One of the difficulties in maintaining a position of opposition at a time of frenzied retrenchment is knowing what to fight for and what to give up as lost. As was the case during the darkest days of the Reagan years the environmental movement, and the left in general, is at best capable of responding to the current counter-revolution with a triage mentality. "What can we save? What can we delay? What can we modify? What must we give up on?"
While it is painful in any such situation to make decisions about where to focus our energies because such decisions entail who/what may lose as well as who/what may win, I would like to make a plea to grassroots environmentalists to remember the importance of saving big, biologically sound wilderness. The proposals to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling, to require the logging of significant wilderness reserves in the Forest System, to suspend the Endangered Species Act make up simply another chapter in an endless campaign to eradicate wilderness. Given that wilderness cannot speak for itself it is left to us to call attention to the tragedy that lies ahead if current plans are not stopped.
From the time that William Bradford stepped off of the Mayflower and declared the "new world" a "desolate and howling wilderness" (to be feared by all righteous and God-fearing people as the home of Satan and a breeding ground of sin and wanton sexuality), our culture has done battle with wilderness. The Puritans had been well prepared for this battle by the old world cultures from whence they came; these had already vanquished nearly all traces of wilderness from the European continent. To build cities where once there was only "Heathenism, Idolatry and Devil-worship" was, John Higginson wrote in 1697, to invite the blessings of God.
As colonial society developed, the institutions of government took up the battle against the wilderness and its native inhabitants. It was an easy way to relieve overcrowding and the constant threat of poverty that a burgeoning population threatened. Further, given that wilderness was by definition immune from state administration, ruling powers lived in fear of pesky backcountry rebellions and anti-state activity which seemed to issue from the frontier on a regular basis. Conquering wilderness was a necessary measure in the extension of state power. It was the principal project of our "Manifest Destiny."
As market economies and industrial production developed, the natural world was increasingly viewed as a ready-made storehouse of raw material to be exploited in the name of expanding gross national product. The spread of scientific management sparked the creation of the National Forest Service, whose first director, Gifford Pinchot, understood its mission as the management of forests in the interest of achieving the highest timber yields possible. Consequently, predators were eradicated, strip mines encouraged, and clear cuts were replanted with mono-cultural tree crops designed for quick returns of board feet. What many perceived as an enlightened step toward saving wilderness was, in fact, the institutionalization of a vision of wilderness as a supplier of cheap raw material.
Of course, Manifest Destiny proved to be a horribly racist and destructive doctrine. The question that comes to the fore with stunning clarity is why we insist on carrying to conclusion its last, unfulfilled mandate to purge the land of wild areas. We cannot seem to get past the need to reduce all things wild and free to the service and command of a market driven nation-state. As the twenty-first century approaches we seem hell-bent on returning to the projects of the nineteenth.
I recount this historical battle with wilderness not to minimize the horror of what is taking place now but, to provide a reminder that the enemies of wilderness have been waging and winning this battle since the beginnings of western culture. We must keep our sights on the vanishing traces of what has already been lost so that we can recast the terms of debate to reflect what the score really is, with full knowledge of what has gone before.
Currently less than two percent of our land area is legally protected wilderness—far less than the percentage of land that lies under concrete. Yet, the "wise use" gurus argue that the line has been drawn too broadly in favor of wilderness, that environmentalists have "locked up" our resources and turned the regulatory tables to favor owls over common people. We must constantly remind ourselves that it is the peculiar quality of wilderness that makes this battle so important. Namely, that one cannot re-create it. Once you log an old-growth forest you have destroyed its wilderness quality for the foreseeable future. You may be able to replant some of the trees and grow some ground cover (if you haven’t lost all of the vital top soil) or re-introduce the scattered wildlife, but you can never re-engineer the intricately balanced ecosystem that had been developing there for thousands of years. And it is precisely these ecosystems that the many endangered species which today teeter on the edge of extinction rely on for their survival.
More than fifty years ago Aldo Leopold argued for a land ethic that was based on the extension of ethical consideration to all species. One that assumes that wilderness and the species that dwell therein, have a right to exist apart from their utility to us as a people. He challenged the arrogant assumptions of the "Enlightened" 19th century which appropriated for humanity (European white males, to be exact), in its infinite wisdom, the power to decide the fate of the rest of the biotic community. That human wisdom has proved fallible all too often suggested to Leopold that we needed to follow what he called the "first law of tinkering" in our approach to the natural world: that is, to save all of the pieces. As we watch the current policy battles unfold it is utterly depressing to contemplate how far we are from this simple and elegant vision of a culture that lives in harmony with its natural surroundings.
While it may be Leopold’s quiet vision that provides us with our compass bearing, what is needed now is a raucous and passionate defense of wilderness. A defense that wolves and grizzlies would feel comfortable with. "If the wilderness system is to be anything more . . . than an outdoor gymnasium and art gallery," argues Dave Foreman, "if it is to preserve representative samples of dynamically evolving natural ecosystems, we must have an inspirational objective instead of obsequiously accepting what crumbs are tossed to us by Louisiana-Pacific, the Forest Service, Senator Mark Hatfield, and Exxon."
