Okay, that's great. So what are you going to do about it? You say this "Green Wave" has been ignored by the mainstream news media until now (pity you didn't explain why). Okay, so congrats on the new story of the decade, now what are you going to do about it?
Where is the final paragraph that says, "So every week from now until November I will be giving prominence and publicity to a Democrat candidate for national office who is part of the "Green Wave" I have discovered."
One of the many things that is lacking in the mainstream media is an adult attention span. Who are you writing for, adults or 12 year olds? I want to read about this Green Wave every day from now until November and I want to celebrate when Egan's prediction proves true and Republicans are turned out of Congress in droves and Trump is impeached before the week after they take office.
But that's not going to happen if this is the last we read about the Green Wave in this newspaper. For pity's sake, rise to the occasion. Today you published an absolutely typical column from Frank Bruni on how to enjoy college. Why?
Here's how you enjoy college - do everything humanly possible to work for the immediate removal of Donald Trump from power. Doing this will get you a lot of sex, trust me. Now off you go...
This newspaper should be organising events for Millenials, if you are concerned about whether they will turn out. Want Trump out of power? Put on concerts nationwide for anyone with an "I Voted" sticker.
12
You know the place, Sir. It’s in your very own backyard. The Olympic National Park. For the uninitiated, it’s a marvel of Earths bounty and of what “ nature” truly means. Huge trees, a thousand shades of green, flowing waters, a mist that glows. AND, the sound of Silence. Some areas with NO modern or man made sounds. A spectacular beauty and experience that makes me cry, every time. A life without having this refuge, this sanctuary, this cathedral of life is not worth much. At least, for me. I plan to have my ashes scattered here, someday.
Don’t waste your VOTE and your energy on someone that has NO chance to win, but definitely be a spoiler. VOTE Democratic. Every election, every time. The Party OF Science, and FOR Nature. Thank you.
170
I cry tears of hope reading this.
I long to find out that you are right.
Nothing angers me more about the hateful man in the white house than his stance on the environment
104
Alas, even though climatologists predict "anomalously warm climate" in the near future, the silent majority will stand by and won't bother to vote against Donald Trump in November. You can bet your western boots that the green wave won't ride to the rescue of Planet Earth like Kemosabe and Tonto in The Lone Ranger. Trump's people are like honey-badgers -- they don't give a shizzle about the environment. They won't vote on the plight of Earth as long as they have their bread and circuses of the National Monuments for their hunting and fishing and paintball grounds with the OK of Ryan Zinke and his boss who doesn't know diddly about the environment outside of Mallomar-a-lago in Florida. Chances of a Green Wave shining through for Planet Earth in November's Mid-Terms are slim to none. Climate-change doesn't matter to flat-earthers and birthers. Hope you're right, Tim Egan, that environmentalists have had enough and won't stand by. But a hae me doots.
64
OMG, I do hope—and fervently believe—that this is true!!!
And BTW, Xochitl Torres Small (mentioned in the article) is a great candidate to support if anyone is looking for them. She an energetic, smart dynamo who has a great chance to flip New Mexico’s sole red US House district to blue.
87
This is absolutely THE MOST IMPORTANT issue we are facing. Everything else pales and turns to ash in comparison. We MUST focus on changing our society or it will be changed for us. We will not survive as a species. Love your kids? This is the most urgent issue to care about.
139
Xochitl Torres Small needs to understand D.C. is not coming for her land. Only 4% of DC voters voted for Trump. Don't blame the citizens of D.C. for this environmental nightmare; put the blame where it belongs--the Trump administration and dirty fuels.
23
If so, wouldn’t people be making different choices in their lives?
4
I think it is finally dawning on everyone but the Trump cult: It really is all about HIM. President Trump has no concern about what might be left after he is no longer on the scene. He is absolutely that self-centered and depraved.
November 2018: The first step back to sanity and decency.
58
Initially, the absurdity of Trump believing rivers are 'diverted' to the sea brought an eye-roll, but sadly, he is not alone in this type of ignorance. An increasing number of Americans, perhaps the majority, have almost no interaction with or knowledge about healthy natural systems.
Here in Eugene, an hour away from the Cascade Mountains and the Pacific Ocean, one would think every child would be frolicking in nature. In contrast, as a hiking guide for school kids in a nearby semi-natural area, I rarely meet a child who has been on a trail ... ever. Many 4th graders pause for a minute to answer if water runs downhill or not. The Willamette River cruises through this city running up north to meet the Columbia River at Portland, which then travels to the sea. For eons, indigenous people from as far away as Wyoming and California came to trade their goods at Columbia's Celilo Falls for salmon, and yet now almost no child living 100 miles away knows that the Columbia even exists.
Oregonians are often seen as all environmental activists. However, out of 36 counties in Oregon, only 8 voted for Hillary, and many votes for Trumps were in hope of making money on forests without pesky environmental regulations. Adults won't respect the integrity and importance of natural systems unless they learn about and experience the natural world as children. Unfortunately, our general population is nearly as ignorant as Trump in terms of knowing if rivers naturally flow to the sea.
93
Hope so - thanks for the hope! Consumers (including consumers of public lands) have much more power to shape the political and economic world than they use. For example, what if everybody in the US chose to not buy from China until they allowed full freedom of religion, or information? How fast would things change there? What if the baddest unsustainable companies in every industry were shunned in an effective way? So folks - use your democratic vote to show how you feel and your "dollar votes" as consumers to reward companies that deserve the rewards of your hard-earned resources. Let's not have any more elections lost by voter turnout instead of ideas and effectiveness (poor turnout problems elected two of worst presidents in US history W. and Trump). In my view the GOP hasn't had one good idea in the 21st century to solve 21st century problems; they need to be fired, which any competent board of directors would have done long ago.
32
God, I hope you're right on this one, Mr. Egan. More than a wave, I hope it's an electoral tsunami.
86
Given that the states where much of the natural wilderness described here is, voted for Trump and have also voted for his GOP cronies for decades, I for one am not holding my breath. I have a lot more faith in the NRAs ability to turn out its voters in a bloc vote for the GOP than I have in any of these wilderness group. I sincerely hope I am wrong.
17
When Ronald Reagan appointed James Watt Secretary of Interior, the public outcry that followed drove Watt from office. Today, we have far greater threats to nature and the environment than posed by Watt, with hardly an outcry from environmentalists and nature lovers. Where's the outrage? Where are the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society and the Nature Conservancy? Have we let the side show in the White House distract us from our mission to preserve nature and protect the environment? I hope you are right, Mr. Egan, that nature lovers will rush to the polls in November, but their silence today and in the months following the election of a man who wants to bring back coal and double-down on oil is not encouraging.
43
With so much that we care about in our environment at risk
with this administration, for example... climate change and our withdrawal from the Paris Accord, the attempt to reduce protected land and open parts of the national monuments Escalante and Bears Ear to mining and oil exploration, to allow a mining company at the headwaters of Bristol Bay in Alaska which has the largest salmon fishery in the world as well as being in an earthquake prone area, to allow oil exploration at the pristine National Arctic Wildlife Refuge, to make changes to the Endangered Species Act to lessen its ability to protect endangered species and their habitats,and to deregulate rules that protect our clean air and clean water this coming election could not be more important to preserve, protect, and steward our environment. Let's hope that Timothy Egan is right about the green wave coming this November.
27
The striking thing is that Democratic Party Congressional candidates rarely exploit this important issue. Too many of them are trained to go easy on exploitive industries, including mining, logging, and dirty power plants.
You never hear Tom Perez say anything here. And even in California, Senator Feinstein has a very mixed record, with a past that includes "compromises" with loggers in Plumas County and the redwoods that led to massive clearcuts. As for the Republicans, there is no longer any such thing as a public lands advocate in that Party.
It comes back to corruption, including campaign financing, cushy jobs for relatives and in post Congress life, and probably dark money, too.
Yeah, let's vote for Democrats in the fall- but only if they stand strong against fossil fuels, deforestation, water pollution, and Monsanto. If they don't, it's time to move to someplace like Ireland, home of my grandfather. I can't bear to watch our once great country keep getting hammered by psychopathic politicians.
58
A green wave is most certainly coming, and with it, the truth will wash over us. La vérité sortira.
As important as it is to vote while we still have the chance, it’s usually not the best idea to cling to false hope. Theoretically, we likely could salvage enough of our future as a species to ensure a few extra years or so, but only if most of the species was actively engaged in solving the environmental crises that we have unleashed.
I’m not holding my breath.
8
I'm one of those Teddy Roosevelt conservatives Tim is talking about, and here's the problem. Until the Democrats (or the Republicans, for that matter) start fielding some credible candidates . . . and I underscore the word credible . . . I'm sitting it out. And I suspect that's exactly what a lot of Millennials (my two sons are in this category) are doing as well. We are fed up with the mediocrities we are asked to choose from. I can't stand Trump, but give me a palatable alternative.
7
@Captain America
"give me a palatable alternative."
How about a dob biscuit? Honestly, it's hard to imagine any politician, much less any human being, who could so consistently make the wrong decision on every issue the Babysnatcher decides. This is magnified to the 10th degree when it comes to environmental issues.
19
Captain,
Thus the "more evil" is allowed to prevail. At least cast a vote for the "less evil".
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Letter to William Smith [January 9, 1795]
35
ah, another Tim Egan column. Long on emotion, short on facts.
1) The wildfires in California aren't due to climate change
2) The anomalous heat that is forecast for the next 5 years -- is, if accurate -- not associated with CC per the forecasters, but natural variation.
3) As for the four hottest years - well, according to the very poor data base that climate scientists use from 1880-now, that may be true. But that data base is based only on estimates and guesses -- definitely until around 1960. Maybe a little better now, but still for the most part a mess -- most of the global land masses had no temp collecting stations in 1900 and before and most were on coastal areas. More stations in place now, but still very sparse in many areas.
4) The US doesn't show much of anything but normal variation as the graph from NOAA shows below.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/national/time-series
5) The roll back of land by Trump was simply reducing in size massive federal land grabs by Clinton and Obama -- and those areas are still larger than they were in 1995.
6) Coal may be dirty but it helped build this country and we still need some.
7) Don't you think all those people going to conventions and wheeling around to visits national parks should stay home and reduce their carbon foot print.
4
I don’t think people who get out and enjoy their environment need to reduce their carbon footprint, in fact I would encourage them to do more of it. Travel is healthy for the mind and body. This can be done in hybrid or electric cars or with the use of buses and trains or bicycles. I would encourage people to visit these beautiful monuments often, and enjoy and learn and respect the land.
