Theodore Roosevelt, we need you!

The Trump administration recently offered more than 150,000 acres of public lands for fossil-fuel extraction near some of Utah's most iconic landscapes, including Arches and Canyonlands national parks, and leased public lands for fracking near Bears Ears, Canyons of the Ancients and Hovenweep national monuments and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.  Environmentalists were not happy. Ashley Soltysiak, director of the Utah Sierra Club, said "Utah is our home and the reckless sale of our public lands with limited public engagement is simply unacceptable and short-sighted."

Fracking in these areas would worsen air pollution problems in the Uinta Basin and use tremendous amounts of groundwater. Utah just experienced its driest year in recorded history.  With its necessary networks of fracking wells, compressor stations, pipelines and roads, fracking is detrimental to the quality of public lands and wildlife habitat.  It involves injecting toxic wastewater into the ground, thus polluting rivers and groundwater.  And how about the fact that it may trigger earthquakes that damage infrastructure and property, and pollutes the air with dangerous toxins? The federal government's own report shows that oil and gas production on public land contributes significantly to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

Why is the Trump administration, led in this case by Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, hell-bent on ramping up fossil fuel extraction on public lands, threatening wildlife, public health, and the climate? This year the BLM has offered more than 420,000 acres of public land in Utah for oil and gas extraction. The agency plans to auction another 215,000 acres in March. The Trump administration also has issued new policies, which are being challenged in court, to shorten public-comment periods and avoid substantive environmental reviews.  And the leases are going for bargain basement prices. Recently, 134,000 acres were leased in Utah for as low as the federal minimum of $2 per acre.

This is pretty stupid behavior, even by the low standards set by the Trump administration.  Why sell off so much of America’s natural heritage in this way? It seems that Donald Trump is too self-centered to be able to entertain a notion of a national legacy of natural resources. Perhaps it’s just the work of calculating Ryan Zinke, building some credits for when he leaves his job at Interior at the end of the year.  But I think there’s more, and it’s to be found in the politics of the 2020 presidential election. Beginning in the early days of the 2016 campaign, Trump has been pushing the message that the United States will be first in energy, and completely independent of other nations.  Now that he’s President, he’s fixated on making fossil fuels the linchpin of a strategy to get us there. If he should be in a position to run for a second term, you can be sure that the theme of energy independence grounded in fossil fuels, regardless of what it costs in environmental terms, and in spite of the looming threats of climate change, will be a major element of his campaign. Meanwhile, we should do what we can to stop this absurd rush to sell off the nation’s national treasure on the cheap. Support the National Resources Defense Council, Earthworks, Earthjustice and other environmental advocacy non-profits.

Maybe we can take a bit of heart from this quote from a Forbes Magazine panel discussion of energy policy under the Trump administration: “[I]t was agreed that the energy industry cannot “stand behind” the new administration, waiting on industry-favorable actions at the federal level; our industry must strengthen its capabilities to engage respectfully with local, state and federal agencies, local landowners, communities and other stakeholders.” We can’t get too excited by those sentiments, to judge by past behaviors, but there’s a ray of hope there.

Be sure to look for the documentary, “Paris to Pittsburgh”, available on TV from National Geographic. Kudos to Michael Bloomberg for sponsoring this lovely, encouraging note.

To finish this on yet another positive note (among which I count Zinke’s imminent departure), the new 2018 Farm Bill contains several provisions that directly or indirectly affect global warming. The effects on global warming are not huge, but they’re steps in the right direction, and every bit counts.  The bill maintains the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) without new punitive work requirements.

It expands funding for the Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentives program, which helps low-income shoppers purchase more fresh fruits and vegetables from local farmers. It also increases research and support for organic farmers, new farmers, and farmers of color, and includes a new Local Agriculture Market Program, which will strengthen regional economies and better connect farmers with consumers.

On farmland conservation, the bill maintains overall funding for programs that help farmers safeguard their soil and protect air and water quality. This provision is very much in line with the aims of the Drawdown initiative I’ve mentioned previously.  So, we keep on keeping on.