Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Bush's War Against Nature

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15672 Bush's War Against NatureEric

Johnson, Coast Weekly

April 17, 2003Viewed on April 21, 2003

 

Three years ago, in April of 2000, President Bill Clinton created the Giant

Sequoia National Monument in the southern Sierra Nevada, 250 miles east of here.

The declaration was meant to protect a forest that includes the world's oldest

and biggest trees -- a place that had been a battleground for a century.

 

Ever since John Muir trekked in the Sierra, conservationists had fought to

protect the Sequoia, battling timber companies that saw the ancient giants as so

much standing lumber. Clinton's move seemed to put an end to the fight -- it

mandated that commercial logging in the forest would cease.

 

Late last year the Bush administration re-ignited hostilities by proposing a

plan to allow widespread logging in the Monument, home to nearly half of the

remaining groves of Sequoia.

 

U.S. Forest Service chief Dale Bosworth, the Bush administration appointee who

oversees the Monument, claimed that the logging plan was primarily designed to

protect the big trees. Thinning the forest, Bosworth said, would lessen the risk

of fire, and a local sawmill would be able to market wood that would otherwise

eventually burn.

 

Environmentalists countered that the idea of logging the forest to save it was

absurd, and that one sawmill was not worth the ecological price of cutting into

the ancient forest.

 

But the plan to log in the Giant Sequoia National Monument isn't just about

wood, any more than the war in Iraq is just about oil. And it isn't about saving

the trees, any more than Operation Iraqi Freedom is really about liberating the

citizens of Iraq.

 

Just as Gulf War II represents an aggressive shift in U.S. foreign policy, the

logging plan in the Sierra is part of a massive assault on a budding

environmental ethic that dates back to the first Earth Day, April 20, 1970.

 

The Sequoia logging plan is included in a Bush administration proposal called

the " Healthy Forests Initiative. " The proposal would effectively allow loggers

back into 10 million acres of woods they have been locked out of by three

decades of regulations. In order to do so, the Initiative undercuts the two

cornerstones of forest protection law: the National Environmental Protection Act

and the National Forest Management Act.

 

The Bush team says the Healthy Forests Initiative is intended to protect

fire-prone forests. Environmentalists and scientists see the Initiative as a

cynical ploy -- one front in a broadly aggressive campaign to rewrite the

nation's environmental law books.

 

From the beginning, George Bush showed that green was not one of his true

colors. His appointees in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the

departments of Interior, Agriculture, and Energy were as hawkish as their

cabinet colleagues in Defense and State. Even as the war in Iraq was being

waged, the president's hand-picked departmental heads -- Ann Vedemen, Christie Whitman, et al -- have engaged in a domestic war on the side of timber

companies and oil companies, factory owners and car-builders, nuclear-power

plants and land developers.

 

This War Isn't Over

 

Over the past three years, the Bush administration's anti-environment army has

practiced the same brand of warfare America has been watching on TV for the past

three weeks: a series of rhetorical air strikes followed by ground attacks in

the courts and bureaucratic strongholds, taking one chunk of territory after

another.

 

But the nation's environmental groups have not crumbled like the Republican

Guard, and this war is not over.

 

The Bush army has failed in its efforts to weaken Clean Water Act restrictions

on arsenic, to drill for oil off the coast of California, and to move a massive

industrial outpost into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. These were big

victories for the environment. But there have been devastating defeats.

 

The EPA -- in charge of enforcing environmental laws -- has been the site of the

most thorough-going turnaround. A few recent actions: In January, the EPA

exempted the oil and gas industry from water pollution rules. Last month, the

agency decided cities could not be held responsible for their toxic runoff.

There is a move currently underway to loosen rules mandating that chemical

plants, automobile factories and steel mills cut their emissions of air

pollution.

 

(The EPA is, however, still being too aggressive for the Bush administration.

The Office of Management and Budget has targeted the agency for " review " in an

overall move to reduce regulatory constraints placed on industry.)

