The Wilderness Blog

It’s All Connected: Why the War in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina Are Bad for the Environment

By Hillary Rosner, 9-11-05

Thirty Alaskan small business owners received federal loans for companies affected by the 9/11 attacks, according to an AP story in the Anchorage Daily News. It may seem strange that a bush plane operator in North Pole, Alaska, could qualify for 9/11 aid. But with people across the country suddenly terrified and bracing for economic blows, the appeal of trip to the wilderness on a tiny plane apparently shrank, and his business needed help. It’s just one example of the interconnectedness endemic this teeming cultural ecosystem that is the United States.

This is slightly off the wilderness topic, but bear with me, because it’s very much about environmental policies in general. Things don’t happen in a vacuum. When animal shelters in Houston and elsewhere opened their doors to pets rescued from New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and other cities devastated after hurricane Katrina, they had to make space by relocating the dogs and cats that were already there. Shelter pets from Houston were sent to Dallas, and shelters in Dallas went hunting for homes for their own animals (more than 300 animals were adopted out in Dallas a single weekend thanks to dedicated volunteers and compassionate families). The ripple is felt around the country as animals are shifted from town to town.

The federal budget process is perhaps the most dramatic, and wide-reaching, example of this sort of chain reaction. It was widely reported in the days after the levees burst that money allocated to strengthen them had been diverted to the war in Iraq. Ditto FEMA’s budget. Billions of dollars allocated for the war had to come from somewhere, and virtually every non-defense area of the budget suffers as a result. The events of September 11 can impact enforcement of the Endangered Species Act, inventorying and designation of wilderness areas, regulation of snowmobiles in areas of national parks where they’re prohibited.

Last week Congress approved $51.8 billion in post-Katrina aid, on top of the $10.5 billion they fast-tracked a few days after the storm. The work ahead is mind-blowing, from solving basic refugees’ needs like food and shelter to cleaning up and eventually rebuilding New Orleans; today’s headlines say $300 billion may be needed. You don’t have to be an economist or a budget expert to see that the whole country will be feeling the effects of Katrina for years to come.

One loser will be the environment, which always seems to be the dispensable item on the budget in times like these. The coffers of programs at the EPA, the Interior Department, and the Forest Service are often the first to feel the effects of economic crunches, as low-profile but critically important operations and jobs (enforcement, maintenance, etc.) are cut. As the country’s attention is focused on a single issue, meanwhile, controversial environmental decisions may be made on the down-low.

Back in 2001, I remember thinking that for several months the New York Times was doing excellent coverage of environmental issues, paying close attention to the early stirrings of the Bush administration’s environmental agenda. But after September 11, it felt like months before a story about the environment (other than air quality in lower Manhattan, where I lived at the time) appeared in the mainstream press.

Narrowing the focus after a disaster ignores the question of how past decisions influenced current events, and how short-term decisions will influence the future. But unlike the events of 9/11 or the war in Iraq, Katrina is a disaster that is part nature, part policy, part politics—and so far, press coverage has, at least to some extent, addressed these disparate elements. From race and class to disaster preparedness to climate change, wetlands destruction, and clean water, Katrina has opened a door to address a multitude of issues facing the country—many, if not all, of which are linked.

Media coverage of Katrina has recognized the environmental component, and even many non-Katrina-related environmental issues have stayed on the public’s radar. In the last week and a half, wilderness stories in the news have included elk management, Utah wilderness designation, and three new lawsuits dealing with the Roadless Rule. (Last week, Oregon, California, and New Mexico filed suit against the Bush administration in the latest chapter of the complex Roadless Rule drama, alleging that the government’s overturning of the Clinton rule (which protected 60 million acres of forest land from development) was illegal. The New York Times, in an editorial, called the lawsuits “a rebellion� and “an embarrassment� to the Bush administration.)

When disasters of any sort hit, their effect goes far beyond the obvious casualties. The post-Katrina surge in oil prices (which I don’t entirely understand) will affect home heating bills as well as the cost of filling the tank—and this will likely influence the amount of disposable income people have to give to various causes, from hurricane relief to animal shelters to wilderness groups. I’m interested to see how this idea plays out in the news, and whether the obvious links between the many factors that contributed to the Katrina devastation will manage to get people thinking about the country—land, people, culture, policies, and all--as an ecosystem. If you see any interesting stories on this theme, please send them along.

(This entry is dedicated to my beloved dog Peso, my companion of 10 years, who died of a stroke on August 30; and to Larry and Al, our New Orleans friends, who were stranded at our house and tried valiantly to save her.)

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