Unfiltered Commentary

Bush’s “New Environmentalism:” What can we expect?

By Nancy Jacques, Unfiltered 9-11-06

Cooperative Conservation became an Executive Order August 26, 2004. Oh, you didn’t hear?

The fanfare then was a whisper, but now it’s time to notice. Leaders of federal agencies responsible for the environment are coming to the public, holding “Listening Sessions” around the country. They’re inviting us to answer specific questions. Leaders will take responses back to Washington in the spirit of “cooperative conservation.” They say.

Sounding sublime in this era of too many conflicts, some objectives may be genuine. But given the Bush Administration’s record for health, safety and environmental abuses, given that sites chosen for meetings aren’t exactly what you’d call cross-sections of the nation’s political leanings, given the national debt and an additional 13 percent 2007 budget cut to environmental protections, a cautionary, informed approach to this endeavor would seem prudent.

Cooperative Conservation has been coined President Bush’s “New Environmentalism,” the honed down version of former Secretary of Interior Gale Norton’s public relations mantra, her Four C’s Credo: communication, consultation, and cooperation in service of conservation. In short, for conservation, have a conversation. An excellent goal, but define “conservation.”

In 2005, the White House Council on Environmental Quality hosted an invitation-only conference in St. Louis, Missouri, to seek out ideas for environmental initiatives supporting partnerships for conservation. Laudable intentions, except from what standards are we measuring when Agriculture Secretary, Mike Johanns, was quoted saying: “A Market-Based Environmental Stewardship Coordination Council will be created to ensure that a sound market-based approach to quantifying conservation services is developed.”

The guest list included Exxon Mobil and its law department, Duke Energy, Lehman Brothers, Monsanto, Weyerhaeuser, American Chemical Council, also Environmental Defense, Wilderness Society and Trust for Public Lands. Maybe a promising get-together, but who holds the power here to influence Washington?

According to Bush’s Executive Order, the Departments of Interior, Agriculture, Commerce and Defense, and the Environmental Protection Agency (in concert with the White House Council on Environmental Quality) will implement laws promoting cooperative conservation only to the extent allowed by agency missions, policies and regulations, and of course their appropriations. Herein lie the rubs.

If real collaborative environmental stewardship is Cooperative Conservation’s goal, science-based standards must be maintained. Yet the Bush Administration’s continuous push for voluntary environmental safeguards time and again has led to abuses of pollution standards. Add to this the budget cuts to agencies and requisite personnel losses, policy mandates dictated by the White House, former industry lobbyists and executives managing environmental agencies, intimidation of their professional staff, and record secrecy, the cumulative effect equals unprecedented assault on environmental protections—a systematic unraveling, while the public is sold a 21st century conservation love-in.

You don’t need to slog through six years of research to find record of these abuses. A cursory review of the news in the past couple of weeks will do the trick.

The New York Times, on August 2nd, disclosed how some 9,000 staff scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency, through their unions, expressed disgust with the Bush Administration’s willingness across agencies to undermine science and put the American public and the environment at risk for profits. Then there was an update by the Environmental News Service about EPA’s Administer, Stephen Johnson, agonizing over whether to listen to industry or scientists (including his own advisory council) about tightening air quality particulate matter standards. And more recently, a federal court found EPA “grossly delinquent” in protecting human health and mandated the agency serve dozens of overdue air toxics controls.

Not summarizing misadventures of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the U.S. Forest Service for other examples, information is not difficult to find. But look beyond agency websites for backstage details.

Cooperative Conservation websites glowingly advertise collaborative efforts occurring nationally. But take note: The projects mentioned were founded years ago, before this administration. Most significant, they exist largely because of the very laws this administration has been compromising.

Example: Malpai Borderlands Group of New Mexico and the Endangered Species Act. Ranchers, scientists and agencies came together to keep ranching profitable in a region facing, according to the organization, the greatest concentration of endangered species in any comparable US land mass. A book has been published about their success. Maybe agency leaders should read it.

It doesn’t take a crystal ball to imagine what will happen to the nation’s parks, forests, waterways, species and air, and human health, if the market and special interests dominate standards for environmental protections. Growl at laws and regulations, but whether it’s the War Crimes Act or the Clean Air Act, they set limits to the abuses we humans are capable of, and they reflect society’s morality. Science-based environmental regulations have spurred collaborative problem solving for years. Maybe no longer.

As agency officials say “please answer our questions,” it seems they really want to hear personally from only certain citizens. Attendance at meetings isn’t pre-screened or by special invitation, as is this administration’s usual practice, but through choice of location audiences have been largely pre-selected.

Despite stated Cooperative Conservation goals for building better relationships between states and federal agencies, only three state capitols have been chosen thus far out of 15 meeting sites. (Approximately 24 meetings are planned.) Despite wanting to build better relationships with tribes, no meetings are scheduled in proximity to tribal nations. Population centers aren’t qualifiers. Special interests and political leanings – some might say campaign contributions in an election year – seem the priorities.

Roanoke, VA hosts Appalachian Power Company, Roanoke Electric Steel Corporation and is a center for natural gas transmission and distribution. Enid, OK is home to oil and gas. Muncie, IN: auto manufacturing. Redding, CA, a red splat in a blue state, is a timber industry headquarters. Colton, CA loves its four-wheelers.

Helena, MT, one of only two Rocky Mountain sites chosen thus far, has a long mining history, while Colorado Springs, CO claims not only the Air Force Academy, but also is epicenter for evangelical Christian organizations.

With the Bush Administration’s penchant for doublespeak, cronyism and secrecy, think “skepticism” while reviewing the questions officials want answered:
• How can the federal government enhance wildlife habitat, species protection, and other conservation outcomes through regulatory and voluntary conservation programs?
• How can the federal government enhance cooperation among federal agencies and with states, tribes, and local communities in the application of environmental protection and conservation laws?
• How can the federal government work with states, tribes, and other public- and private-sector partners to improve science used in environmental protection and conservation?
• How can the federal government work cooperatively with businesses and landowners to protect the environment and promote conservation?
• How can the federal government better respect the interests of people with ownership in land, water, and other natural resources?

Attend a meeting, if you can. If not, because of complaints registered with the Department of Interior over lack of ability to submit written comments, officials reassessed and provisions have now been made to accept them at http://cooperativeconservation.gov/contact-us/index.html. Included is a statement that written responses “. . . will be reviewed right along with the transcripts of the listening sessions.” No deadline is mentioned, but the last scheduled public meeting posted is September 28, 2006.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.