Conservation is Conservative

            A couple of months ago, Presidential candidate John Huntsman made an interesting comment at a dinner of environmentalists, saying, “Conservation is conservative” and claiming that he is “not ashamed to be a conservationist.” This seems strange, because republicans are typically against land conservation and other environmental policies. So his comment got me thinking: how many environmentally friendly presidents have we had, and how much of an impact did they make on our country’s environmental policy? Can both republicans and democrats support land conservation, or is a strictly liberal idea?

            So I did a little research, and I found that there have been several republican presidents who have not only supported, but greatly influenced land conservation policies in the federal government. Here are the ones that I think are the most important to acknowledge.

Abraham Lincoln: In 1864, Abe Lincoln initiated the first movement toward creating national parks by signing legislation that sectioned off Yosemite Valley and Mariposa Big Tree Grove as public land belonging to the state of California. The land was to be preserved and used for public recreational purposes in hopes of attracting tourists to the area. While this legislation did not create an official national park, it set a precedent for future conservation legislation that would eventually lead to the development of the national park system.

Ulysses S. Grant: Eight years later, in 1872, Grant signed the bill that established the boundaries of Yellowstone and made it the world’s first national park. The land was set aside “for the benefit and enjoyment of the people” and “all timber, mineral deposits, natural curiosities, or wonders within said park” were to be preserved. The law also put the Secretary of the Interior in charge of setting rules and regulations for the management of the park.

Benjamin Harrison: In 1891 President Harrison signed the Forest Reserve Act, which gave the president the power to establish national forests to be used by the public for purposes similar to those of national parks. He then established reserves on around 15 million acres of land, setting the precedent for the future creation of national parks.

Theodore Roosevelt: Teddie Roosevelt may just be the greatest conservationist to ever hold the office of president. During his term starting in 1901, Roosevelt created the US Forest Service and enabled the 1906 American Antiquities Act. He established 5 National Parks and 150 National Forests, as well as multiple Federal Bird Reservations, National Game Preserves, and National Monuments. If that isn’t conservation, I don’t know what is.

Richard Nixon: More recently, President Nixon passed multiple acts designed to protect the environment. First was the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which cracked down on federal agencies by describing national policies and requiring reports on the environmental impacts of the programs they fund. He then created the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate a variety of national environmental policies in 1970. Other environment related acts passed during his term include the Clean Air Act of 1970, the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, and the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

            So maybe we shouldn’t completely rule out republican candidates when looking for environmentalists. Obviously, conservation is not strictly a liberal idea, and conservatives can sometimes surprise us in the importance they place on environmental protection. Its possible that someone like Huntsman could actually bring about positive change in the future if elected to office, and we should consider giving him the chance to do so. You can’t argue with conservation. So while it definitely remains extremely liberal, it will always be somewhat conservative too.

Here’s the website of an organization called “Republicans for Environmental Protection.” Check it out for more information on conservative conservation and ways to support the effort!

http://www.rep.org/AboutREP/philosophy.html

Information taken from:

http://www.sltrib.com/csp/cms/sites/sltrib/pages/printerfriendly.csp?id=52284062

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24332.html 

http://www.yellowstone-natl-park.com/history.html 

http://www.foresthistory.org/ASPNET/Policy/WeeksAct/ProtectionofWatersheds_Williams.pdf 

http://www.nps.gov/thro/historyculture/theodore-roosevelt-and-conservation.htm 

http://alaskaconservationblog.com/2011/02/22/presidents-of-conservation-richard-nixon/

Alaskan Oil

            So as you may know, there is a currently a huge issue within the federal government of deciding whether or not to drill oil in certain areas of Alaska that are protected by conservation laws. To me this seems like a no-brainer: save the environment at all costs. But others disagree for a number of reasons. Obviously it would be nice to have access to a more oil than we currently have, but the argument goes a little deeper than that. If you can bear with me, I’d like to give the pros and cons of drilling in Alaska before making my case as to why it is a horrible idea.

            The main area in debate is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), an area of land about the size of South Carolina located at the northeastern corner of the state. It has been under federal government protection since 1973, and many efforts have been made to repeal it throughout the years. It is impossible to know how much oil is recoverable from this location, but estimates range from 1 to 15 billion barrels.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/ns/us_news-environment/t/study-anwr-oil-would-have-little-impact/#.TsR9T4Bqx5c

            Pros:

            The Trans-Alaskan pipeline, an 800-mile long pipeline system that runs from the North Slope of Alaska to Valdez, has transported over 16 billion barrels of oil since its completion in 1977. Recently, cold weather has caused the flow of the pipeline to slow dramatically, and it is feared that it will soon freeze up altogether. One way to prevent this from happening is to add more oil to the flow, and the ANWR could provide enough oil to do so. Allowing the pipeline to stop flowing would not only increase prices at the pump, but would also eliminate hundreds of maintenance jobs. With the current recession as deep as it is, keeping these prices and jobs can be considered critical. Many also support the idea of drilling for its benefits in decreasing our dependence on foreign oil.

