An Urban President Hails America’s Great Outdoors

This afternoon, President Obama took time out of what has already become a bruising budget battle to announce the release of a new report on America’s Great Outdoors Initiative. It’s a program the White House launched last year to preserve parks and open space across the country. (Access the report, which gathered the opinion of more than 100,000 Americans on outdoor spaces, here.) As part of the initiative, Obama said that the government would fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a trust first established in 1965 to provide money for national parks, forests and wildlife areas. That money, the President said, would come from existing oil and gas leasing revenues:

Our attitude is if you take something out of the Earth, you have a responsibility to give a little bit back to the Earth

Environmental groups hailed the initiative and the survey that led to it, which put a little bit of attention towards an issue that rarely gets much press. As Lasha Brown, a member of the Friends of Ironwood Forest National Monument in Arizona, said in a statement:

I thank the President for giving all American’s the opportunity to voice their opinion about the future of our public lands. There is a limited window of opportunity to protect our nations wide open spaces and history and I am encouraged that President Obama is looking out for our kids and grandkids.

Of course, in these days of divided government, just because the President says he wants a program to be funded doesn’t mean that Congress will hand over the money. (In fact, the President’s approval of something usually guarantees that Republicans will be against it.) For decades, Congress has taken the money that was meant for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and spent it somewhere else. With Republicans already calling out the White House for what they say is a bias against fossil fuels in favor of renewable power, it’s going to be an uphill budget battle to get more money from oil and gas—even for conservation. (Nor is it only Republicans—Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, the queen of offshore drilling, has joined a Senate hold on Obama’s nominee for the Fish and Wildlife Service, refusing to budge until the White House speeds permits for deepwater oil and gas exploration.)

But those will be battles for another day…and weeks, and months. I wanted to reflect on Obama’s rhetoric, and on the President’s own relationship to the outdoors, and how it mirrors significant changes in the country he leads. As Obama pointed out in his speech, while wilderness was once everywhere in America, as we expanded across the country we pushed back nature in a little more than a century:

Cities sprang up along riverbanks and railroad tracks. The nation grew so fast that by 1890, the census director announced that he could no longer identify an American “frontier.”  And yet, in the midst of so much expansion, so much growth, so much progress, there were a few individuals who had the foresight to protect our most precious national treasures -– even in our most trying times.

Obama tried to make the case that wilderness—and conservation—is in our blood. Republican Abraham Lincoln set aside 60 million acres of the Yosemite Valley in California, and Teddy Roosevelt—also a Republican—essentially created the parks system through an act of will. His Democratic cousin FDR, even during the teeth of the Great Depression, enabled the National Parks Service to protect landmarks like Mount Rushmore and the Statue of Liberty:

It embodies that uniquely American idea that each of us has an equal share in the land around us, and an equal responsibility to protect it.

And it’s not just the iconic mountains and parks that we protect.  It’s the forests where generations of families have hiked and picnicked and connected with nature.  It’s the park down the street where kids play after school.  It’s the farmland that’s been in the family longer than anybody can remember.  It’s the rivers where we fish, it’s the forests where we hunt.

What’s interesting to me is that Obama—and I’d venture to say, many of his supporters—is no outdoorsman. The President spent much of childhood and adolescence in Hawaii, and we know he likes to bodysurf, but as an adult he’s lived in cities, in New York and Boston and Chicago. He didn’t hunt or fish or, I’m guessing, clear brush—something our last President rather enjoyed. Obama is our first urban President since Manhattanite Chester Arthur, who assumed the Presidency when James Garfield was assassinated in 1881. (If you forget who Arthur was, well, you didn’t miss much.)

Yet Obama is still probably our greenest President ever—at least by policy—far more so than George W. Bush, even if Bush was the one who liked to hang out at his Texas ranch. Environmentalism has changed—today young city dwellers whose only experience with nature comes in an urban park will often support progressive climate policy and endangered species, while conservatives who hunt and fish in those great outdoors regularly aren’t likely to be voting with the Sierra Club party line. I saw that for myself when I spent time in coastal Louisiana during the oil spill—guys who would work regularly on drilling rigs would spend their off weeks fishing in the very Gulf that was being polluted by BP’s blown well. And they didn’t see any contradiction in that—and they weren’t fans of the President.