We don’t need more land for cows or coal or gas or oil. There is enough of that. We need this land for mental and physical health and for the spirit.
I would encourage people not to fall for the cynical arguments you make, dry and without emotion they read like the bullet points of a corporate shill or a pimp for filthy energy sources.
48
@Ralphie
The graph from NOAA does not support your thesis, take another look if you're really interested in facts.
" massive federal land grabs " Wow, where have I heard this phrase before? Ask your friends at FOX to explain, if they can, the difference between "massive federal land grabs" and holding lands in trust for the use of the public at large.
Coal? Your comment doesn't even deserve a rebuttal. How 'bout we abandon this death fuel (in so many ways) and encourage alternative industries in to locate in formerly coal producing areas?
7) reducing the carbon foot print: wonderful idea. I take it you support investment in public transportation and electric/hybrid vehicles!
41
@Ralphie - your first 4 points denying the problem of Climate Change are a waste of typing. Climate Change is as close to fact as one can get among the scientific community. Only people with a closed mind can close out overwhelming scientific agreement on this issue. For every link you place out there that you believe refutes the facts of climate change there are 10 studies, 10 documentaries and 20 studies that support it. Let's not waste time on non-issues.
Point 5: If your point is even true, so what? Public land belongs to every citizen of the United States. Who is the land set aside for now? (hint: see response to point 7)
Point 6: "Coal may be dirty but it helped build this country" You could use this kind of argument to support slavery, organized crime, and asbestos. Yet they are all illegal and/or condemned. That doesn't need further explanation, does it?
Point 7: That may be a valid point to debate, but that's no reason to give the land away to polluters and dirty fossil fuel corporations.
33
First, I am not a believer in a silent great majority or in a green wave.
Second, the actions being taken by this administration are not anti-environment. They are balancing access for Americans to American lands with a necessary but not overprotective regulation of our environment.
President Obama overstepped his authority by setting aside huge tracts of land and water in national monuments, counter to the Antiquities Act's restriction that "areas of the monuments are to be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected."
President Trump was correct in reassessing their creation in accordance with that act.
3
This is a matter of opinion, your assessment that these Democratic Presidents overstepped their authority. Also your characterization of the creation of these important monuments as “ land grab” is cynical. Who did they grab from? Native Americans? An argument could be made for that. Did they grab from ranchers? No the ranchers didn’t own the land.From oil and gas interests? No contracts were broken. No grab was made. The land has been reserved for use by the public. If that’s a grab, let’s have some more.
41
@rcrigazio, Have you been to Escalante Grand Staircase or Bears Ears? No? You've not taken the opportunity to hike through these areas? The are magnificent! And personally, I think they need to be protected in perpetuity. The actions of the administration to shrink most of these monuments are beyond the pale.
43
After the initial commotion, I decided to visit the lands to do some hiking and camping over a period of a few days. What I observed was remarkable in beauty. I used to think of monuments as a man-made marble structure giving homage to a historical figure, but this area of land is much more. It's vast. There, one can truly begin to understand the profundity and importance of momentary solitude. It's historical. Anyone taking the time to walk through its gulches and canyons will carry a sense of discovery with them as they stumble upon dozens of practically unmarked reminders of those who inhabited the land before the United States of America existed. While hiking there you almost feel like you're walking through someone's home while they aren't there. It's teeming with wildlife. Just after twilight, the rabbits, snakes, spiders, frogs, and bats abound. The once seemingly uninhabited land of the sun is revived for a sort of nightly festival with the rise of the moon. The few inches of water remaining from a prior rainfall become full of life. More than anything, Bears Ears is a monument to the open natural spaces that exist within this country's borders. Much of the developed world and much of our country doesn't know areas so vast.
87
this is the best piece I've read in a long time. Thank You.
59
But... abortion! I tend to believe, like Egan, that most Americans would line up behind a more environmentally sustainable approach to the future and preservation of public lands, but the interests opposing these concepts have also lined up with the greatest dividers or our populace - namely antiabortion activists and gun rights.
It's tragic that we are having issues of grave importance - environmental stewardship, foreign policy, and immigration to name a few - mishandled due to the fervent and genuine opposition to abortion. I personally support abortion rights, but there are so many more urgent issues facing this world right now...
How do we get people to leave this divide behind and work together to protect our planet? I want to share your optimism, Mr. Egan, but it's hard for me to believe that we can overcome this and a few other obstacles for the good of mankind.
23
Interesting thesis Mr. Egan. But I myself and all of my friends are outdoor enthusiasts. I think that most of us have backpacked in the Grand Canyon or Glacier, hiked Banff, fished in Alaska and walked or cycled all over the Rockies. Most of us are active in Indivisible and I cannot recall that Trump's assault on our wonderful natural world has ever come up. Lot of concern about pollution, global warming, alternative energy and clean air and water. And not much at all about extinction. Next meeting I will open the subject.
13
I tend to examine premises before arguments based on them; and Tim’s major premise here appears to be sound (I’ll get to the argument). If we can’t manage to find a way to balance an aggressively consumerist global society, and the needs of emerging economies and their masses yearning to break into the middle-class by exploiting cheap energy, with a biosphere that comfortably supports human life in ways that we find acceptable today, then global civilization will collapse and we will return to a greener existence – with its curtailed lifespans and harder existences. If we resolve to do something big about it, we’ll need to settle perforce, at least for a time, with less consumerism, but also with less ability to maintain the democratic-socialisms that drive Europe and other societies, and that liberals here wish would drive America to a far greater extent.
In either case, the likelihood is high that we’re in for a greenER “wave”. Of course, the only truly sure bet is that whatever happens the cockroaches will not only survive but prosper. But, one way or another, we’re headed for a greener reality.
Tim’s argument, though, sets up this premise, which I accept, then argues for something – some fervent tree-hugger dream – of a political reversal in America based on a major premise that inadequately supports his argument. In part, this is because his minor premise is invalid: Trump et al are not seeking to destroy today’s environment so beloved …
3
… by tree-huggers like Tim. What they seek to do is strike a balance that prioritizes economic well-being as highly as environmental preservation; and that is an adversarial argument that will resonate with far more voters than his will.
Voters, by and large, are not single-issue adherents; but if they were that single issue wouldn’t be the environment but their economic prosperity.
3
28% of land is federally owned. Even if you constrain the discussion to the west it is 48%. Seems like the balance is already in favor of commercial use.
10
After reading many of the writings of those moved by the imperilled conditions of our panet earth, I was reminded of Henry Beston's poem, Orion Rises on the Dunes, from the Outermost House. There is no more passionate nor faithful words than those he penned so many years ago. We can argue about what to do, and we should, but we must not forget our inheritance from the generations who preceded us. We must stop equivocating and act not only for ourselves, but for future generations to come.
Do no dishonor to the earth
lest you dishonour'
the spirit of man. Hold
your hands out over the earth
as over a flame.
To all who love her, who open to her the doors
of their veins, she gives of her strength,
sustaining them wiyh her own measureless tremor of dark life,
Touch the earth,
love the earth,
honor the earth,
her plains, her valleys,
her hills, and her seas; rest
your spirit in her solitary places.
For the gifts of life are the earth's and
they are given to all, and they are the songs
of birds at daybreak, Orion
and the Bear, and the dawn
seen over ocea
from the beach.
26
The most important inconvenient truth is that as long as there is still an elite "bipartisan love" of adding 30 million more resource-land consumers and polluters to the USA every decade via mass immigration, the environment that the 99% have to live in will never be safe from the growth greed of our 1%. And this will continue largely because journalist 1% propagandists like Egan who work for the open borders NY Times will continue to distract us with declarations of love for remote preserved areas that Aldo Leopold called "museum pieces". Museum pieces both because of their rarity and the difficulty of common citizens accessing them. But our 1% controlled media via Egan will allow some of these to be defended while they destroy the rest of America by "filling it up with immigrants" for "economic growth", because our 1% like to build their 2nd and 3rd homes on the border these government lands and so have million acre 'back yards' paid for by but largely inaccessible to the common herd of American losers.
6
Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument is easily reached by car or public transportation from many areas of large population in the west-southwest and four corners areas.
Accommodations are inexpensive and camping is available. The monument is well maintained by BLM and there exists several remote visitor interpretive centers.
The area is beautiful beyond belief, to be enjoyed by anyone so interested. A life changing experience of beauty, solitude, and lessons in natural history, no matter your color or origin.
25
By God, I hope your assessment and prediction is right on the mark, Mr. Egan.
Enough voters must consider our environment, our natural world, and climate change at least as important as immigration, the economy—those who benefit from it and taxation policies, and those whose lives minimally or don't benefit—or another issue at the top of their list.
There must be enough Americans—millenials, the less prosperous, people of color, immigrants eligible to vote, and affluent and suburban folks—voting this November who prioritize the preservation of our world, challenging climate change, and the improvement of our natural world.
Finally, I believe America's choice is not either well-paying and -benefitted jobs or a healthy, sustainable environment. We truly can have both.
23
For what else will matter when our air and water are unbreathable and undrinkable, when crops fail, and our forests, oceans and wildlife are destroyed? Earth is our home; guns won’t save it, neither will outlawing immigrants, imposing tariffs or forcing women to give birth.
11
“…put aside our differences and stand together for the places we love…”
Yes. And one of them is this country. Please stop with the "I know Trump is awful, but the other person is a DEMOCRAT."
You can go back to partisan voting when we clear this precipice.
16
The most fundamental thing the green revolution will require is to put people in power that actually believe in science. All else flows from this most basic component.
The next thing is for all of you to stop eating meat.
Whoa, you say. We are talking about federal parks being shrunk and conserving them, while driving electric cars. Aye, all of those things are important, but they are but a fraction of what it will take to reverse the gases (methane in particular from cows ) that is warming up the planet.
Oh, and try shopping and supporting your local economy.
There is no need to buy that fruit, vegetable, nut that has traveled from across the country, or the across the world. You conserve the energy that it costs to bring it to your plate, and you conserve your own jobs, and community.
Besides, you will be healthier and live longer.
43
"At a time of real peril for the things that most Americans love, the silent green majority has had enough."
Yeah. The peril is real. The green majority may or not be real. The silence...now that is definitely real. Could not be more real. As for how "woke" that silent majority actually is now...I guess we'll see in November, but I'm not convinced. Sorry Tim.
Why wasn't this green majority awake in 2016? Why? Part of the reason is those on the far left buying into the meme that Democrats and Republicans are the same on the environment. Check with League of Conservation Voters and you'll see nothing could be further from the truth. But still you have Berniebros and Green Party know-nothings spouting that nonsense.
