I think you know that I am an advocate of the pristine natural lands preserved by the US Government, known as our National Parks. To date, I've visited only 11 parks, some of them multiple times, but each time I discover something new in the park, and something new about myself. Probably, the first park I visited was Acadia National Park on Mount Desert Island in Maine. And, like most National Parks, it's easy to see why it was designated to be preserved: there is no place like it anywhere on the face of the earth. Sure, there are other coastal islands in New England which contain similar features, but, nowhere else can you be the first on the Eastern Seaboard of the US to see the sun rise. Certain months you can pick blueberries as you hike. There's always a threat of lobster for dinner. And, even though the peak in the park, Cadillac Mountain, is only 1,529 feet of elevation, you can choose to start and end at sea-level...with your feet in the ocean.
This is probably why my family goes back every other year, and usually with friends, to share this amazing corner of the world with our children. It's comforting to know that there are 58 other parks with their unique personas, that the American people will, hopefully, be able to enjoy in perpetuity. This is why, under our current and former administrations, it is extremely distressing that protections for our National Parks are being chiseled away. How? By relaxing laws and speeding processes for the abuse of Federal lands in the name of energy independence (clean coal is a farce); And, most recently, by lifting Federal protections of wildlife.
Let's start with the former. It is thought that there are large, untapped, reserves for oil and gas under Federal lands adjacent to many of our Parks out west, specifically Arches NP, Dinosaur National Monument, Canyonlands NP, and Zion NP, all in Utah. If you're watching Agent Orange in D.C., part of his campaign platform included pillaging these lands in the name of energy independence. However, support has dwindled significantly. In fact, recently, the Republican governor of Utah reversed his position on additional drilling near Zion indicating that studies show that the cost to the State (i.e. tourism dollars) would be too detrimental to the State's economy. The concern: noise pollution to the surrounding communities, which only survive on tourism dollars. Imagine listening to drilling as you walk through the pristine Virgin River Narrows. (By the way, if you go to Zion, search out Oscar's Cafe for breakfast. Ridiculous portions and massive cups of coffee.) Don't be surprised of the Governor's sudden change of heart. After all, he's just going with the increasingly popular opinion where the American people are less and less in favor of compromising our National trust. In March of this year, a Gallop poll showed that 53% of Americans now oppose this type of drilling. It's a start, but it echoes the outcry of the majority in the United States (7 out of 10 people) who would have urged our President to stay in the Paris Climate Accord. The environment is important to the American people.
Why? People are realizing that the environment brings sustainable jobs and supports local economies far better than if the same lands were used to feed national energy conglomerates. It's clear to small business owners that keeping the money local is key to their survival, and that the throngs of people visiting the parks dwarfs the potential number of "permanent" employees who are pumping out oil or gas so that a large national firm reaps the fiscal benefits. Local dollars stay local.
Which brings us to the recent removal of the Grizzly Bear from the Federal Endangered Species List: what the hell? Ryan Zinke, U.S. Secretary of the Interior, babbled on recently about the health of the grizzly bear population in Yellowstone National Park (now around 700, up from fewer than 150). The lifting of these protections now puts the States of Idaho, Wyoming and Montana in the driver's seat of the grizzly future. Environmentalists are fuming. This makes hunting of bears who wander out of the park more likely to be subjected to local hunting seasons. The Feds say that when the census shows that bears drop to fewer than 600, they'll put in provisions that stop these "management" practices, but that's not reassuring. We know from canine breeding that small populations of purebreds yields lack of genetic diversity which results in increased propensity for mutations, weakened immune systems, and increased sensitivity to environmental changes...such as global warming. If you've been to Yellowstone, you know that the bears are a key feature and draw thousands of visitors annually. You also know that Yellowstone is the lifeblood of the peripheral economies surrounding the park: the restaurants, the hotels/motels, the campsites, etc. And, support for the service industries in these communities is akin to support for their schools, roads, etc., their way of life and the economy that drives it.
It's amazing right? It's as if all of the environment and the health of our planet is somehow connected. I'm being facetious, and I think it's quite plain to see that ignoring the facts and warnings on one environmental front will likely set off a chain-reaction on many, many others. Eventually, it will have dire adverse economic effects in rural states which live and die by their tourism numbers. Bigger than that, it threatens our public well being, it upsets the balance of nature, and ignorance of natural systems has the potential to pose some epic human health risks (see: Zika and West Nile).
Just as last week I suggested that legislation on common-sense gun laws needs to happen yesterday, we need to take a similar tack on environmental protections of our most valuable resources. To fail to do so would be irresponsible and potentially catastrophic on many levels.
No comments:
Post a Comment