By Marita Noon
Sunday, June 09, 2013
In a news cycle where the lack of transparency is
revealed daily, it is refreshing when something previously opaque exposes its
true motives. Such is the case for the Sierra Club and its desire to block oil
and gas drilling.
I’ve written many times on environmental groups’
influence over use of public lands and how they often use claims of some
endangered flora or fauna as cover for their efforts to block any beneficial
economic development, such as mineral extraction or agricultural activity. They
cry about some critter when in fact it is really about control—control of
public lands. It is this very tactic that was the impetus for my “Smash the
Watermelons” initiative. Everywhere I speak, I give out bumper stickers with
the slogan and pens with a green barrel, but that write with red ink. Imprinted
on the pen is: “Green on the outside, red on the inside.
SmashTheWatermelons.org” When people ask about the bumper sticker’s meaning, I
explain: “When you spend every day, as I do, on energy issues, you quickly
realize that the environmental zealots are really about blocking development in
America. While they appear green on the outside, they are red on the inside.”
But now, in a season of cover-ups, the Sierra Club has
come clean.
This month they’ve launched a new campaign: Our Wild
America—which will call for new national monument designations.
The Hill’s E2 Wire heralds the news: “Green groups to Obama:
Designate public lands to stop oil and gas drilling.” No longer hiding behind
the protection of a critter, the environmental groups have come out of the
shadows and boldly proclaimed their intentions. The article starts with:
“Environmental lobbyists are pressing President Obama to turn more western
lands into national monuments to prevent oil-and-gas companies from drilling
there. The Sierra Club is leading the charge…”
Apparently the gang green is frustrated with the lack of
Congressional action in locking up lands and is now resorting to pressuring the
president to take executive action. Bentley Johnson, legislative representative
for the National Wildlife Federation’s public lands campaign, said his group
prefers to work at the local level to build momentum with congressional
delegations. But that has proven relatively fruitless in recent years. “The
standstill on getting lands protected through the legislative route might have
pushed the White House to go it alone in recent months.”
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is mandated to manage
the public lands for “multiple use.” The BLM Terminology & Actions document
defines it this way: “‘multiple uses’ include recreation, range/grazing,
timber, minerals/oil & gas, watershed, fish & wildlife, wilderness, and
natural, scenic, scientific and historical values.” But, the “century-old”
Antiquities Act gives President Obama the authority to designate national
monument status even if there’s no actual monument erected. A national monument
designation makes the locale off limits to development. President Obama has
used this “emergency” designation nine times—six times in the past year.
The Sierra Club wants it used more.
Dan Chu, the director of the Sierra Club’s Wild America
campaign, explained: “Recreation, wildlife and scenic values would have much
more priority in management planning if it was designated as a national
monument.”
As a part of the Wild America campaign, Michael Brune,
executive director for the Sierra Club, is currently on a “road trip” to
“educate the public and excite Sierra Club members about getting some of these
proposed areas as national monuments.”
One of Brune’s stops is Moab, Utah. Marc Thomas, a member
of the executive committee of the Sierra Club’s Utah Chapter’s Glen Canyon Group,
is in support of the proposed Greater Canyonlands National Monument—1.4 million
acres near Moab—that he describes as “a whole swath of land that is not
protected from impacts like mineral extraction or privatization.” Thomas
exclaims: “That's what I'm concerned about.”
Chu agrees. Addressing the campaign he says: “We, along
with our partners, are concerned about imminent threats from tar sand
development, oil and gas leasing and the increase in illegal trails from
off-road vehicle use.”
The Wild America campaign is described as “a grassroots
movement to secure permanent protection for significant landscapes and
advocating for responsible wildlife and lands management”—which is spearheaded
by “the largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization in
the country.” But how grassroots is the Sierra Club really? It is not the
hiking and nature club that it used to be—or that the leadership wants you to
think it is. The Sierra Club is now a true political organization flexing its
muscle to move its agenda with nearly a hundred million dollars in annual
revenues.