Trump and Hillary are the same on the environment. That was the so-called progressive/green party line. It's garbage...pure unadulterated GARBAGE. Would Hillary have pulled the USA out of the Paris accord? NO. Would Hillary have trashed the EPA like Trump has? NO. But because Hillary did not make the environment the centerpiece of her campaign, she and the Democrats were lumped together with the Trumpublicans by the greenies and berniebots.
Actually, it was worse than that. Jill Stein telling her supporters to vote for Trump. Talk about a circular firing squad...and the Democrats are famous for it...but they should hang their heads in shame. The greens do circular firing squads much tighter than the Democrats ever dreamed of.
VOTE OUT ALL REPUBLICANS
36
@rumpleSS Absolutely, unquestionably, and terrifically accurate assessment. The "I won't vote for Hillary" folks should indeed hang their heads in shame. As I have asked repeatedly, please, one Jill Stein voter (of whom there were enough in WI, MI and PA to turn the election for clinton had they voted rationally) explain how your vote assisted your country. If any of these voters are still comforting themselves by claiming that both Clinton and Trump are the same, then they are delusional. The same is true for the Bernie adherents. Bernie is terrific at identifying problems. He is terrible at developing actual workable plans to address them, outside of silly platitudes and generalizations. (Tax the rich; break up the banks.)
5
"God has cared for these trees, saved them from drought, disease, avalanches, and a thousand tempests and floods. But he cannot save them from fools."
John Muir
337
Where are the facts & data supporting your predictions Mr. Egan? Hope, hope, hope you are right but not it's not what I am sensing.
1
I wish Tim Egan was right, but people don't vote on environmental issues. They vote on other issues. The environment is a second tier issue - the economy, abortion, immigration are all more important to people.
Here is an outtake from the Pew Reach poll from 2017
"Many Americans view protecting the environment as a top priority, but higher shares cite other issues – like terrorism or the economy – as a top priority. More than half (55%) of Americans ranked the environment as a top policy issue that President Donald Trump and Congress should tackle this year, according to a January Pew Research Center survey. But defending the country from future terrorist attacks (76%) and strengthening the economy (73%) were at the top of the public’s priority list.
How environmental protection is prioritized also varies by political affiliation: Democrats and Democratic leaners (72%) are about twice as likely as Republicans and Republican leaners (35%) to cite protecting the environment as a top priority for Congress and the president. There are also differences by age, with adults younger than 30 more likely than those 65 and older to say that protecting the environment should be a top priority (64% vs. 48%)."
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/20/for-earth-day-heres-how-...
9
@skinny and happy
I fear you are right which means we must somehow educate people to understand that security and economic health are intrinsically linked to climate change. Today's Refugee Crisis will pale next to the Big One coming as whole swaths of earth sink under rising oceans, burn or starve from drought. Today's wars are mere skirmishes compared to those that will be fought over water.
10
@skinny and happy I wonder how the fires, floods and heat waves of this year have changed these attitudes.
1
Don't forget that for the public lands that remain, the Interior Department under Trump and Ryan Zinke is raising the fees for entrance. I think Mr. Egan is correct; we'll see a green wave this November with people from parties.
4
I don't own energy stocks. I'm not a member of the energy lobby. But most voters want cheap energy & aren't willing to pay more for renewables. We're still not ready to move to 100% clean energy. We can't & won't stop burning coal for the foreseeable future. Of all the fossil-fuel sources, coal is still inexpensive. It's a major factor in the low cost of electricity in the U.S. In 2015, 33% of our electricity came from coal. Renewables can't fill that gap at the present time. Coal & other fossil fuels are currently the only way we can meet the high demand for power now. The electricity demand on the power grid must be generated as its needed, in real time. There's no other option. When the demand for electricity suddenly spikes, we need to have the means available to generate that power immediately. Fossil fuels provide this capability, as we know that we can use an X amount of it to generate a Y amount of energy in a reliable manner at anytime, day or night. Solar, wind & hydro power is limited as we cannot generate hundreds or thousands of mega watts of power upon request if the Sun isn't shining or if the wind isn't blowing sufficiently. If we were simply forced to generate power through only clean methods at this point, there would be rolling brown-outs and power curfews like there are in 3rd world countries. The public won't stand for this. People are in favor of alternatives, but they don't want those alternatives compromise their lifestyle.
4
@Bill Brown
Indeed we can't produce 100% of our energy by renewables at this point. But this opinion piece isn't just about coal- it's about jobs and the fact that the current administration clearly values resource extraction jobs more than those in recreation and tourism. That's his right. But many argue we can in fact have both, but the extraction should be done in carefully selected (perhaps non-federal) areas.
As for the issues of needing instant power, there are certainly technical solutions. Pumped hydro. Stored steam. Large gyros. And perhaps the most feasible- a smart grid and car chargers that allow the grid to pull power FROM electric cars when plugged in. The technology already exists- we just need more electric cars and chargers at workplaces to make it happen (and yes, the $ to do it...).
14
@Bill Brown you could have written this reply exactly the same 10 years ago, not imagining the inroads that we were set to make in alternative energy in just a decade, both in production and price reduction. Mid American Energy, owned by Berkshire Hathaway, is planning to go completely renewable in the near future. Communities all over the country are investing in solar and making huge inroads. I don't know what drives you and the naysayers - is it disbelief in the market economy or the belief that nobody out there cares, but you guys are actually largely the problem right now. We can do this, piece by piece and much more quickly, efficiently and profitably than you, well, apparently don't believe! I'm sorry, but either be supportive or shut up and get out of the way!!!
6
A person more ignorant would be hard to find than the one now occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Everything, everyone, every creature, every artifact, he sees is seen through the lens of the dollar.
He's the personification of the phrase, "money can't buy happiness", if in fact, he has the money. I find it difficult to believe he's anywhere near happy on any scale....and....Show the tax returns, please.
Around 1895, Katharine Lee Bates wrote her poem: "Oh beautiful for spacious skies..." about the grandeur and beauty of the United States. Look it up, read the poem think about our children's future.
10
Odd, not long ago Mr. Egan wrote a column mocking people who were concerned with the damage caused by industrial food production. What's more, he, Paul Krugman, Michelle Goldberg, and all the other NYT's "centrists" routinely denigrate and dismiss people who dissent from the two industrial parties. I hope he means what he is saying now. It directly contradicts what he's said in the past.
3
Tim Egan for President in 2020!!!
His commentaries are 1000% commonsensical. We need a person like TE in the Oval.
Thank you, Mr. Egan for this column. You couldn't be "righter."
17
Global warming doesn't exists and if it does it's Obama's fault.
5
Based on responses to my previous post, I feel compelled to explain myself more directly. The most blunt question was "who are you?" Certain professional limitations prevent me from addressing the specifics. However, it suffices to say I'm someone who knows a lot more about the outdoor industry and western politics than you do.
Those economic numbers Timothy Egan is quoting? I'm partially responsible for their creation. When you model several billion dollars of indirect consumer spending within a narrowly defined and largely unquantifiable industry, you have my permission to complain. If you do, I will happily explain who, what where, how and when those numbers are generated. Until then, please be quite.
The outdoor industry can be both a philanthropic organization while simultaneously behaving as a ruthlessly profit-oriented and self-interested industry. The two things are not mutually exclusive. Are the outdoor industry's interests more generally aligned with ecological conservation? When compared to the coal industry, yes. However, don't pretend like these are the corporate saviors to our environmental woes. You're deluding yourself.
Think about this: Yvon Chouinard, the founder of Patagonia, was considered a workplace pioneer for implementing childcare. What this nice story fails to explain is the textile design industry is predominately female and Patagonia's Ventura campus is notoriously inconvenient to reach. Welcome to capitalism presented as progressive ideology.
3
Tim and readers who may have seen my main comment (5 recs at 2:44 PM EDT, in which I emphasize that what counts is becoming well informed about renewable energy options, using as many as possible personally, and seeing what your region is doing to end fossil-fuel use as soon as possible.
At the end I ask readers what they know and what they do.
I got a fine detailed reply from a reader whom I do not identify geographically or personally. That reader is extremely well informed, is making changes within a personal budget framework, and is especially well informed about the energy system in the region.
I would like columnists like Tim to focus more on what his imagined Green Wave can actually do - NOW - rather than focusing on what we all already know about Trump.
Many thanks to that reader. And you?
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
11
The saga of the environment runs much deeper than Democrat-Republican. More attention should go to East-West. Private ownership of land is the thing in the East, which helps explain why Supefund sites abound, especially in New Jersey. In the West, it's the water that is privately owned. And one survey shows that the 25 cities with the worst public water are all west of the Mississippi.
There is so much more to conservation than climate change. The failure to duly regulate private lands and waters is a huge problem. Both parties shy away from laying down the law with the private sector. And that guts attempts to clean up our lands, our waters, and the air. Climate change is a long range nightmare. But in the short run it hasn't been a leading cause of injury or death. Old fashioned pollution kills 9 million Americans per year.
Much of our problem lies with the private sector, and it's entirely different in the East and the West. I would say, in a word, that the worst immediate problems are getting far too little attention from both parties. It's a bipartisan travesty.
20
Hope so. But history has shown, both electoral and revolutionary, that a coherent minority often runs roughshod over a diffuse and scattered majority. Say one thing for Republicans, they are coherent -- rooted in the irredentist south, in evangelical churches, and among old white rural people across the country. Republicans have done just fine with these three mega groups by waving the flags of nationalism, antipathy to non whites, hatred of gays, obsession with abortion, and love of guns. Yes, love of the natural world runs broadly in America, but it has not shown up with passion on election days past. This year, hope so.
16
"the silent green majority has had enough."
Couldn't agree more. We moved to northern Utah last year. It is gorgeous. But right now because of the forest fires, we can barely see the large Washatch mountain range outside our back window--9 fires here in UT).
The roads to the national parks are jammed in the summer, the waterways are generally packed on the weekends, and almost all of our neighbors are outdoors people hiking, boating, fishing, hunting, camping as often as they can. Tourism is a major industry here, and Utahans are proud of that.
Plus, many people here expressed their disgust with Trump taking away huge swaths of land from Bears Ears and the Grand Staircase Escalante. There were large protests.
The Catch:
When we first moved in, 3 sets of neighbors who came over to introduce themselves said the same things. After talking about the beauty of northern Utah and the many parks, they said, "Oh, and don't judge us by our politicians; they are terrible; they are out of touch with the people here."
Unlike Egan's state of WA, UT is a bright red state, and despite their love of the environment, Utahans tend to vote Republican (only 20% registered Democrats). They say they detest Trump's behavior, but shrug and explain they are LDS, conservatives, and have always voted Republican.
