The current political environment has already led to changes in regulations governing oil and gas drilling on the Allegheny National Forest. Photo © James Johnston
As Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics enters its third decade, national politics have swung once again to the left. Democrats gained control of the White House and both the House and Senate at the end of 2008, and despite the preoccupation of the Obama administration—and the rest of the world—with the nation’s economic woes, it’s a hopeful time for environmental protection.
“It’s ‘pinch-me’ time,” says Athan Manuel, director of land management in the Washington office of the Sierra Club. “The forces are lined up well for the environment.”
For many people, it’s not a moment too soon. Since the 1980s, when President Ronald Reagan and Interior Secretary James Watt championed policies to open federal lands to oil and gas development, environmental protection has been mired in partisan bickering. Though there are conservation champions on both sides of the aisle, Republicans generally line up behind resource extraction industries, and Democrats favor preservation and strict environmental oversight.
Having a president who is receptive to environmental concerns matters when it comes to preservation. The Clinton administration will long be remembered for its protection of 58 million acres under the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, but predictably, the environmental record of George W. Bush favored big business and industry (see “A Dismal Legacy,” Fall 2008).
Often when Republicans hold sway in the capital, environmental victories are defensive—fighting egregious public land exploitation at the hands of energy, mining and logging interests and keeping the Roadless Rule intact during the Bush era, for example. With a president and Congress more in tune with environmental agendas, many say the wins tend to be progressive.
For those attempting to influence legislation, it often comes down to a question of access. Michael Francis, director of national forest programs with the Wilderness Society, says that when the Democrats took control of the House in 2006, there was a significant shift in the amount of contact he had with those on the Hill. Not only could he pick up the phone and make calls to the people writing legislation, but staffers sought him out when they needed clarification or had questions. “Congress and the administration still make up their minds, but you have the feeling [with Democrats] that at least you can put the info before them,” he says. “You have the opportunity to go in and say on this particular issue, ‘here’s what we think about it.’”
Rich Fairbanks, a former U.S. Forest Service timber sale planner and currently fire manager for the Wilderness Society, says that on many environmental issues, access to congressional representatives is key. The difference between a representative who agrees to “take it under advisement” and one who can converse knowledgeably about the issue, he says, has more to do with how progressive the voters in the district are. In the case of both national and regional protection, grassroots organizing can make a huge difference in how a member of Congress votes.
Manuel points out that it was grassroots organizing that got the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 signed by President Obama in March. The bill protects 2 million acres of wilderness, but without public support, it would have died early in its inception.
“Members of Congress care about the environment,” Manuel says. “But they’re not going to stick their necks out unless they know that the voters back home care about it. And that’s always the case in D.C. You’re not going to win in the beltway without the support from outside the beltway.”