If we have any interest in keeping biologically sound wilderness viable in this country we must forgo the pleasantries of bi-partisan compromise and polite discourse for the moment and forthrightly speak truth to power. If ever there was a time when the forces of greed needed to see how deep and sincere the determination of the grass-roots environmental community is, that time is now. Anti-environmental forces know that they do not have the support of the American people. We know that we do. A recent ABC/Washington Post poll, for example, concluded that 70% (!) of the American people believe that the government has not gone far enough in its effort to protect the environment, while only 17% felt that it had gone too far. And this at a time when the airwaves are saturated with anti-environment messages. This last election was not a referendum on the environmental agenda. The nation did not stand, and with one voice, demand that their children be poisoned, their wild areas be logged, and their waterways be choked to death with pollution.
The reason for the frenzied pace of the "first hundred days" of the Contract on America is precisely to overwhelm opposition with unreasonable, but plentiful, proposals in the hopes of forcing a compromise where none is necessary. It is the big lie in another guise. Gingrich and his henchmen are counting on the major environmental organizations’ burning desire to appear "moderate" and "reasonable," i.e., willing to play the game. We must understand that we have compromised too much already. It is time to adopt the "inspirational objective" that Foreman suggests we need and to speak with one voice, demanding that not one more acre of intact wilderness area be compromised.
Let us revive the battle cry of the eighties, no compromise in defense of Mother Earth. Now is the time for the environmental community to call in its chips for its support of the administration and encourage President Clinton to spill gallons of (soy-based) veto ink. Enough is enough!
Local (Northern Illinois)
• The Joliet Arsenal legislation is making its way through the legislative labyrinth at glacial speed, but it is moving. The legislation passed out of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee unanimously. Now only three more committees and the full House are left. Similarly, movement on transferring some land from Fort Sheridan to the Lake County Forest Preserve made headway. It looks as if agreement was reached that would transfer the desired land free of charge.
• The Illinois Department of Conservation, the Illinois Department of Transportation and the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency are currently working on the Grand Illinois Trail project, which is planned to link Lake Michigan and the Mississippi River via a 454.5 mile greenway project. The trail project is an effort to link many existing trails as well as to establish new link trails in an effort to provide a loop from east to west. As of now the trail consists of 119 miles of established trails, 82.5 miles of funded but unconstructed trails, 78.5 miles of preliminary trail sites, 130.5 miles of roads and 44 miles in need of further study. For more information on this project contact Robert Lonsdorf at the Openlands Project, 312-427-4256.
National
• First the good news: President Clinton vetoed the Rescissions bill. This bill contained some of the nastiest pieces of anti-environmental legislation to come out of the 104th Congress so far, the most notorious of which was the salvage-logging rider covered in this space in the last issue. Also included was an amendment that would exempt cattle grazing on public lands from environmental review. Caution is in order, however, as the Republican leadership is busy re-writing the rescissions bill for passage again and is expected to include all of the previously offensive riders in the new bill.
• Congressman Bill Richardson (D-NM) has introduced legislation that would create the Yellowstone Headwaters National Recreation Area designed to protect the river from the "New World Mine" which threatens this "Wild and Scenic River" with severe environmental degradation. The bill attracted bi-partisan support with 20 co-sponsors. Please urge your elected officials to support this bill.
• The House and the Senate have passed legislation that would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling. Republican leaders claim that the revenues generated from leasing this land will help fill expected budget shortfalls by up to $1.5 billion. This in spite of the fact that
• 95% of Alaska’s North Slope is already open for drilling
• the proposed area is the nation’s premiere polar bear denning habitat and the birthing grounds for the Porcupine caribou herd
• there is only an estimated 1 in 5 chance of finding deposits
• the deposits are expected to provide (if found) only 200 days of fuel
• there are $5.6 billion worth of federal subsidies for the oil industry in the same budget.
Anti-environmental forces are accusing the Democratic opposition of taking an uncompromising position on this issue that is unproductive and can only lead to gridlock. (See rant above.)
• Senators Bob Dole (R-KS) and Bennett Johnson (D-LA) have introduced legislation aimed at hamstringing new environmental regulation under the guise of risk assessment. Their bill is designed to complement a similar bill passed in the House. This bill is considered by many to be the most pernicious legislation from the new regime to date because of its "regulatory" guise. It attacks no particular piece of environmental policy but threatens to undermine most of the existing regulatory efforts. Please do your best to let your elected officials know how you feel about this travesty.
International
• The election of Jacques Chirac as President of France is bad news for more that just the French citizenry. Chirac has repealed a three-year-old moratorium on nuclear testing imposed by former President Mitterand. Not only do the proposed test on the Moruroa Atoll in the South Pacific threaten the people and environment downwind, it also threatens to undo all the work accomplished up till now on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
• The House has passed the American Overseas Investment Act which, among other things, de-funds International Planned Parenthood. The act was a giveaway to the anti-abortion forces that supported the Republican takeover of congress since very little could be accomplished regarding that issue on the domestic front.