They say the politicians vote special interests and ignore what the people want. Yet they vote GOP. But the GOP votes against the environment.
How do we fix that?
40
Everyone seems to be on board with the premise of your piece, Tim, and while I read a few of the responses, only one mentioned the name of a potential leader for the effort to lead a straightforward attack on Trump and his acolytes. A piece in the NYT is food for thought, but us little folks out here, especially in the West, need to set our sights on a charismatic, visionary leader who can motivate those millenials and the rest of the electorate to vote Green in November. If that happens we might have a shot at displacing Trump in 2020.
9
In North Carolina there's a giant power grab going on by the power mad state legislators (I don't even want to call them Republican- they don't deserve that title). This power grab is in the form of state constitutional amendments, one of which is to "protect the right to hunt and fish" in a cynical ploy to fool people into supporting all of the amendments.
The amendment to protect the right to hunt and fish does nothing to protect the land and waters. If the land and waters are not protected, there won't be any animals to hunt or fish to fish. But you'll still have the right, I guess, to "try". It is absurd.
10
This wonderful article, and the sentiment it expresses, calls to mind the rarely sung or quoted lyrics from Woody Guthrie’s “This Land is Your Land”:
As I went walking, I saw a sign there
And on the sign it said “No Trespassing,”
But on the other side it didn’t say nothing,
That side was made for you and me.
14
Today’s Republican and Democratic Parties are emphatically not environmentalists. The base for both parties is concerned primarily with human comfort issues – housing near urban amenities, carbon heavy e-consumerism, and endless new energy-consuming devices, among many other desires. The right wants increased wealth for corporations, and the left wants increased wealth for all – but wealth comes at the expense of the earth and its creatures no matter which human group it benefits.
An excellent NYT article, “Losing Earth”, noted that scientists in the 1980s knew that just a single light bulb in every village worldwide would cause drastically increased carbon emissions. Yet development of the unexploited regions of the world continued apace, satisfying the first world’s demand for corporate expansion and concurrently salving guilt that much of the third world’s peoples did not have a western lifestyle. This, along with unbridled population growth, has led to the irreversible destruction of ecosystems and lifeforms, and a death spiral toward massive suffering and extinctions.
Continued in next post...
7
@Boudicca Thanks. Thanks for the perfectly "pure" example of a false equivalency. The current Trumpublicans are much worse than the Democrats on the environment (and pretty much everything else), but since the Democrats aren't perfect in the eyes of the greens and berniebots, lump them both together.
This is how Trump got elected. Frustrated purists on the left who didn't vote, voted for that nut job Stein, or actually voted for Trump to bring about a collapse of society leading to a revolution. As if the revolution would be green.
Here's a clue. If the voters make it a habit to actually pick the better environmental candidate between the republican and the democrat, the country will go green. You don't have to hold your breath and wait for the green party to suddenly catch on. The green party record shows more damage to the environment than results.
Yeah, I read the "Losing Earth" article. No supporting citation for the single light bulb causing drastic increased in carbon emissions. Define "drastic". However, carbon based energy for everyone...the planet is toast. Yeah, it's toast now, but it will burn that much quicker if we try to develop the whole world to USA standards.
The planet earth has an answer for unbridled population growth. People aren't going to like it. Climate change is just part of that equation.
VOTE OUT ALL REPUBLCANS
3
Continuation of earlier post...
The ultimate conundrum facing the world has not been clarified in a bold manner in these times. As Isaiah Berlin said, “Some among the great goods cannot live together. That is a conceptual truth. We are doomed to choose, and every choice may entail an irreparable loss.” We cannot have it all – and improving the comfort of humanity is in direct conflict with the continuing existence of the earth as we know it.
Both US political parties, and indeed all the world, need to viscerally understand this. Ways of living will either change because we humans understand limits, or because the implacability of natural events cause unbelievable suffering. I excoriate all of us, myself included, in this unfolding drama, as I type this missive on an electricity-consuming computer. Persons of opposite views in the realm of human political concerns need to come together – unifying on issues of population growth, uncontrolled housing development, consumerism and waste, even if it causes some limitation of perceived “rights”. At risk is everything we know as human-derived; including art, literature, history, agriculture. We are all radical environmentalists now.
8
The title of Rick Wilson’s book tells it all: “Everything Trump Touches Dies.”
President Trump and his Trumpuglican legislative enablers, together with his plutocratic and populist supporters, are destroying the natural and human environments which once undergirded our nation’s flourishing.
Short-term, unlightened self-interest unites all Trumpuglicans. Their shallow lives are devoid of any appreciation for science and common sense.
17
Trump has never been to a National park much less a wilderness.
8
@Grandmother
Chump’s idea of a national park is a golf club, and he doesn’t like animals, not even as pets. Could not be a worse choice to oversee Rinky-Dink.
4
When the pundits deride environmental issues as not having enough concerned constituents to warrant a place on the Dem's platform, I always reply, just wait. Politics is like that. People don't notice for a long time, then they notice, then their concern starts to snowball. Suddenly they are a major force. I pray an avalanche of snowballs will bury the Republicans this fall.
15
Just be sure that the progressives don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It may make one feel personally better to vote for the Green Party candidate over the Democrat, but if the result is a GOP victory that is a disaster.
12
Yes, Trump and his Republican backers are hostile to national parks. It has not been bipartisan for a long time, hardly since Teddy Roosevelt started it over the objections of some of his own.
It harms the cause though to mislead on the facts.
"Shrinking" Bears Ears is a very misleading version of the story.
It was political games against the incoming Administration. It was greatly expanded by Executive Order in the last days of the Obama Admin, fully expecting it could and would be reversed. It was done in a way that allowed political attacks, not in a way that would be a lasting national park.
It was then partly but not fully reversed within months by the incoming administration.
Bears Ears is bigger now than it was for almost 8 years of the Obama Admin. Bigger than it has ever been, except for the couple of months of political baiting as Obama went out the door.
4
@Mark Thomason. Firstly, these are not National Parks, they are National Monuments. Secondly, the expansion of the lands around the Grand Staircase, similarly to the expansion in 1998 by Clinton, I believe was mainly to prevent coal and other mining companies from destroying the land. You may not be aware that a Canadian firm has already purchased rights to mine in the Grand Staircase.
20
@Mark Thomason: You seem to know nothing about the history of Bears Ears National Monument (not national park).
The proposal had been in the works for many years, and it was Native Americans formed a coalition to have it designated. Hoping to prevent that, Utah Rep. Rob Bishop, chair of the House Natural Resources Committee, included a National Conservation Area that would have given some protection for the Bears Ears, in a bill he had introduced for Utah.
Pres. Obama made it clear that he would prefer legislative protection, but if it didn’t happen, he would act on his own. Rep. Bishop’s bill went nowhere. So Obama used the Antiquities Act, which authorizes the president to designate national monuments. That’s why it happened at the end of Obama’s second term.
It had absolutely nothing to do with "political games against the incoming Administration."
Almost all legal scholars believe that a president has no authority to revoke or reduce a previous monument designation—only Congress can. (That is the legal principle at the heart of the lawsuits that have been filed to overturn the current administration's actions.) Therefore, no one even gave any thought to the idea that Bears Ears and the Grand Staircase-Escalante NM would be reversed by this administration.
To call the original designation “political baiting” shows ignorance of the facts, or it is disingenuous.
41
@Mark Thomason
Bears Ears National Monument is a United States national monument located in San Juan County in southeastern Utah, established by President Barack Obama by presidential proclamation on December 28, 2016. The monument's original size was 1,351,849 acres (547,074 ha), which was controversially reduced 85% by President Donald Trump.
7
Thanks for the inspiration. As a conservation biologist for the past 38 years working to conserve and protect sensitive species, habitats and ecosystems, the past two years have been like a horrible nightmare. The only thing that will change this is voting. Register to vote and VOTE in every election.
74
Theodore Roosevelt once said, "It is not what we have that will make us a great nation; it is the way in which we use it." He also managed to convince his own Republican base that protecting the great outdoors was the right thing to do, not an easy feat even then. No need to wonder what today’s GOP would say to his position on parks and conservation. If only the old pugilist could have a few minutes alone with resident Trump.
14
Everyone hopes you are right but why weren't people in the streets as soon as Scott Pruitt started. Remember him ? Many people have been speaking out about many issues but other than the media and some people who are intimately involved, there have not been very many voices demanding protection for the planet.
19
@Bnormal: 1,400 people turned out last week in Steamboat Springs, Colorado to protest a speech that Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke made there. Thousands showed up in Salt Lake City, Utah when Mr. Trump visited to sign his orders shrinking Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments.
People are out, even it it's not always widely reported.
17
@MJ of course nothing was done...there has to be violence before they will do anything...it has been the way of the world since the beginning of time.
Just what we need to be the temporary head of the EPA is a coal lobbyist and a climate change denier. It does not seem likely that Andrew Wheeler will point us in a new or better direction. Let us pray the the Millennials will mobilize and vote. Indeed they should be concerned, it is their lives and their children's that are mostly at risk.
There have been many comparisons made lately between Trump and Nixon. While they share many similiarities there is a gigantic difference in their feelings about the environment. We might be in even worse shape if it were not for the Clean Air and Water Act passed in 1972.
To:All Millennials it is time to prove yourselves. Learn everything you can. Follow the science. Stay focused and committed. Please, go with your gut. Above all, VOTE!
17
Inspiring idea but hardly realistic. Outdoor Retailers is hardly the place to go for a realistic sense of western politics. I'm glad we have an environmental lobby but things are a little more complicated on the ground than Mr. Egan suggests. For instance, he doesn't explain that the Outdoor Industry Association had been negotiating with the Utah Governor's Office of Economic Development for years over the terms and conditions of the OR show's continued presence in Salt Lake City.
While I'm sure Yvon Chouinard believes passionately about our public lands, OR is in Colorado now because Governor Herbert couldn't come up with enough concessions to appease the outdoor industry. I experienced this debate from both sides. The state could have tried harder but Escalante was just an excuse. Even Republicans in Utah are well aware that outdoor recreation buoy's a large portion of the state's economy. OR wanted to leave. The state legislature couldn't buy them back.
As for green voters, I have to point the finger to the left on this one. Democrats constantly demean and disparage anyone who votes on environmental issues over party loyalty. The Obama environmental legacy was an improvement but also highly compromised by special interests and party orthodoxy. I don't remember Clinton mentioning the environment at all. Why should green voters expect any different now?
The right is anathema to environmental issues but I wouldn't expect a wave of enthusiasm when the left is lukewarm.