In its announcement about the Wild America campaign, the
United Press International said the following: “The Sierra Club, a leading
environmental lobbying group in Washington…” The Sierra Club endorses
candidates and policies—recently voting to support comprehensive immigration
reform. In an interesting post on the website Progressives for Immigration
Reform, life-long Sierra Club member and environmental activist, Philip
Carfaro, bemoans the club’s reversal in its position on immigration that had
been held for four decades, saying the shift “looks to have been driven by
short-term politics.” Carfaro posits that Brune ignored “both the grave
environmental costs of immigration-driven US population growth and the
organization’s own organizational history” in exchange for La Raza’s support at
the big DC rally against the Keystone pipeline and calls the leadership
“short-sighted, politically correct pygmies.”
Carfaro’s point rings true. Immigration reform,
specifically amnesty, is a Democratic dream come true and a presidential
promise. I suspect back room deals were made for the Sierra Club’s support in
exchange for executive-order national monument status to prevent oil and gas
drilling. In the call for Obama to “designate public lands to stop oil and gas
drilling,” Chu adds a political sweetener, suggesting Obama could help
Democrats win House and Senate seats in the midterm election year: “We think
there’s real opportunities for them to do additional monument designations by
the midterm elections and that it’s a positive political thing for the
administration and for senators and congressmen.”
There’s a La Raza connection. E2 Wire reports: “Chu
argues the West is becoming ‘less purple and more blue’ because of an influx of
Latino and younger voters. The Sierra Club aims to marshal those voting blocs
to get new national monuments in New Mexico and Colorado. Chu said Latino and
young voters care more about conservation than about energy drilling, citing a
poll for the Sierra Club and National Council of La Raza that said 69 percent
of Latino voters support increasing the number of national monuments.”
Yet, polling done by the Western Energy Alliance (WEA)
shows otherwise. Kathleen Sgamma, vice president of government affairs reports:
“Our polling (conducted by the Tarrance group) shows that Latinos favor
increased oil and natural gas in the US by 74%. I think they, along with a
majority of Americans, realize that development creates jobs and economic
opportunity throughout the US.”
Jessica Kershaw, a spokeswoman for the Department of
Interior (DOI), said the administration wants to see grassroots support for
monument designations before acting: “DOI, as part of the Obama administration,
is certainly committed to the conservation of these designations. But it’s
rooted in the partnership of these local communities,” she said. So, Brune is
out trying to get Sierra Club members excited about the proposed national
monuments. I believe, as the WEA poll confirms, the average American
understands that more drilling means more jobs, lower-priced fuels, energy
security, and a balancing of the trade
deficit—which is why, as Johnson said, working “with congressional delegations”
to lock up lands has been “fruitless.”
Why has the Sierra Club—a 501(c)4 public charity with the
same designation as the beleaguered Tea Party groups that were “blamed” for the
excessive scrutiny due to political activities—suddenly gotten transparent
about their politically aggressive actions? Perhaps now that Sally Jewell,
former Recreational Equipment Inc. (REI) CEO, is Secretary of the Interior, the
Sierra Club feels emboldened. It has a friend in the Administration. REI is a
Sierra Club “benefactor.”
Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA), the chairman of the House
Natural Resources Committee, doesn’t want decisions on monuments imposed by
Obama. In an email, Mallory Micetich, a committee spokeswoman, told me:
“Chairman Hastings firmly believes that additions to the National Park System
and major land-use decisions that impact local communities and economies should
be the result of careful public review and a vote by Congress. It should not be
a unilateral decision imposed by the President under a century-old, outdated
law.”
Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM), Chairman of the Western Caucus,
agrees. “Monument designations, like any other laws, should come up from the
people, not down by executive decree. Conservation is at its best when it is
carried out by the people: through elected representatives in a transparent,
public process. When designations are
instead handed down through executive order, valid concerns are silenced, the
minority cannot express its concerns, and both conservation and democracy
suffer.”
Remember “the administration wants to see grassroots
support for monument designations before acting”—which implies grassroots
opposition could prevent the designations. Call the DOI (202-208-6416) and ask
Jessica Kershaw to tell Secretary Jewell that you are “grassroots” and that you
oppose the designation of national monuments by executive order. Public
land-use decisions that block public access to recreation and other
job-creating economic activities should not be made unilaterally, behind
closed-doors, and without local input.
No comments:
Post a Comment