign that includes a petition Americans can sign urging the next president and the incoming Congress to provide greater federal funding and protections for the National Park System. The campaign includes radio ads featuring actors Amy Madigan and Sam Waterston and print ads featuring Petrified Forest National Park and the National Mall as examples of national parks nationwide in need of greater funding.

But, in these difficult economic times, is the American public fully invested in supporting such a campaign?

Featured Article

Comments

I believe, and have experienced, making changes happen with Congress and the White House, whatever the party.

And, I think it is untrue that both parties will act the same. Also, I think Lone Hiker's broad and final-sounding comments are just not how it really is -- or at least so over-generalized as to be wrong in the list of things the Congress dictates regardless of the White House. Depending on how thoughtful and skillful the public support or opposition for a certain issue is, it IS possible to influence both the White House and the Congress. They are instruments, and can be played.

I also think it is possible to get past the cynicism and anger and feelings of futility, but it takes training people in how to be effective poltically, and it takes a willingness to be hopeful and open to the change among the people. Bugsyshallfall makes a good point in how long it can take sometimes to make change, but then, do we really want it to be too easy or too fast to change something like a longstanding policy of the US Government? One of the reasons I like the Heritage Corridor approach to preservation and regional action is, that Heritage model teaches people how to be effective, and gets rid of some of the voodoo saying it is impossible to make real change.

These political skills are actually simple skills, and can be taught. But you have to believe it is possible.


Beamis: I have read many of your blogs that reflects much negativity, dour and gloom. For the next generations sake, how about offering some solutions so that we can move forward instead of regressing into a blog of doom and gloom. You squawk and bitch...so what new paradigm do you advocate? If we can give this younger generation a chance to renew faith in this country (like Barack Obama, Robert Kennedy Jr.) why don't you try to help, instead of being so overly pessimistic. Let's get rid of the old vanguard that resents change for the betterment of the whole. I believe the younger generation has the keys to drive this country forward into a new era of something that's refreshing, challenging and positive. Let's give them the chance that's long over due and deserve, instead of hog tying them down with corrupt dead wood politics. I truly believe Barack Obama offers this new direction to the next generation...young and old! The old vanguard refuses to see the brilliance in this mans power of positive thinking. I absolutely believe that Mr. Obama will be a great asset to the Dept. of Interior, the National Parks and the environment. Now, Beamis offer some solutions instead of regressing into the syndrome of sour grapes.


You may be right, but on your point that "the rest of the world is finally unwilling to fund its [our] enormous debt," in fact this week the US Treasury has been able to sell all the bonds it has wanted.

These international funders seem to be willing to accept next to no interest. International currency is moving back toward the Dollar and the Yen, and away from the Euro. Somebody seems to think the USA is a safer place to park money, right now, than anywhere else.

Not that I don't share your feelings about efforts to balloon an American Empire, and excess and debt.


Frank C. and Beamis: How can you honestly assess the holistic damage to this country and make prudent rational decisions until you have reach the presidential seat. We have no idea how extensive the damage is until Bush officially leaves office. I do admit we have a barrel of rotting apples running this country and must dump the ugly stench. But, to advocate and watch Rome burn on the sidelines and do nothing is extremely disturbing to me. I would certainly love to see more hope and faith injected into your comments and give the younger generation something to aspire too...instead of eking on (or even applauding chaos) for civil disobedience. In a way your comments suggest this...anarchy if you will! Now, that we have a black candidate running for the highest office (and most likely win) in the land, and all suddenly the doom sayers come out of the wood pile...along with the termites...and along with there speal of hopelessness and despair for this country. Youth is inspired by this election and rightly so. Let Obama be there beacon light of hope and dreams. I'm sure the National Parks will be in excellent hands under Obama's tutelage.


Dear Frank C:

1. Of your predictions of collapse, can you name some specific statistic or specific indicator or measurement now, which you will stand by, that will come to pass, say, in 2 years or 5 years to demonstrate that you are right about your prediction? Something that will then shape your opinion and future actions? I am remembering friends in the '80's who saw the collapse then of the American government and currency, and predicted that paper money would collapse and gold or diamonds would be the only substance of value. Some headed back to the earth, feeling that land and living off the land is the only safe and real alternative left. You (and they) could then see specifically whether they would deal with the facts of their predictions, or were just predisposed to cry "doom" as a way of avoiding responsibility and action in the world we actually live in.