7
@Andy The Outdoor Retailers moved their annual show to Denver out of Utah to protest state politics that helped to shrink Bear's Ears and Escalante. This move clearly demonstrated that their well being is tied not only to those of us who recreate on public lands, but to the outdoor retailers who can choose where to spend their money. Financial dollars and cents, after all, is a universal language.
9
Who are you?
President Clinton *created* Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument.
That day, in Utah:
“...I want to thank, more strongly than I can ever convey to you, the Vice President [Gore] for his passion, his commitment, his vision, and his sheer knowledge of environmental and natural heritage issues. It has become a treasure for the United States and I have mined it frequently for 4 years.”
“...and I read Earth in the Balance, and I realized it was a profound book by someone who knew things I wanted to learn.”
Imagine if Gore had not been beaten by the Supreme Court. Perhaps we could have Saved the Planet.
15
@Andy I doubt that there are many of our elected Federal officials that have much real experience with nature, the great outdoors or fish and wildlife management issues. Jon Tester and a few others get it but inside the beltway 'outdoors' largely means golf or lobbyists boxes at Nationals or Redskins games ! Lefies - and I am one - by and large have never been hunting, fishing or camping. Teddy Roosevelt was unique as a President. We need more leaders that have 'real lives' and fewer that are from the inner circles of elite white maledom.
1
Of course I hope that Tim Egan is correct here, but I fear that he may not be. I am absolutely shaken with fear about the specter of climate change, but as I speak about it with friends, family, and colleagues I am met with a resounding sense of complacency. For some reason people just don't "get it" or otherwise appreciate the enormity of the crisis. I try to appeal to the concerns for their kids' futures, and people basically yawn and say "we'll see." The people who are alarmed and astonished are viewed by many as "survivalists with a fantasy for the end of the world." I know for sure that is not the basis for my concern. The basis for my concern is my love for my children and how I don't want them to die from starvation, heat stroke, or thirst at any point in the future.
I basically base my fears in my own observations of how hot southern California has become in recent years--the change here has been nothing less than vivid (despite the smoke in the air). And not even 10% of the people I know care about it or think the change is cognizable. The entire scenario is like what you'd expect in a particularly scary horror novel. If we were rational beings we would immediately establish a Manhattan Project-style committee and get every aspect of this problem under intense scrutiny. There is a "clear and present danger" to the well-being of our country, not to mention the entire planet.
And, I don't have enough remaining words to discuss plastic waste....
19
@LG: Hello, LG: Thank you for your comments here on the apathy taken by most of the family & others that you speak with about climate change/global warming.
I'm wondering about what kinds of political actions you're involved in--I'd be very interested to know about which organizations or action committees you've found to be useful in your quest for beginnings on implementing eventual non-carbon lifestyles.
I'll be checking back here later today, so I hope we can connect. I'm just starting out but very ready to get involved in whatever I can to get changes made!
Thank you.
1
I hope you are correct. My expectations are limited.
1
Great op-ed from a great writer. Let’s do more than hope, as some comments here suggest, that people who respect the environment go to the polls this fall. If all those who read this piece and agree with it write an impassioned letter to the editor of their local papers, that may inspire others who are not paying as much attention to get out and Vote Green this November.
5
We have a Sec. of Interior who thinks our current fire season disasters are a "forest management problem", this in spite of the fact that the Dept of Interior manages very little forest land. Trump is feeding into the mindset of the Malheur Refuge occupiers that think public land is for THEIR personal profit. The real fact is that most Americans, no matter what their political affiliation believe that conservation of resources and good stewardship of public land as a public trust is in everyone's interest. Just add up the number of visitors to National Parks.
6
In the Driftless Region of the Upper Mississippi River Valley there are several environmental challenges. There is frack sand mining with the resultant carcinogenic silica dust, there is the use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer that pollute all waterways, and there are the under regulated confined animal feed operations (CAFOs), that pollute the ground water. The Walker Administration, upon inauguration declared Wisconsin open for business. Which really meant that corporations were welcome to Wisconsin’s natural resources and you may not have to clean up after yourself. In the Central Sands Region of Wisconsin bottled water companies are pumping more water out of the aquifers than can be replaced. This drains seepage types of lakes, rivers, streams, and effects the irrigation of vegetable growers.
There are examples of these issues in all of the States. It is time to place the conservation and protection of our environment. It is the only one we have.
6
Mother Nature IS on the ballot, in every Election. It’s called the Democratic Party, and we are the party of Science, and FACTS.
Vote a straight DEM ticket, in every election, every single time.
PERIOD.
11
@Phyliss Dalmatian
Thank you Phyliss. I agree, if not 100%. And that's the point. Democrats are not perfect. Some are better than others...but as a party, they are far, far, far better than the republicans. We need to take back control of congress...and then we can worry about whether the Democrats that are in there are doing enough.
Once Democrats and Republicans come to realize that people are voting to save the environment...they will all be much more willing to listen to environmental concerns.
VOTE OUT ALL REPUBLICANS
3
So many of the people who are concerned about the environments also own guns and they will support Trump all the way. This is not going to be easy....
4
Oh, if it were really true!
Where have these silent millions been for the last three decades or so, especially since the GOP took over everything in D.C. and most of the states?
Will the young voters and old bird watchers, and people like me who love the national monuments, really get their backs up this November and throw the republicans into the dumpster?
We can only hope it is true.
5
Unfortunately for Tim's argument, it does not take into account that people prioritize. Yes, the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers may be furious, but it's a safe bet they are also gun owners, possibly even with NRA membership cards in their wallets, next to their BHA IDs. The same goes for Minnesotans who want to keep the BWCA wilderness. They fish, they hunt, they own guns. Ditto many whose livelihoods are dependent on the tourists visiting the national parks and forests.
Part of the NRA's outsized influence is its longstanding and unrelenting lie that Democrats will take your guns away, and that message, true or not (and, it is not) is what is remembered in the voting booth.
All of what Tim says here may be true, but so is what I have written. I am a gun owner; I have voted only once, in the 53 years I have been eligible to vote, for a Republican. But for most gun owners, including untold thousands of otherwise reasonable Democrats, when even the whiff of guns is aloft in the polling places they see their choice as their guns or clean water, guns or magnificent forests, guns or frightful gashes in the earth's crust, even guns and the orca (though the connection may so tortured as to be beyond ridiculous), and they pencil in the circle by the (R) candidate. Their priorities are what they vote, and for oh so many, their guns trump all, even their livelihoods, their families, and their love of the land.
5
Of all the good reasons to oppose this wretched administration, the blue marble is probably the best. But where's the voice, the organizing, the mustering, the mobilization of the green voters?
I fear their participation is being assumed in the same way that Millenials and African Americans were certain to turn out in 2016.
7
Oh Tim; If only it were so!
3
Incredibly important opinion piece Timothy Egan. Thank you so much for putting these points down to make a great read piece. Now bring on the wave please. Milleniels PLEASE vote with us green boomers.
8
I hope you are right and Green Wave will wash away the arrogance and ignorance about the public land
3
Sixty million bird watchers? That's nearly one American in five, including children. I agree with you in large, but that's nonsense.
2
@Robert Jacobs I'll bet Tim was including anyone who watches birds even a little. So, let's throw in people with bird feeders. That's probably most of the 60 million number. And most of the those people know nothing about the environment or the birds that come to their feeders. I've met a few of them.
There's quite a difference between people who are interested in the welfare of individual animals...and those interested in animals in general. Why so many people can't make the connection is a question for the ages. The result is people concerned about the birds at their feeder, but not birds in general. Or the habitat, or the ecology, or the environment.
My neighbors feed the local birds, but vote for Trump. What was your question again?
4
Having brought us W and Trump, the Green party is reviled in America.
The environmental ideas they champion are good, but they need to dump the green party label.
Stein was a Putin supporter. Nader almost destroyed the planet.
4
@Amalek: Dear Amalek, please make a reality check concerning your assertions about Dr. Jill Stein and Mr. Ralph Nader--you don't make sense here.
Thank you.
1
I hope you are right because this, not guns, god, gays, abortion rights or any of the myriad of issues that divide us, is the most important issue facing not just our country, but all of humanity. We’re running out of time to make a difference. Just think, if we save the planet, we can go back to fighting about everything else!
12
Please, please be right. We need to stand together before our beautiful and sacred spaces are turned over to corporations and our precious natural resources are squandered by an administration that sees the world through a lens from the 1950’s.
2
May it be a Green Tsunami -- Too Big to Rig!
4
I hope you're right about a green wave, but I doubt it. The great increase in visitors to our national parks is mainly due to tourists from others countries. Thanks to the ease of planning trips and booking campsites with the internet, it is impossible to visit a national park now without dealing with crowds like you would normally encounter at disneyland.
There are too many humans on this planet. We must stop breeding.
14
I worked with a Republican who was right of center. His parents lived in Maryland and they were also right of center. But his father was very vigilant about the health of the environment because he was a duck hunter. There are many Republicans who understand what a huge part our environment plays in our quality of life. This would be an important group to tap into, but I have lost total faith in the Democratic Party. Except for a few, like the Senators from Oregon, they have become a feckless bunch of self important individuals who need to be replaced. They sit on their hands and wait for their paychecks and eventually retirement checks. It is time that the Northeast and West Coast quit having to carry the load for the entire Democratic Party.
1
The Coming Green Wave and The End of The Modern World As We Know It. P.S. YOU give up your air conditioning, TV, automobile, private airplane, cell phone, computer, electric guitar, &ct., FIRST!
1
There's no love of nature in Trump's soul, the closest you can get to it is tee time.
3
The orgies of the elite in the Roman Empire don't even glimmer in the orgy of wasteful burning of fuel and demolition of the environment being carried out in this 150 years of the millennia of human history.
Within two generations we are going to be the most hated group of people in thousands of years of human existence. It is nothing but contemptible greed that forces the burning of every scrap of fossil fuel that we can lay our hands on and then leave our sewage and poisons in the oceans, the air, and in the landscape for others to worry about later.
Producing a profit for Wall Street so that next quarter's profits will increase is all that counts, in a context where mankind has existed for a minimum of 5000 years if not tens of thousands more.
There is no perspective here. No view of the history of man, no glimmer of intelligence about the future, just that next Twitter message and to make sure you are always near a cell tower to avoid missing a text. (There are no cell towers in some National Parks, so don't go there. There is a minority that revel in that fact however.)
9
First, thank you for writing the book Worst Hard Times about the Dustbowl. People should harken to the lessons of the Dustbowl. That was not fake science. Rise up, Birders! Rise up members of every environmental organization and members of retail outlets selling outdoor gear!