To some degree, this is just another mark of the country’s growing political polarization—even something that was once as nonpartisan as conservation is now just another legislative football. But we’re changing as well, as we grow in numbers, as our cities and exurbs swell. What Thomas Jefferson called the “workhorse of nature” is vanishing fast—if not from climate change, then just from development and population growth. Like our urban President—who noted in his speech the irony of holding the Great Outdoors event inside in the White House—we’re divorced from nature in our daily lives in a way our ancestors weren’t. But we still have a duty to protect that dwindling wilderness, as Obama said:

The great Rachel Carson once wrote that “The real wealth of the nation lies in the resources of the Earth -— soil, water, forests, minerals, wildlife… Their administration is not properly, and cannot be, a matter of politics.”  Something more than politics.  That was the call echoed by Jefferson and Lincoln and Roosevelt.  It’s the call that has driven generations of Americans to do their part to protect a small slice of the planet.  And it’s the call that we answer today.

It’s probably too much to ask for, but it really is the least we can do.

Related Topics: cities, conservaton, Great Ourdoors, Nature, Obama, oil and gas, Republicans, wilderness, wildlife, Wildlife
  • Latest on Ecocentric

    Don Farrall

    Falldown: Radioactive Fallout From Fukushima Posed Little Threat to the U.S.

    Nearly a year after the Japanese tsunami and subsequent meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear plant, the good news is that the risk from radiation doesn’t seem to be as high as many initially feared. Take the Pacific Ocean, for example, where most of the radioactive fallout from the plant eventually ended up. Nicholas Fisher, a marine science professor at New York’s Stony Brook University, took samples of the seawater three months after the accident. He found levels of radiation that were elevated, but still just a fraction of the amount of radioactivity sea life is exposed to from naturally occurring potassium in seawater.

    Nick M Do

    Gasbag: Why No President Can Bring Us $2 Gasoline

    It’s Presidents’ Day as I write this, so if you were lucky enough to have the day off, give some thanks to Washington, Lincoln and all the other chief executives — even stinkers like James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson. Of course in modern American politics, every day is really Presidents’ Day — so central is the occupant of the White House to the perceived state of the nation. Good news or bad news, foreign or domestic, the President gets the credit — and he gets the blame, whether he actually deserves either.

    Bloomberg via Getty Images

    Pipeline Politics: Are the Oil Sands “Game Over” for the Climate? One Study Says No

    There are no shortage of reasons why the Keystone XL pipeline has become such a hot button issue for environmentalists. Many worry about the risks the project could pose to the Ogallala aquifer in Nebraska, where the pipeline was originally designed to pass. Indeed, when President Obama rejected Keystone XL in January, his stated concern was the potential threat to local water supplies.

  • harryandmarkmarks

    I got a $829 iPad 3G Wifi 64GB for $87.23 and my brother grabbed a $737 Samsung bluray theater system for only $51.92 and both are to be delivered to our house by tomorrow. I would be an idiot to ever pay full retail prices at walmart or bestbuy. I sold a 37″ LCD HDTV to my boss for $600 that I only paid $78.24 for. The site we use is, BidsWave.com

  • vasumurti

    Veganism Is Direct Action!

    “A diet that can lead to heart attacks, cancer, and numerous other diseases cannot be a natural diet,” writes Keith Akers in A Vegetarian Sourcebook (1983).

    “A diet that pillages our resources of land, water, forests, and energy cannot be a natural diet. A diet that causes the unnecessary suffering and death of billions of animals each year cannot be a natural diet.”

    I understand there are conservative Christians who fear vegetarianism…which is kind of like being afraid of nonsmoking, nondrinking, or recycling.