2. It seems like every kind of doomsayer has their own simplistic take on the collapse of Rome, as reinforcing their conviction of the inevitability of their doom-saying and a priori beliefs. I know something about Roman history, and think things were a bit more complicated than you say.

But, for the purposes of clarification, I suppose you are talking about the "western" Roman empire, inasmuch as the richer portion of the roman empire in fact continued another 1,000 years. It is probably NOT true that the roman tax system was any more "arbitrary" than any other: in the west it did not tax the great estates and fortunes, and that is where the money was. that was policy, not arbitrariness. It did not effectively utilize the potential revenue from ongoing trade, which in fact trade continued for about another 400 years throughout the med. sea after the "fall" of Rome.

If I were to respond to your simplistic take on the fall of roman, my simple but more correct take is that the people of the roman empire stopped caring if it fell or not. There is plenty of evidence that the people of the empire in the West still had the capacity to defend the empire. For example, there is the famous case in what is now southern France where the barbarians just walked right in and took over. Nobody resisted, in the same way you and Beamis do not help keep the American civilization coherant. But then when the barbarians violated the religious feeling of the local population they did rise up, and pretty easily tossed the barbarians out. Civilizations fall because the governed no longer care about supporting that civilization. We have always had that choice in America like elsewhere, and our society has been distinguished by those who have helped her in need, as FDR did. There were always people who just predicted doom and stayed out of it. Even in the American Revolution, it is estimated that fully 1/3 of the population stayed out of it, many with glib quips or tales of doom as their rationalization.

3. Don't expect parks to thrive of there is no civilization left. Parks came into existence at the height of America's progressive ideology, based on the idea of planning and public good. You will need some element of capacity or interest in planning to help, and a belief in organized public good to sustain a civilization.

When people gave up in the Roman west, nothing much survived for hundreds of years. Most small landowners who still owned their lands became serfs, in effect slaves. They stayed that way until the 1700's.

There wasn't much left in their life for parks or gardens, and don't expect much to be left in yours.

4. Working for the public good is the one way forward.


Getting back to the topic of how the next administration will treat national parks, I suspect that either candidate will do better than the hopeless Bush administration has done. That said, I am more inclined to think that parks would fare better under an Obama admiinistration than one headed by McCain. For instance, I read an article several days ago that suggested that Steve Pearce, a NM congressman running against Tom Udall for Pete Domenici's seat, would be a possible choice for the Secretary of the Interior under Senator McCain. That thought strikes fear into the hearts of most park supporters as Pearce was Richard Pombo's choice to head the parks subcommittee when the Republicans controlled the Congress. He served without distinction and some would say that "serving without distinction" is not harsh enough. Other names mentioned in the article are Wayne Allard of Colorado and retaining Kempthorne. None of these names arouses a great deal of enthusiasm in me.

Rick Smith


Anyone who is mentioned in the same breath as Mr. Pombo should scare the bejeebies out of people who have even a cursory interest in the parks.

Info on Mr. Allard:
Latest LCV Score: 18%
In 1996, he ran against Gale Norton (yes, THAT Gale Norton) in the senatorial primary. He won the nomination.
Wikipedia says: "In April 2006, Allard was named by Time as one of "America's 5 Worst Senators." The magazine called him "The Invisible Man" and said he was one of the "least influential Senators" because he "almost never plays a role in major legislation" and "rarely speaks on the floor or holds press conferences to push his ideas" despite his ten years in the Senate and his presence as a majority party member on two key committees.[2] The Rocky Mountain News retorted that Time made the "wrong call" and that Allard was a "hard-working advocate for Colorado interests."[3] The Colorado Springs Gazette claimed the article was "soft, subjective, snide, impressionistic slop — further proof of the low to which this once-serious publication has sunk....Allard was a co-sponsor of the James Peak Wilderness Bill, which created a 14,000-acre (57 km2) preserve around James Peak, and added 3,000 acres (12 km2) to the Indian Peak Protection Area. Allard also sponsored legislation which created Colorado's 85,000-acre (340 km2) Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve. Allard is also chairman and founder of the Senate Renewable Energy and Efficiency Caucus[8] In 2006, the environmental group Republicans for Environmental Protection[9] praised Allard for his support of legislation to make the Army Corps of Engineers more accountable for its projects' environmental and economic impact, but censured him for supporting oil drilling both offshore and in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.[10]"


Why did the SF Chronicle not report on Obama's voting record? Could it be that he doesn't have one? If so, I guess you can only HOPE for the best - like on so many other issues.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

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

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.