However, the concern I have is that the Green Party will take away votes from the Democrats who would support environmentally sound laws, and this action will help the Republicans who support the rape of the public lands in the name of capitalism.
12
Obama stole the land, Trump gave it back.
1
Dear Mr. Egan,
The number of nature and outdoor lovers has not drastically changed since the 2016 elections. A vast majority of them probably did not vote for Trump, and now, more enraged, will not vote in November for legislators in Trump's camp. But that is not sufficient to sway the country to put democrats in power. With a Trump approval rating among republicans in the high 70's percentile you can scrub the republicans as substantial change agents. The urban and suburban masses need to be motivated, the ones who need more basic needs to achieve a decent standard of living. To them AGW, land rape and other nature-related issues are not first priorities. If bird watchers and other nature lovers are truly angry and motivated for change they must get involved in the process of registering new voters and getting them out to the polls. The Koch brothers and their brethren will try to assure that the republicans remain in power by ad avalanches and by impeding voters from exercising their right to vote. The only way to impede Trump from continuing raping our land, polluting our water and air is to gain a veto proof majority in congress; even court actions become exceedingly more difficult with the ever more conservative judiciary. A veto proof congress on issues related to the environment is virtually impossible. A democratic-controlled house can slow Trump down a bit, but his removal in 2020 is absolutely necessary for our survival.
18
I sure hope you are correct. Viktor Yanukovych Paul Manafort's sugar daddy stands in exile in Russia because he sold one too many pieces of Ukraine to the world's oligarchs. President Yanukovych is charged with treason which if I remember was once a serious crime in America before the Stars and Bars became the battle flag of new patriots.
2
@Memphrie et Moi
My great grandparents fled the Ukraine a century and a half ago and even then Russia's aristocracy stoked the anger as they took everything that was not nailed down and blamed the Jews. Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown for doing what your Department of the Interior was charged to do. Does every hill in West Virginia need to be levelled before America does what Ukrainians did?
Viktor Yanukovych was charged with treason. He stands beside Vladimir Putin in Russia a wanted man in the country where he was once president.
1
I'm beginning to love the smoke white sky here in Michigan. After all, it's adapt or die. And if I were to ever see a monarch butterfly flit across my yard my eyes might pop out of my head. I use to see at least a few every summer. No more. Once we had Baltimore orioles visit every spring and build their nest at the very top of our then 60 year old maple tree. They started their singing around 5 AM and it was loud but incredibly beautiful.
My assets have risen in the past 40 years, but the life outside my house has not. In that respect I am becoming poor and barren, but I do vote and I give money to the Nature Conservatory organization and I do tell my two adult grandsons if they have more than two kids I will come back and haunt them.
15
Hi Tim,
Great piece, as always. Thanks. I have an op-ed idea I want to throw at you. How about helping Democrats take the offensive in the upcoming elections by writing a piece arguing that unless the federal government implements all measures recommended by U.S. security experts and authorized by Congress to protect the U.S. from Russian tampering, which has been proven to be exclusively in favor of Republican candidates, then any victories by Republicans in the upcoming elections should be considered suspect or even invalid?
3
Sure hope you're right.
We'll have to wait and see if they get out
and vote or just talk a good game!
2
I wish Mr. Egan's passion would show up at the polls in the way he says it will. Yet when people are asked, environmental issues consistently rank at the bottom of public policy issues their government should address. At the end of the day, Mr. Trump hasn't created our environmental problems. His vile persona enrages but is only the tip of the melting iceberg. It is our collective failure to understand and accept that each of us contributes to environmental harm every day. It is this failure, combined with an unwillingness to bear the burdens it will take to solve these many problems, that should draw our attention. When rage fades, the real problems with persist.
5
It was the hope back when the modern ecological movement began around five decades ago that clean air, water and land would be issues supported across the political spectrum. People who scoff at NIMBYs stop complaining about “tree huggers” when it is their own backyards being spoiled, or so the thinking goes.
As an example: groups like Clearwater and Riverkeeper have been so successful over the years because the towns and people of the Hudson River Valley feel that the river is theirs. Climate change may be too large and issue for a majority of us to embrace. It has been my observation over the decades that local majorities support my stream or my lake or my river from being polluted.
If we all, to modify a popular slogan a bit, think and act locally, global improvement will follow.
22
A green wave is necessary for human survival! Let's wage World War CO2!
"Impossible" inventions can replace fossil fuels fast. They might save an average family of 4 $8,000 per year in fuel costs!
For example, water will easily and inexpensively substitute for gas, diesel or jet fuel. Surprising new technology has made it possible to convert combustion engines to run on water. Cars, trucks, ships, aircraft and power plants can substitute water for fossil fuels.
Breakthroughs can extract the water from the air, even in regions of low humidity, ending the need to refuel. See MOVING BEYOND OIL at aesopinstitute.org to learn more.
Abrupt Global Warming needs hard to believe new science to give humanity a fighting chance for survival.
Sadly, the handful of inventions that can help fast enough to matter are dismissed as they disagree with textbook dogma.
Climate change has made that sad reality unacceptably dangerous.
Vicious anonymous Troll attacks discourage urgently needed support with rants featuring lies and distortions.
Bold capital can dramatically impact the climate problem worldwide - by investment in little known technical progress.
Surprising discoveries can change the world even faster than Apple did with hand-held devices.
Brave individuals are needed to support new green approaches. The inventors and small firms doing this urgent work lack sorely needed support. Assistance now will make an enormous difference - and may save a great many lives.
11
Thank you Mr. Egan for another brilliant article. I recently moved to Costa Rica a country that has turned the natural beauty of their country into their largest income producing enterprise. This in turn inspires them to preserve as much of this natural beauty as possible and to think green for the future in terms of energy production. This country's approach to their natural inheritance is a model for all. It's a shame that all of the preservation organizations, The Sierra Club, NRDC, Audubon, Ducks unltd, etc. and business interests have not, to my knowledge, developed some kind of umbrella organization to serve as a multiplier of our individual political voices. As you point out the economic advantages of preservation far outweigh extraction. It seems ridiculous that an organization of such as the NRA manages to wield the clout that it does, yet the vastly superior numbers of wilderness/nature enthusiast, cannot find a means of playing anything other than defense, i.e. lawsuits. We are divided by organizations thus easily conquered. I would love to see a national convention of all interested organizations, a congress if you will, that would work out a means of uniting our disparate voices under one political voting block with the sole intent of preserving our natural heritage for the benefit of all. Every two years 6 months prior to elections a convention would be held that would, through sheer numbers, force aspiring pols to come genuflect to us instead of the NRA.
88
@Eric
Agree totally. It's also exhausting to realize that we have to vote up and down the ballot relentlessly, and forever now. To get rid of Rinky-Dinky, for example, we obviously have to vote Chump out. That will take years. At the local and regional level, too, it's hard for the average voter to discern what a politician's environmental platform really is. Anyone running for office these days is forced to blather incessantly about jobs and healthcare, and little else. I'm not very optimistic at this point about our ability as a species to make wise, long-term decisions regarding the planet's health.
3
@Eric: Thanks for singing this song along with me. I've been trying for years to coalesce JUST the climate-concern community with no appreciable success. We are so massively (potentially) strong and yet so currently ineffective, forming our little choirs and marchers that proudly sing and march, convincing few deniers and even fewer money-bought lawmakers. (Don't even get me started on the Supreme Court.) Too bad the fires and bad air haven't yet hit the swing states.
Perhaps the Global Action Summit in SF this September will help lead the way to your idea of a National Convention. I think that's what the Governor had in mind when he set it up.
2
This morning at about 4 am the lightning flashes woke me up, followed some seconds later by the thunder. The first thought in my sleepy mind was "more fires."
Sitting in a vacation rental above the banks of the Columbia River just north of the farming settlement of Orondo Washington, the west has been ablaze for weeks now from northern British Columbia to southern California. Mountains covered mostly by desert scrub and a few pines less than a half-mile away have been shrouded by smoke that our government, so hated by Conservatives, reports as anywhere from Unhealthful to Extremely Unhealthful.
We are long past the environmental crossroads. We are racing towards the cliff in an impregnable car complete with instant world-wide communications and armed guards, commanded by a madman who takes his routing instructions from those who see any government as an unconscionable attack on their profits and ever-expanding share of national wealth.
The clock is running out on human civilization. The alarm is set for November.
Don't push the snooze button.
Organize and VOTE!
151
My wife and I are planning our second trip to the Southwest in the last three years. To think that someday parts of thes parks and monuments might be covered with oil rigs, fracking fields, and mining operations is hard to take in.
6
@Bevan DaviesWon't happen.
@Bevan Davies Bevan, this question is connected to my comment about 10 down from yours, a comment drawing on my time in New England, including Maine.
1) How do you heat and cool your home?
2) What becomes of your solid waste and food waste?
My Gmail is at my blog
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
1
Yes, Mr. Egan, the environmental concerns surrounding our American reserved lands (whether National Parks, National Monuments, or just plain beauty available in wilderness areas) are finally becoming an enormously important political focus, thank you for pointing this out.
At the same time, I want to add that the overarching, surrounding issue for this nation (indeed, the entire world=planet) is just one: CLIMATE CHANGE DUE TO A CARBON-BASED LIFE STYLE.
I agree that our "Millennial" population is becoming a stronger political force--they are the generation whose life spans will be spent dealing with the effects of devastating climate change results. In the meantime, what we're seeing in wildfires, flooding, drought, and the like are the symptoms of a planet that needs our help in healing.
That said, let's also think about what each of us must and can still do to save not only the outdoor recreation industry: become really informed about global warming, climate change, and the immediacy of using political pressure to literally save ourselves. This is not a hoax.
And a good place to begin is, as one of the commenters has said, read The New York Times Magazine (August 5, 2018) article by Nathaniel Rich, "Losing Earth." It's long, beautifully written, and offers a concise explanation of what global warming is, and what has caused it. You'll be transformed! I know I was. I now have fully dedicated my life to learning more about climate change and using my ideas politically.
21
@Cate The our kids are not learning this in our public schools is an outrage.
1
@RCJCHC--Dear RCJCHC: Indeed, this is so sadly true from my experience in education. I'm retired from teaching history courses at the community college level in New Mexico, and "environmental science" majors were woefully few, while jobs in the "criminal justice" and "technology" sectors were high in number due to the better availability of jobs!
@Cate I did not even finish reading the article and I was transformed. I too have committed to dedicating my remaining days to this issue and doing everything that can be done to change our society away from destruction.