    Ronald J. Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action, in his 1977 book, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, pointed out that 220 million Americans were eating enough food (largely because of the high consumption of grain fed to livestock) to feed over one billion people in the poorer countries.

    A pamphlet put out by Compassion Over Killing says raising animals for food is one of the leading causes of both pollution and resource depletion today.

    According to a recent United Nations report, Livestock’s Long Shadow, raising chickens, turkeys, pigs, and other animals for food causes more greenhouse gas emissions than all the cars, trucks and other forms of transportation combined.

    Researchers from the University of Chicago similarly concluded that a vegetarian diet is the most energy efficient, and the average American does more to reduce global warming emissions by not eating animal products than by switching to a hybrid car.

    “Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”

    —Union Nations’ Food and Agriculture Association

    Nearly 75% of the grain grown and 50% of the water consumed in the U.S. are used by the meat industry. (Audubon Society)

    Over 260 million acres of U.S. forest have been cleared to grow grain for livestock. (Greenpeace)

    It takes nearly one gallon of fossil fuel and 5,200 gallons of water to produce just one pound of conventionally fed beef. (Mother Jones)

    Farmed animals produce an estimated 1.4 billion tons of fecal waste each year in the U.S. Much of this untreated waste pollutes the land and water.

    The following points and facts are excerpted from Please Don’t Eat the Animals (2007) by Jennifer Horsman and Jaime Flowers:

    “A reduction in beef and other meat consumption is the most potent single act you can take to halt the destruction of our environment and preserve our natural resources. Our choices do matter: What’s healthiest for each of us personally is also healthiest for the life support system of our precious, but wounded planet.”

    —John Robbins, author, Diet for a New America, and President, EarthSave Foundation

    One study puts animal waste in the United States to between 2.4 trillion to 3.9 trillion pounds per year. The United states produces 15,000 pounds of manure per person. This is 130 times the amount of waste produced by the entire human population of the United States.

    A 1,000-cow dairy can produce approximately 120,000 pounds of waste per day. This is the functional equivalent of the amount of sanitary waste produced by a city of 20,000 people.

    A 20,000-chicken factory produces about 2.4 million pounds of manure a year. Poultry factories are one of the fastest growing industries throughout Asia.

    One pig excretes nearly three gallons of waste per day, or 2.5 times the average human’s daily total. One hog farm with 50,000 pigs in France produces more waste than the entire city of Los Angeles, and some pig farms are much larger.

    Factory farm pollution is the primary source of damage to coastal waters in North and South America, Europe, and Asia. Scientists report that over sixty percent of the coastal waters in the United States are moderately to severely degraded from factory farm nutrient pollution. This pollution creates oxygen-depleted dead zones, which are huge areas of ocean devoid of aquatic life.

    Meat production causes deforestation, which then contributes to global warming. Trees convert carbon dioxide into oxygen, and the destruction of forests around the globe to make room for grazing cattle furthers the greenhouse effect.

    The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations reports that the annual rate of tropical deforestation has increased from nine million hectares in 1980 to 16.8 million hectares in 1990, and unfortunately, this destruction has accelerated since then.

    By 1994, a staggering 200 million hectares of rainforest had been destroyed in South America just for cattle.

    “The impact of countless hooves and mouths over the years has done more to alter the type of vegetation and land forms of the West than all the water projects, strip mines, power plants, freeways, and sub-division developments combined.”

    —Philip Fradkin, in Audubon, National Audubon Society, New York

    Agricultural meat production generates air pollution. As manure decomposes, it releases over 400 volatile organic compounds, many of which are extremely harmful to human health.

    Nitrogen, a major by-product of animal wastes, changes to ammonia as it escapes into the air, and this is a major source of acid rain.

    Worldwide, livestock produce over 30 million tons of ammonia. Hydrogen sulfide, another chemical released from animal waste, can cause irreversible neurological damage, even at low levels.

