Center for Biological Diversity. (2020, August 31). Forest Service Plan Would Fast-track Fracking on National Forests, Grasslands. Retrieved August 31, 2020, from https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/forest-service-plan-would-fast-track-fracking-national-forests-grasslands-2020-08-31/

A recent proposal by the US forest service to accelerate and expand fracking across public land has been met with great concern by environmental groups. The plan would circumvent traditional checks to leasing out national forest land for drilling; it would ignore both the National Environmental Policy Act review and any form of public involvement while decreasing requirements that mandate the forest service approves leasing plans. The proposal comes as part of the Trump administration’s broader goal to increase access and boost the economy. However, the plan has many opponents. It would hurt the environment not only through the billions of tons of greenhouse gas emissions it would lead to, but also through harming the ecosystems of up to 192 million acres of national forest. 

One could very convincingly argue that there are not enough current checks in place to protect the environment. However, it is without a doubt that circumventing the limited checks that we do have constitutes a wholly unjustifiable defiance to the interests of the environment and the American public. To pass this proposal would be to dramatically accelerate the rate at which fossil fuels are being extracted from 192 million acres of national forest land, all while ignoring environmental acts and local input. This is another example of a high-handed attempt motivated by political ideology to significantly alter environmental policy to a framework where the environment comes last.

The New York Times. (June 15, 2020). A War Against Climate Science, Waged by Washington’s Rank and File. Retrieved September 3, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/climate/climate-science-trump.html

Recent reports and surveys indicate that some government bureaucrats have been undermining climate science in (presumably) a bid to protect their jobs and funding, and preserve good faith with top-level officials. These mid-level managers have imposed their will on their subordinates, censoring certain content, taking funding, and separating government grants and endorsements from certain words and ideas. One survey found that more than 63,000 federal employees viewed the E.P.A. and Department of Interior as the least trustworthy in matters of “scientific integrity”. There have been multiple examples of researchers at government organizations being forced to distance their papers from the government, as well as an example of funding being gutted from researchers who disobeyed a politically charged request by their manager. 

While the Constitution prohibits the firing of civil servants on political or ideological grounds, this article makes it clear that they can still be manipulated. The idea that federal agencies are somehow interfering with the publication of scientific findings in any way is concerning. Executive agencies have long been viewed as having a certain degree of stability: the bureaucrats doing much of the actual work are not appointed, less political and ideological, and last much longer than the election cycle. However, if they can be intimidated in other ways their work can be obstructed. I don’t think we’ve seen that on a large scale yet, but the thought that government organizations are making science political is truly scary.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2020, August 18). Secretary Bernhardt Announces Historic Expansion of Hunting and Fishing Opportunities on Public Lands. Retrieved August 31, 2020, from https://www.fws.gov/news/ShowNews.cfm?ref=secretary-bernhardt-announces-historic-expansion-of-hunting-and-fishing-&_ID=36755

The Department of the Interior announced the greatest expansion of accessible land for hunting and fishing in its history last month. It included 850 new hunting and fishing opportunities on 2.3 million new acres of public land. The change comes amid a trend of “increased access” among the executive agencies responsible for public land policy as directed by President Trump to his political appointees. The article praises the administration’s conservation efforts and deregulation to facilitate more outdoor activities and economic growth. It explains the economic advantages of hunting, including the excise tax which goes to fund conservation efforts.  

While the article only focuses on the positives of the new plan (the website is run by the Fish and Wildlife Service), there are certain drawbacks. Such a large increase in hunting and fishing has the potential to disrupt ecosystems and the food chain. Without proper regulation, the ability to exploit wildlife for personal gain will increase, which could result in a tragedy of the commons situation. Furthermore, the language the Secretary of the Interior used in his speech announcing the decision seemed much more idealistic than logic-driven. While I do see some merit behind the idea of higher revenues from the excise tax to fund environmental and conservation efforts, it doesn’t matter too much if wildlife is eventually harmed to the extent that there’s little left to conserve. While I don’t think the reality will be a doomsday scenario, there is a concern that the regulation of hunting and fishing will not be adequate. 

The New York Times. (2020, August 4). Trump Signs Landmark Conservation Bill. Retrieved August 31, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/04/us/politics/trump-land-conservation-bill.html

In the beginning of August, President Trump signed The Great American Outdoors Act. The landmark bill was very popular on both sides of the aisle in Congress. It aims to put the necessary funds (up to nearly two billion dollars a year) into maintenance projects in national parks and forests with the ultimate goal of preserving more land for the enjoyment of the American public for years to come. Besides the billions the act allocates towards the maintenance backlog and infrastructure projects, it guarantees that the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is often underfunded, has the necessary resources to acquire new land for public use. 

The law is clearly a positive development for preservation, especially at a time when federal policy has trended away from environmental protection and funding. The bill is a divergence in the Trump administration’s overarching policy towards the environment. The administration has made moves such as leaving the Paris Climate Accords, opening up a vast amount of public land for fracking, and loosening regulations on emitting, all of which indicate a general disregard for the environment. The article mentions that two Republican senators who are both up for re-election in the West were leading forces behind the bill (presumably given they thought it would help them during the election). This, coupled with promises of a long-lasting conservation legacy, convinced President Trump to support the bill. To me, it only reinforces the idea that the reasons behind some of these important environmental developments are quite arbitrary when politics are involved. I question how much power we should vest in political systems when it comes to environmental matters. 

The Daily Yonder. (2020, February 19). Politics of oil and gas override public in federal land use decision report says. Retrieved August 31, 2020, from https://dailyyonder.com/politics-of-oil-and-gas-override-public-in-federal-land-use-decisions-report-says/2020/02/19/

In Western Colorado, the Burea of Land Management is opening nearly a million acres of land to fossil fuel extraction, despite various local and federal input wishing otherwise. The decision is especially controversial as information came out that the decision overrode a process by local environmental officials and was at odds with the governor and public opinion. It comes as part of a larger trend by the Department of the Interior to implement a new framework for public land under the Trump administration — even when that framework is at odds with environmental groups and the public. 

The article gives great insight into the impacts of politics on environmental policy. Understanding how the federal government and political appointees shape national policy by making decisions regarding the environment is (for better or worse) essential to a comprehensive education in environmental science. I think it’s unfortunate that the Interior Department has completely disregarded the feedback of public servants, environmental science, and the public in the name of a political vision. There seems to be a disconnect between those in Washington DC making decisions and those living in the places affected by them. While politics are (in theory) the voice of the people, this is a trend we should be wary of moving forward.