2
Egan seems to be missing the salient issue regarding the “this land is our land, this land is your land...” narratives. People. The US is well on its way to 400 million. The fear induced over the past fifty years (the first Earth day celebrations) has accelerated citizens to pursue their own land. With the Internet, their are fewer and fewer barriers to working or living away from centers. And a majority of lands being opened to development are being released by state or private owners. And the people with the most money are simply erecting physical barriers around ince shared lands. The environmentalists (and i consider myself one) can attempt to hoard nature, but the parks will continue to overflow, sprawl will spread at an accelerated rate and the rise in population is the one variable that is causing the destructive behaviors. Trump has nothing to do with that fact.
9
@Pilot
he did by having at least 5 children.
4
@Pilot Actually Trump has a lot to do with that fact. Anyone who ignores global climate change, ignores human overpopulation. Trump does that on a world stage.
4
I hope you are correct Tim. However, I am not certain that these folks vote as regularly as do the haters.
7
Republicans vote in lock step with their party. They've voted against their own economic and environmental interests up to now. It's Red Team or Blue Team to them, facts don't seem to matter, crude behavior by their elected officials don't seem to matter, crazy dangerous weather doesn't seem to matter. I'm not optimistic about their survival instincts.
4
I hope you're right Tim. This is just one of the issues where Trump is rowing against the tide of public opinion but it's a very important one. This dumpster fire of a presidency can't end soon enough.
6
Sen. Tammy Baldwin - read and speak this to the people of Wisconsin and win your Senate seat again.
7
Thank you. I hope with all my heart that you are right. This assault on our environment has to stop.
10
The basis for change can't and won't be about convincing hard-core Trump supporters of anything. It will be about rousing the people who can no longer stand the toxicity of Donald Trump and the sycophants known as Republicans. Some would say this is preaching to the choir but it is the choir that will rise up and DO something. And it isn't about simple awareness, tut-tutting and commiserating with friends about how awful it all is. A lot of people are fully awake, but being awake isn't enough. Action! Action! Action! Make your voice heard in every possible way!
30
@jstone77 jstone, you recognize what I allude to in my comment about 4 down from yours. How many of the 60 million birdwatchers voted for Trump or an ally?
There must be birdwatchers who are Trump supporters. Like you, I doubt that a Trump-supporting birdwatcher would decide to vote for a Democrat because Trump's proposals might impinge on their birdwatching.
In my main comment I raise a question few have ever replied to.
1) How do you heat and cool your home?
2) What becomes of the solid waste and food waste produced by whoever lives in your home?
3) Is there any significant visible change in the sources of energy in your community?
See main comment for blog with Gmail address.
1
I am such an enthusiast. And I hope you are correct about the coming Green Wave. What matters most - in fact, the only thing that does matter - is boots on the ground. That is to say, hiking right in to that voting booth, by mail or in person. You allude to this re: poor millenenial turnout. But too many people across the board just don't bother. Are you listening, folks? TURNOUT. VOTE!!
23
A president born and raised in the concrete jungle of NYC and who enjoyed the fact he'd never been west of the Mississippi only adds to his failed administration when reversing decisions that recognized and enshrined our nation's natural wonders and wildlife. He seems to lack the sense of nation that parks and national forests imbue into our psyche. While some remain ignorant of the marvels of the natural world, damaging them now only assures that many more citizens will be denied the experience of majesty in the forests and deserts of our great country. Asking God to bless America and then opening up the natural splendor to mining and drilling is spitting into the eye of that God! And those self-avowed Christians who are willing to sacrifice heaven on earth for a wishful desire for heaven will be denied. If you fail to practice good husbandry of God’s gifts to mankind there is not a God in heaven that will let you come in and trash that place of sanctity. You’d better get right with the world and your God, or you’ll have neither.
8
I hope this green wave votes Democratic and doesn't vote for the republicans by voting for the green party. spanky and his cronies love to live in high rise apartments in the middle of a city and consider a golf course the outdoors. They know nothing of the majesty of Yellowstone, Yosemite, Big Bend and many others. By the way dogs in general are much better than homo sapiens. To be called a dog should be considered a compliment.
12
Nicely said, Egan. We need more awareness instilling articles like this. Americans have become dulled to the destruction of this beautiful country, and it is now or never to rescue it from the barbaric thinking of the President and his Republican cronies. Think how simple life would be if only we all looked at flora and fauna with respect, as caretakers, fellow residents and partners. It is human selfishness that destroys all good outcomes... We need to make more people aware of Trump's destructive policies, and remove his influence over our society.
12
We all hope Timothy Egan is right about the “green wave.” Whatever motivates people to create the wave is far less important than having it happen.
3
Ever simce the "egregious, excessive, egomaniac" rants of Spiro Agnew, I recoil at the invocation of a silent majority. I fear that they are silent because they are not paying any attention.
5
Fingers crossed up here in Smoky BC...it would send an imortant message to our Federal Goverment in Canada too, which seems hell-bent we can be green and a Petro-state at the same time... Between the fires and Kinder Morgan we have issues here that should spark a green wave. In the meantime maybe folks out west might want to walk the talk and that I mean park the car, take the bus. Each litre of oil you use in your car feeds the agenda of those who benefit from changing the environmental guidelines. It is one thing to have principles and quite another to live by them..and yes..I do park my car...
6
Don't forget the proposed Pebble Gold Mine in Bristol Bay Alaska!!
https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/proposed-pebble-mine-alaska-could-t...
5
Tim, your pointing to specific groups that may support environmental measures is useful but I think you need more care and better data.
The groups you name must contain many people who voted for Trump or one of his allies in the house or senate.
Will 60 million bird watchers send a unified political message this fall? I want to know if the organizations to which they belong have been surveyed. Many watchers must have voted for Trump or an ally. Find them and ask them, will you vote for a Democrat in November?
Your use of yoga instructors does not help at all. Delete that paragraph. Was going to use Swedish Miljöpartiet to explain, but have more important things to write.
You note that only 1 in 10 voters think America should use more coal but if all they do is "think" that then the 1 in 10 fact does not matter. What can be done now that they support?
In New England and Albany NY in June I saw giant coal-fired electricity generating plants, widespread extension of natural gas pipelines, giant solid-waste + garbage landfills showing that changes that can be made are not even being considered.
I comment often that SE and DK employ alternatives to thos on a large scale. I then ask readers at the end, How do you heat/cool your home? Will you support advanced solid waste incineration (SWI). Heat pumps (HP) instead of natural gas? Nobody replies. Why not?
Simple answer: They know nothing about advanced SWI, HP, and more.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
7
Here in Bozeman the outdoors is what is driving the explosive growth of this mountain town. People are not coming here for mining nor logging jobs. They come to live close to our incredible national forests, rivers, national parks, mountains and wildlife. They come for the skiing, mountain biking, and for the access to designated Wilderness. They come to escape the searing heat that is baking much of the country. They come for the views of ten thousand foot peaks, for the lively cultural scene that is evolving with the arrival of more talented people. They come for high-tec jobs, for university jobs and yes, for construction jobs. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, who likes to pretend he is from Montana, would crush the golden egg and the goose that laid it by pillaging public lands for corporate profit, leaving a smoking wasteland. Those of you who give a damn about wildlands and wildlife need to get to the polls and vote out these robber baron republicans before they steal what's left of our heritage.
137
@Phil I just want to tell you that I was in Bozeman once. Just once, 15 years ago, and it made such an impression on me that I still talk about the breathtaking beauty of Montana, and I mean to visit again some day. And I sincerely hope for all of us there is something to go back to.
Vote.
1
Tim, how is wanting the planet to be capable of sustaining us not "self-interest"? The people that are telling the world that we are destroying our planet are of course acting out of "self-interest". The idiot people that do not understand the science of global climate change cannot understand that we are trying to protect them from suicide.
4
@tbs I would say they have a money mind-set and their ability to have close connections with human beings and life in general has dwindled in our capitalistic culture. That is what creates a need to ignore global climate change. No planet--no business though. And eventually, that will set in. And no, saving the planet is not "self interest". It is self preservation. NOT the same thing.
3
Birder here. I switched my giving to any environmental LEGAL group to slow Trump's damage down. Short term that is the best hope. Beyond that I vote and I volunteer. Bringing up the environment does redirect people to Democratic candidates: water, air, chemicals, health and grandchildren get people's attention. So does beauty. Get out there.
11
I certainly hope you are correct! Earth Justice, Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy all have my monetary support and Mother Earth has my votes.
10
I hope your projection is accurate. But there is a lot of apathy in this country where millions who could and should vote in off-presidential election years simply don't. What Trump has done and is doing is beyond outrageous. But I suspect there really isn't the outrage there should be by those who claim they are outraged but will stay away from voting booths in November. Hopefully I am wrong, very wrong.
3
And the unasked question: how many of those voters sympathetic to these arguments are turned off by the leftward drift of the democratic party?
@Brendan McCarthy we'll see, they may well be even more turned far (and alt-) rightward drift of the Republican Party. And for those of us in the middle who care about public lands (something you have <3% of in TX), Egan makes a compelling case that they will be a significant force in the outcome of the next electioin cycle.
2
Understanding what trumpery is doing to our public lands requires we have media that report factual information about policy. We have to pay attention to the undermining of systems that tell us what's going on. Not everyone reads the New York Times. The FCC has been giving away our safeguards to big corporations for years. Most people get their news from a few sources. I hope dear Timothy Egan is right that first hand experience will bring out the votes. I don't think it is enough. Our beloved mother orca must be able to tell all Americans why her baby died, why her species is in such deep trouble.
7
This could and should be a winning issue for Democrats this fall. Attacks on trump may make us feel better but it does not win elections and will not move his base.
14
The power of environmentally-conscious voters will not be felt if Democrats don't accentuate the differences between them and Republicans on environmental issues. It astounds me that Democrats consistently tip-toe around those differences. Climate change, for example, was completely ignored in the 2016 presidential election (the press played a huge role in stifling that discussion), with the result that the loss of a few thousand coal mining jobs became the dominant environmental issue of the election. And its not just climate change. Preservation of public lands, off-shore oil drilling, the regulation of toxic chemicals, protection of wildlife--there are a whole range of environmental issues that would resonate with voters if only Democrats would highlight them.
66
Mr. Egan eloquently describes the grievances that we should all have against this administration regarding our shared scenic beauty. However, the political reality is that many people are one- or two-issue voters (tax cuts and abortion), and they will swallow almost any degradation of our lands if they feel strongly enough about these two pillars of Republican policy.
I wish it weren't so, but environmental activism has no hope of overcoming the cult-like beliefs of many Republican voters, for whom certain bêtes noires are more important than something that benefits everyone on the planet.