    The World Conservation Union lists over 1,000 different fish species that are threatened or endangered. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, over 60 percent of the world’s fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. Commercial fish populations of cod, hake, haddock, and flounder have fallen by as much as 95 percent in the north Atlantic.

    The United States and Europe lose several billion tons of topsoil each year from cropland and grazing land, and 84 percent of this erosion is caused by livestock agriculture.

    While this soil is theoretically a renewable resource, we are losing soil at a much faster rate than we are able to replace it. It takes 100 to 500 years to produce one inch of topsoil, but due to livestock grazing and feeding, farming areas can lose up to six inches of topsoil a year.

    Livestock production affects a startling 70 to 85 percent of the land area of the United States, United Kingdom, and the European Union. That includes the public and private rangeland used for grazing, as well as the land used to produce the crops that feed the animals.

    By comparison, urbanization only affects three percent of the United States land area, slightly larger for the European Union and the United Kingdom. Meat production consumes the world’s land resources.

    Half of all fresh water worldwide is used for thirsty livestock. Producing eight ounces of beef requires an unimaginable 25,000 liters of water, or the water necessary for one pound of steak equals the water consumption of the average household for a year.

    The United States government spends $10 million each year to kill an estimated 100,000 wild animals, including coyotes, foxes, bobcats, badgers, bears, and mountain lions just to placate ranchers who don’t want these animals killing their livestock. The cost far outweighs the damage to livestock that these predators cause.

    The Worldwatch Institute estimates one pound of steak from a steer raised in a feedlot costs: five pounds of grain, a whopping 2,500 gallons of water, the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline, and about 34 pounds of topsoil.

    Thirty-three percent of our nation’s raw materials and fossil fuels go into livestock destined for slaughter. In a vegan economy, only two percent of our resources will go to the production of food.

    “It seems disingenuous for the intellectual elite of the first world to dwell on the subject of too many babies being born in the second- and third-world nations while virtually ignoring the overpopulation of cattle and the realities of a food chain that robs the poor of sustenance to feed the rich a steady diet of grain-fed meat.”

    —Jeremy Rifkin, pro-life AND pro-animal author, Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture, and president of the Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

    According to the editors of World Watch, July/August 2004: “The human appetite for animal flesh is a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening the human future–deforestization, topsoil erosion, fresh water scarcity, air and water pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss, social injustice, the destabilization of communities and the spread of disease.”

    Brother David Steindl-Rast, a Benedictine monk, similarly says in the February 1995 issue of Harmony: Voices for a Just Future (a peace and justice periodical on the relgious Left):

    “…the survival of our planet depends on our sense of belonging–to all other humans, to dolphins caught in dragnets to pigs and chickens and calves raised in animal concentration camps, to redwoods and rainforests, to kelp beds in our oceans, and to the ozone layer.”

    Les Brown of the Overseas Development Council calculates that if Americans reduced their meat consumption by only ten percent per year, it would free at least twelve million tons of grain for human consumption–or enough to feed sixty million people.

    The number of animals killed for food in the United States is nearly 75 times larger than the number of animals killed in laboratories, 30 times larger than the number killed by hunters and trappers, and 500 times larger than the number of animals killed in animal pounds.

    People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is challenging those who think they can still be “meat-eating environmentalists” to go veg, if they really care about the planet.

    peta2 is now the largest youth movement of any social change organization in the world.

    peta2 has 267,000 friends on MySpace and 91,000 Facebook fans.

    A few years ago, PETA was the top-ranked charity when a poll asked teenagers what nonprofit group they would most want to work for. PETA won by more than a two to one margin over the second place finisher, The American Red Cross, with more votes than the Red Cross and Habitat for Humanity combined.

    “If anyone wants to save the planet,” says Paul McCartney in a PETA interview, “all they have to do is stop eating meat. That’s the single most important thing you could do. It’s staggering when you think about it.

    “Vegetarianism takes care of so many things in one shot: ecology, famine, cruelty. Let’s do it! Linda was right. Going veggie is the single best idea for the new century.”

blog comments powered by Disqus