 

Other federal agencies have joined in the pile-on. Agriculture has certified

Mexican tuna " dolphin safe, " when it is a well-known fact that fishing practices

in Mexican waters are killing dolphins. The Department of Defense has OK'd a

Navy plan to test sonar that is known to cause brain hemorrhages in whales.

 

Over in the Department of Energy, the Bush administration's plan -- notorious

for having been written in secret by Dick Cheney and a cabal of corporate

executives -- contains a blueprint for drilling, mining, and the re-ignition of

nuclear power. This plan stems from the administration's refusal to believe in

the frightening fact of global warming -- a belief which has scientists the

world over calling for the development of alternative sources of energy.

 

Meanwhile, in the Giant Sequoia National Monument, a verdant island surrounded

by clearcut-scarred National Forest land, the " Healthy Forests Initiative " calls

for more chainsaws.

 

Are Trees Evil?

 

If the Sequoia falls like that statue of Saddam, it will be equally symbolic.

But what will it mean? Saddam was a convenient enemy for a nation bent on

expanding its power -- but he was also a truly nasty piece of work. With the

logging of the Sequoia, what evil is being banished?

 

Despite the Bush team's innocent claims, the enemy is not wildfire. To believe

that, one would have to accept the premise that forests need loggers in order to

thrive. One look at the clearcut lands surrounding the Giant Sequoia Monument --

where mud-choked streams flow through stumpfields -- puts the lie to that idea.

 

But one needn't take a trip to the redwoods to discern the Bush administration's

intent. It is evident in the workings of the Initiative itself.

 

To achieve its prescription, the Healthy Forests Initiative does one

fundamentally important thing: It limits citizens' rights to appeal Forest

Service decisions. The idea, according to the Bush administration doctrine, is

to allow " professional forest managers to make decisions without interference

from 'special interest groups.' "

 

This is the real enemy: environmentalists and the ethic that guides them.

 

One of this war's chief strategic thinkers, anti-environmentalist crusader Ron

Arnold, posed the challenge in his book, " A Wolf in the Garden : The Land Rights

Movement and the New Environmental Debate " :

 

" Today the Wolf is firmly entrenched in Washington, D. C., where important

environmental groups have established headquarters or major operating bases.

Eco-ideologists have written many laws, tested them in the courts and pressured

many administrative agencies into compliance with their ideology. They have, in

brief, become the Establishment. The apparatus of environmentalism is no longer

represented merely by non-profit organizations, but has grown to encompass

American government at all levels.

 

" Who will restrain America's science and technology? Who will decide what

" delicate balance humans must observe " ? The answer was clear: only environmental

ideologists, and not those who create economic growth, science, technology or

the market economy. "

 

This is where the War in Iraq and this other war, being waged practically in

secret, show their shared heritage.

 

With its apparent " victory " in Iraq, the Bush administration has effectively

ended a brief era during which international law -- represented by the faltering

steps of the United Nations -- played an important, if limited role. By

asserting dominance over this law, Bush, Dick Cheney, and their warlords

(Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Powell, and the like) have asserted the supremacy of

American (corporate) interests against those of the Arab world and against those

of the wider world community.

 

This other war asserts an even deeper arrogance.

 

In Bush's war against the environment, the nature ethic is not collateral

damage. This ethic and these principals are indeed the targets of these policies

-- of these wars.

 

In its place, the Bush administration would put a policy of dominion. George

Bush's anti-environment crusade, his war against nature, is rooted in the belief

that, just as the world must bow before American military might, nature itself

must be subservient to corporate man and his rapacious greed for dominion. It is

meant to be a message to the world, a challenge: We will do as we please.

 

The world has yet to answer that challenge.

 

Eric Johnson is the editor of Coast Weekly in Monterey, Calif.

 

 

 

Gettingwell- / Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc.

 

To , e-mail to: Gettingwell-

Or, go to our group site: Gettingwell

 

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...