            Cons:

            One of the major concerns of the government in dealing with this issue is the possibility of losing the land. The 1973 law was put into place to conserve 19 million acres of land in Alaska, and repealing it would give the land up completely. Drilling would be an invasion of the homes not only of animals like caribou and polar bears, but also of the Gwich’in Indians. Oil spills and other accidents could completely destroy the environment for good, drastically reducing the number of these animals and Indians in the area. Also, the plan would be expensive to carry out, as it would require construction and machinery that would have to be paid for by the government. The money used for the operation could arguably be used for better causes.

            Personally, I think the government should leave things the way they are. The point of passing laws creating refuges is to protect the land, and protect it for good. If we make exceptions and repeal laws like this, eventually none of the land we originally intended to protect will be safe. Congress and the president cannot be trusted if they continue to change their minds about certain issues. Also, the Indians living in this area will lose their homes if the land is destroyed, and that just seems cruel. They will not be able to survive if the animals they live off, like caribou, are eliminated from the area. No one knows how much oil is located in the refuge anyway, and depending on how much is recovered, it might not even be worth it. No matter how much is there, though, it is a limited supply and eventually it will run out. The money that would be used to drill should instead be put toward green energy research so that in the future we won’t need oil at all, and the environment, as well as the future generations that live in it, will be safe.

Thanks for reading =]

Information taken from:

http://www1.american.edu/ted/alaska.htm

http://www.alyeska-pipe.com/pipelinefacts.html

Why Conserve Land?

"When the trees start budding leaves, that’s how you know spring is coming," my mother noted one day as we drove down the interstate to my grandmother's house. Little 7 year old me looked out the window from the back seat, eagerly searching the branches blurring by for signs of buds. I had never before considered looking to the trees for signs of spring; most years I would judge the approaching of the season by the shedding of winter coats and the opening of all the local ice cream shops. But this natural phenomenon sparked a curiosity in me, and a question began to form on my mind: what else does nature have to offer?

Of course, I was well aware of the process by which trees grew and shed their leaves with the changing seasons, but I had never truly been aware enough of my natural surroundings to actually notice it happening. Once I was introduced to the idea, however, I began to look for other secrets and mysteries in nature, from the way the tides change to the way cows lie down when a storm is coming. I started realizing that nature is dangerously underrated and ignored in our society, and that everyday we are destroying it more and more with development and pollution. If we do not dramatically change our behavior in the coming years, future generations will be left with little to no natural resources to explore and enjoy. With this in mind, I made it one of my goals to do my part to help the planet and raise awareness of the need to protect the environment. 

This blog was created to do just that: spread the message. To start it off, I composed a list of the top ten reasons, in my opinion, to conserve land and natural resources. I will expand on some of these in future posts, and also comment on how the government is handling certain topics of debate related to conservation. I would love to hear your opinions, so feel free to comment!

10. The economy relies on the environment. A large proportion of American spending is connected to the resources and benefits of nature, and jobs depend on these things as well.
9. Everyone loves a breath of fresh air. Furthermore, everyone has the right to a breath of fresh air, in my opinion. Such a simple request should not be denied.
8. It’s absolutely beautiful. The sights, sounds, and smells of nature are indescribable and impossible to recreate. Everyone has experienced at least one completely breathtaking experience in nature (and if you haven’t, well that just further proves my point).
7. National parks and conservation projects provide jobs. With our current unemployment rate so low, we need all the jobs we can get to be available.
6. Resources like food, wood, and oil come from the environment. Simply put, the more land we destroy, the fewer resources we have access to.
5. Animals are becoming endangered and extinct. Without anywhere to live, millions of wild animals, and sometimes entire species, die off, completely eliminating evolution possibilities and upsetting the food chain.
4. Open spaces provide areas for recreation, like hiking and camping. My favorites are trail rides and picnics. Certain activities absolutely require being outside (ever tried flying a kite indoors?) and without access to open spaces we will no longer be able to participate in these activities.
3. Our land represents our country’s history and culture. It is one of the only aspects of American life that has remained constant since our country’s founding, and it serves as a source of national pride and unity.
2. It is physically impossible to live without nature. We need oxygen and food, among other things, to even survive. If we destroy ecosystems, we lose these things, and eventually the human race will cease to exist. Scary, huh?
1. Once it’s gone, you can never get it back. No matter how many trees we plant and how much land we cultivate, our natural environment will never be the same once it’s destroyed. We need to act now to prevent the complete destruction of the wonderful planet we live on, before it’s too late.

There are an infinite number of reasons to conserve land and protect the environment. Now it’s up to us to consider those reasons and actually do something to save the earth so that future generations can benefit from it in the same ways we have.

Nature is priceless. Cherish it.

Thanks for reading!