Thanks to the recession and the arrival in Washington of a
perceived green-friendly administration, the coffers of nonprofit
environmental organizations are shrinking. For instance, the
much-maligned Bush Administration’s support of energy development
was certainly good for eco-fundraising. Either cash-strapped, or
believing that the bad old days are over, many of those
dependable liberal donors have fled, under the impression that
their financial support is no longer needed. Consequently,
national and local grassroots green groups are cutting back on
expenses and laying off staff. “Until we have a clearer picture
about how the crisis will affect [sic] giving, we are keeping a
close eye on spending and making sure our resources are devoted
to our top science-driven priorities,” Amy Golden of the Nature
Conservancy told the New York Times during last fall’s
initial banking crisis. The layoffs and cutbacks continue, as
they do across the entire nonprofit landscape.
Despite his rhetoric about our “energy crisis,” the infamous cap
and trade bill passed in the House and headed to the Senate, and
green-directed economic stimulus (with marginal results, so far)
— President Obama is bad for business; green business, that is.
And it turns out the ex-urban community organizer cares little
for the nuts and bolts of such peripheral enviro issues as the
beefing-up of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the
maintenance of — and expansion of wilderness areas on
—America’s public lands. In my reading of the regional media,
it’s obvious to me that Western greens give the new president
mixed reviews.
Though I let my subscription to High Country News
(HCN) lapse in January, I’m still prey to pitches from
environmental organizations that have bought HCN’s
subscription mailing list. Some offer goodies; all are infused
with a sense of desperation. You would never guess that our
future green utopia wasn’t validated by last fall’s election.
The Audubon Society wants money (never gets it from me), but
they’re very nice to send me a sheet of those personalized Return
Address stickers. I enjoy seeing my name and address next to a
picture of a regal eagle or swooping osprey, though I can do
without the ornithologically effete swallows and warblers, and
never use those on my snail mail correspondence. Robert F.
Kennedy, Jr.’s “Riverkeepers” urgently wants me to help clean up
the Hudson River, though having grown up in upstate New York, I
know it’s now as clean as it’s ever been since Henry Hudson first
sailed upriver. A number of local Idaho green groups implore me
to assist in saving the salmon in the state’s rivers or help to
promote expanded wilderness areas. They’re all headquartered in
Boise, and from what I can see while living in rural Idaho, they
don’t get out of the city much.
Just the other day a large envelope arrived from the Sierra Club.
It contained a Sierra Club car window decal; one of those
long-strip computer keyboard calendars; four postcards featuring
photos of animals (a grizzly bear, a bald eagle, wolves, a
mountain lion); and an opportunity to receive free a small
backpack, or as they refer to it in their quaintly elitist John
Muirish way, a “rucksack” — sporting the Sierra Club logo — if
I go for an Introductory Membership and send in a check for $15.
There was also a four-page green encyclical from Carl Pope,
Executive Director. In it, Mr. Pope laments that “hundreds of
animals and plants on the brink of extinction have yet to receive
protection under the Endangered Species Act.” He doesn’t name
any, but how is this possible? Mr. Pope continues: “For the past
eight years, the oil companies, the logging industry, and other
special interests worked hand-in-hand with the Bush
Administration to undermine the Endangered Species Act….The
Sierra Club is dedicated to working with the new Obama
Administration and new officials in Congress to right these past
eight years of atrocities as quickly as possible.” Well. And an
attached flier reiterates the point that: “With a new
administration in the White House, we must act now to reverse the
damage committed over the past eight years by G.W. Bush [with the
chainsaw at the ranch?], and push our government toward enforcing
and enacting [enacting and enforcing?] better energy and
environmental policies.”
In spite of the hysterical use of such loaded words as
“atrocities” and “damage,” the operative phrases in the quotes
above are “as quickly as possible” and “we must act now.” Sound
familiar? As with much of the Obama Administration’s hastily
presented domestic policy goals (lately healthcare reform), its
allies in the green lobbies are pushing their own agendas with a
faux urgency. As usual, the sky is falling; green president and
overwhelming majorities on Capitol Hill notwithstanding. And
whether it’s the general poor health of the economy, or too few
salmon in the Snake River — it’s George W. Bush’s fault.
Carl Pope isn’t sleeping well lately. And he won’t until 2010,
when the GOP takes back the Congress, and he can again terrify
those wayward donors. But a real pipe-dream-come-true would be
Sarah Palin serving as Secretary of the Interior in a 2013 Romney
or Gingrich administration. Then Mr. Pope could drift off to
sweet slumber counting dollar signs instead of sheep.
And thanks, Carl, but I think I’ll pass on the rucksack. I
already have a closet full of sturdy, rock-ribbed, heavy duty
backpacks.
Karen Flores| 7.30.09 @ 9:24AM
It's the modern day version of to the victor go the 'spoils.'
Aaron| 7.30.09 @ 9:49AM
Karen you are correct, like nerdy little tree hugging vikings they are. (no offense to vikings).
Tony in Central PA| 7.30.09 @ 2:52PM
Like the author, I used to belong to a number of environmental organizations. I dropped out of most of them when I started finding out more about their methods and ancillary causes.
I think conservative people can be environmentalists, or perhaps a better term would be conservationists. I enjoy fishing, hiking and just being outside. I used to hunt, but gave it up when I realized how much work must be done after pulling the trigger and the fact that I can buy meat from the grocery store that tastes better than anything I can shoot.
I think most of these groups have it all wrong when it comes to protecting the environment. They seem to believe that everything would all be so much better without humans. I would ask, without humans, who would appreciate everything ? Would salmon and polar bears know or care if they were destined for extinction ? Can a squirrel appreciate a grove of spruce as anything other than a place to hide or find food ? I would repeat the argument that saving and protecting things because they are beautiful is really for our benefit alone among species.
Al Adab| 7.30.09 @ 3:29PM
Tony,
Good points. It is not the purpose we fear.
The word Conservation as you may note has the same root as Conservative. It is one thing to conserve yet quite another to Worship the trees, birds, etc.
This "movement" (environmental, green, whatever) is little else than a modern pagan idolotry. It fits right in with the worship of Choice or Diversity as idols of our age.
It is this idolotry we oppose - or should - rather than the purpose. However, the chosen method of strong government intervention is a method we should oppose. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Those who excuse any action on that basis might remember that the ends do not justify the means.
We should seek to provide for future generations those things we enjoy. But we should also remember that without Liberty, their value is lessened.
Norman Plum| 7.31.09 @ 7:54AM
That was the greatest Andy Rooney parody I've ever read.