The New York Times ran an uncharacteristically long editorial last week about President’s Biden’s environmental agenda, headlined, “Joe Biden’s Monumental Environmental Gambit.” It was a gushy puff piece, like we have grown to expect from that source, leading with the probably-accurate generalization, “It is hard to overstate the joy of the environmental community when Joe Biden ascended to the White House.”
The Times asserted that, “In place of a man who called climate change a hoax, it got someone who saw global warming for the grave threat it is, and who spoke, at his inaugural, of the world’s duty to respond to ‘a cry for survival’ that ‘comes from the planet itself.’ It got someone who saw government regulations not as ‘job killers’ but as appropriate levers to achieve cleaner air and water. It got someone who viewed the public lands not as a resource to be exploited by commercial interests but as nature’s gift to future generations.”
All well and good, as an expression of opinion by people who are as entitled to their view as I am to mine. But it quickly became cringe-worthy when they concluded that Biden is, “A worthy custodian, in short, to the environmental ethic of Teddy Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.” Bill Clinton perhaps, but the comparison to Roosevelt – the founder and patron saint of the modern conservation movement – strains credibility for students of history.
Technically, “gambit” is an opening chess move, and the term is often used metaphorically to describe an opening tactic or strategy. That suggests that Biden is only getting started with the dozens of executive orders he has issued on environmental issues.
Biden is moving toward re-listing species that have been recovered and removed from the endangered list, a favored tool to limit human activity. He has already tried to reinstate the “waters of the U.S. (WOTUS)” rule, the power grab set aside by several federal courts. Look for a return to the original acreage of Grand Staircase Escalante and Bears Ears National Monuments, and the addition of several new monuments, also where those clamoring for the designation are not the people who live there. Biden also endorses the ambitious 30-30 plan to “preserve” 30 percent of the nation’s land and water by 2030. The Times suggested that only 12 percent of the nation’s lands, “enjoy some level of official protection.” That is mysterious, since governments already own more than 30 percent of the nation. By definition, such lands are “protected” against what is normally called “development.”
These are all issues upon which reasonable people may disagree, perhaps enthusiastically. But in debate, I have always been fond of Senator Moynihan’s famous admonition, “You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.” To equate this Biden “gambit” to that of Theodore Roosevelt is to ignore history.
Perhaps that is no surprise, in light of the national fad of rewriting history. And this is the same editorial board that produced the discredited “1619” theory of America’s founding. But Roosevelt would roll over in his grave, being associated with a move toward locking up America’s natural resources.
Today’s gambit is to protect public resources from the public. That is almost exactly opposite of the conservation strategy Roosevelt and other early conservationists advocated.
Progressives of the last century who created national parks and forests had three primary purposes. First, these lands supplied the natural resources necessary to build a prosperous society, including lumber, water, minerals and recreation. Second, their use must be responsible, to ensure they are also available to future generations. Those first two purposes still today underlie most environmental disputes. But there was a third purpose, articulated throughout Roosevelt’s writings, lectures and letters – to ensure that these resources belong to everyone, not just one segment of society.
The forests do not belong just to timber companies, nor minerals only to mining companies, nor rangelands only to ranchers. Public lands belong to everyone, he argued. Believe it or not, this theory was highly contentious at the time, and we clearly need that debate again.
Today’s environmental lobby would close most public lands to all but the hearty few able to walk there and lucky enough to live nearby. They would lock up all our energy resources, perpetuating our dependence on foreign oil. America’s resources may belong to everyone, but not everyone gets a voice in those decisions. Those who seek preservation for the future – without any use by today’s generation – have no claim to the legacy of Theodore Roosevelt.
Comments on this entry are closed.