12
I do hope what you are predicting becomes a reality, but there are issues that you have not addressed. There has always been a green movement but in America it has allowed itself to be defined for decades as a fringe movement. This has been a real issue because most elections green party votes have proven to be a spoiler for the Demarcates, the party that has always made gains for environmental regulations based on science. For this wave to occur these party's must form a coalition that works to getting elected not soap boxing extremes but sharing information and making sure the Republicans and corporate interests do not continue the environmental destruction they produce.
5
Thank-you for the hope. It is much needed.The smoke in the west (I live in Seattle)has been horrendous. Enough so that I canceled a trip to Ashland, Oregon scheduled for next week. Yes, it is about the warming of the earth. Everyone should read the New York Times Magazine for August 5th, "Losing Earth" by Nathaniel Rich. It is riveting.
8
I am writing this from Maine, where its one national park is so crowded that you can't find a parking spot by a trailhead after 9 AM. The license plates are from everywhere in the Northeast where this is the only wilderness national park to visit. President Obama tried to create a second national park in Maine, on lands GIVEN to the US, but Maine's governor, a Trump enabler, and the Trump administration have scuttled its development.
79
@CA The same is true in WA state. Campsites--reserve a year in advance. Trail head parking-forget about it. One new approach has been to provide some public transportation from Seattle to trailheads, but this just adds more congestion to already over-congested trails.
5
@CA After some initial impediments were put in place by the governor, Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument is open and doing well. Mr. LePage even refused to allow signs to be installed which would give directions to the park. And, he absurdly stated that the land was full of mosquitos and other insects.
And, to be precise, this land is classified as a National Monument, not a National Park. There are legal and other differences.
6
A beautiful statement and call to arms, Timothy Egan. I am one of those who not only experienced almost a year ago the devastation done to parts of my ecologically beautiful city in northern CA but am now also watching in horror that which is happening to my neighbors in the north and east. You mentioned your air quality up in Washington. For us here, it is constant watery eyes, coughing, sneezing, and even in the case of our more disabled seniors, e.g., my own husband with advanced PD, becoming afflicted with asthma for the first time in many a person's life.
I am sure you as well as your fellow conservationists have read what is considered one of the most profound statements re the environment ever written. I wish that I had enough space to quote it all. In 1854, a letter was sent to President Pierce by your Chief Seattle. Perhaps, this one paragraph will encourage others to not only research this piece but also to seriously heed its prophetic words: "Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. Man did not weave the web of life: he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself."
107
May it be so. Thank you for highlighting an issue that should be even more prominent among Democrats running for office this fall and beyond. Of course, it should be a bipartisan issue. Everyone who loves America the Beautiful needs to vote that way.
17
I am a bird-watching TR Democrat who votes and will support any candidate that protects our public lands and is committed to reversing climate change.
My parents were easterners and I never visited the National Parks out west until we had children; the first time I saw the Grand Canyon from the North Rim, I burst into tears. I've been back several times (it still makes me cry) and to others as well.
I pray that these young millennials will vote (my kids do) in numbers enough to reverse the trends and priorities of this president. Coal cannot be "clean" and other sources of energy are our future. Yes, I vote and like any good Teddy Roosevelt fan of our pristine public lands; I will bring my big stick to the polls in November.
139
The Democrats have an opening in championing the cause of fighting climate change and protecting the environment.
Climate change is the overarching issue in the world today, nothing is more important or even close. Yet silence and inaction from our leaders. The Dems should grab the torch and run 100% on climate change - there must be a global effort to fight this reality and the US should lead. Besides being inarguably the right thing to do, citizens and countries working together an this issue have the potential to bring people together in a common effort.
If we can find our way to mitigating the cause and effects of climate change, we will have also taken a pivotal step towards world peace.
35
This is heartening and I hope you are right.
21
We are card-carrying REI outdoor enthusiasts. At ages 62 and 65 my husband and I went backpacking with our 11-year-old grandson in Olympic National Park this past week. We had to head out early because of the wildfire smoke, but we share our grandson's wonder at the beauty and grandeur of the natural world. He saw frogs and salamanders, chipmunks and elk. We hung our food from trees to keep it away from bears. We practiced leaving no trace. How impoverished we will all be if we allow greed and denial to destroy our greatest natural treasures. You don't have to go to National Parks. The pond, the stream, the urban wild things that persist around your home are all worth noticing, cherishing and protecting. Don't throw away your vote. Vote for the greenest candidate who has the BEST CHANCE of winning. We have to start there.
336
That's the rub! Vote for those with a chance of winning. As Jill Stein showed, a vote for the "green" party is a vote for those who would help destroy the wilderness.
4
Mr. Egan: I always find your op-ed articles informative and "on point" in your focus and your writing. I hope you're right about a groundswell of indignation leading to a strong voting bloc this November. Ranchers, farmers, everyone in any state that has a national park with natural resources, and anyone else who's paying attention needs to hold those running for Congress accountable for what has occurred over the last 2 years. Even if the Trump Administration and the forces allied with them were to stop today with their assault, we'll be fighting the next 50 years to get back to the environmental protections in place pre-Trump. Wake up folks and vote your conscience!
234
@Eric W. The gulf between Democrats and Republicans on environmental issues alone belies the often-heard charge that there is little difference between the parties and that Democrats don't stand for anything. Everyone who sits out elections because they see no difference between the parties is ill-informed and complicit in the desecration of our planet.
11
@fbraconi You are wrong. When push comes to shove there is no difference between them. After the elections of 2013 the D Party had a majority in the Senate, but the US couldn't ratify the Paris Agreement because the Senate would not support it. And if those particular Democrats hadn't come out against it some other ones would have stepped up to take the heat.
US politics is a Punch and Judy show. The difference between the parties is mainly a fiction.
Nicely put Mr. Egan, but... An important stakeholder in the public lands discussion remains the people living in/near/around these lands. I am not talking about the wackos from Nevada that have dominated the news at times, but rather the earnest people trying to earn a livelihood in a landscape dominated by public lands. No, the debate in not only between outdoor recreationists and the trump administration. Rather, it is between an increasingly marginalized group of people eking out a living in an ever more harsh social, economic and political landscape.
6
@PJM I hear this often, but I have yet to see a concrete list of barriers that prevent people from making a living in areas where there's a high percentage of public land ownership, with proof those problems are tied to public lands. It may be true that locals are shouldering an unfair amount of the true cost burden ... so it's not that protections are too stringent, it's the fact the full costs are not spread evenly enough.
24
One of the most important pieces I've read was in this newspaper's Sunday Magazine on August 5 (Losing Earth by Nathaniel Rich). It is a very long piece for the magazine but is must reading. It is so disheartening that we had a chance to do the right thing and didn't. It may be too late to stop the changes to our climate but it's not too late to curb it so that it is not as catastrophic as it will be otherwise. It requires a will of the people and that's what Egan is talking about here.
I cannot understand how anyone, even the 0.01%, can ignore this! Many of us may not be around to see the full horror of what we've done but our children and certainly our grandchildren will.
179
@Diane Yes, you would think that even the 1% and Trump supporters would care whether there is lead in their water or if there were toxins in the soil, food, and air to kill them and their grandchildren. They may think their money will shield them--maybe it will--but our fates are bound together on this shinning blue marble of a planet.
7
Thanks, Tim. I’m visiting the northwest, my annual trip home, hoping that today the sky might clear enough to show a bit of blue tint, rather than smoke white as it has been over the past week or so. Maybe we’ll even be able to see the surrounding hillsides; but then again, maybe not.
I raft. I ski. I watch birds. And I vote.
129
I will believe it when I see it. Gas & oil & guns are business interests that can afford to buy politicians and media as an investment. Deregulation and dismantling anything in the public interest unites all economically powerful interests. They can buy their own politics, and, as we see every day, they aren't averse to hitching their wagon to a racist demagogue if it gets them returns. 90% of the population may value the planet and their health, but big money has learned how to keep the conversation focused on other things, and getting voters to vote against their beliefs and interests. That's simply how politics in the US works now.
151
@Martin There are plenty of candidates, mostly Democrats (sadly, because it should be a bipartisan commitment) who are defenders of our public lands and our environment. We need to vote for them. If not for 80,000 people in 3 states in 2016, we wouldn't have Trump & Co dismantling our national monuments and opening up other public lands to plunder. THAT'S how politics in the US works.
11
@bobbo I agree that we need to vote, and I probably agree about who for. But we urgently need to face the political realities realistically. We've been fighting these battles, 1 step forward and 2 steps back, for decades, and unless we tackle the corruption that defines the system we'll still be fighting them when the climate can't sustain us any longer.
Count me in.
60
We will see a wave of Democratic and Democratic leaning voters turn out in defence of our environment in the fall as they mostly always do; we may well see more independents do the same, although that is much less certain. But will we see Republicans who profess to care about our public lands, who hunt and fish and enjoy their benefit, but who have stood by while their party has turned against the "public" in public lands? Don't count on it.
48
NJB writes, "But will we see Republicans who profess to care about our public lands, who hunt and fish and enjoy their benefit, but who have stood by while their party has turned against the "public" in public lands? Don't count on it."
NJB...I know those people well. I am surrounded by them. I have been to numerous meetings of local fish and game clubs. Here is what they want:
Something to shoot at. Something to hook. That's it.
Beyond that...they are not concerned. They are not concerned about public land unless they can shoot and hook something there. They are not concerned about pollution or mining or extraction or endangered species or Climate Change.
They are concerned about the second amendment. They want the freedumb to shoot whatever they see as fast as they can run through their ammo.
The NRA and their affiliated clubs are happy to see Trump cut back on parks and monuments if it gives them more open ground to shoot something...anything. If not animals, then native American structures and pictographs/petroglyphs.
Count on Trumpublicans to vote against the environment. They are abusers.
VOTE OUT ALL REPUBLICANS
10
I hope you are right. The question is, how do we get these people to vote?
47
Finally! The greatest issue facing the globe and it gets no political traction here in the good ol' selfish US of A.
Many excellent points here, and it gives me some hope, if matched by action on the ground.
But it's sad that the most compelling argument here is the economic power of the outdoor industry, rather than the majesty of nature, or the necessity for biodiversity and respect for all living things.
I'll take what I can get.
374
@Bassman The trouble is that Popular Democracy stopped working here many years ago. In the 1980s a large majority of the voters came to favor nuclear disarmament, but the nuclear weapons industry continued and continues to thrive because they bought the politicians. They are so powerful that it is now illegal in Japan to discuss the health effects of the Fukushima disaster. In every issue in US politics voter sentiment doesn’t matter, since government policy always follows the interests of the big contributors. It has been proven. To think we live in a Democracy is naive and ignorant.
9