Rollback on Forest Law

The Bush administration's anti-environmental agenda has been gathering steam since the November elections. First it weakened rules governing industrial air pollution. Then it proposed a major revision in the rules governing management of the national forests. The revision could undermine protections for fish and wildlife.

The administration provided the same benign rationale for the forest rules as it did for the air pollution rules. Existing regulations, it said, had become too prescriptive, too costly and too cumbersome. But in the name of regulatory efficiency, the administration would also eliminate mandatory environmental reviews. The only obvious beneficiary would be the timber interests and others who use the forests for commercial purposes.

As such, the rules depart from both the spirit and the letter of a bedrock environmental law, the 1976 National Forest Management Act. That law was a response to decades of abuse by managers in the country's 155 national forests and by their bosses in Washington, who were mainly interested in harvesting timber. The law and the subsequent regulations written to give it muscle were designed to make sure that the health of the forest and its wildlife was valued at least as much as the interests of the timber companies.

Under the Bush proposals, however, these mandatory steps would become optional, left to the discretion of individual forest supervisors. That invites trouble. Forest supervisors have always been subject to local commercial pressures. Unless the law unambiguously requires them to protect nature � gives them legal cover, as it were, to resist industry blandishments � we could see a return to the days of aggressive logging, when what counted in a manager's r�sum� was not whether he harmonized the competing needs of nature and commerce but whether he met his annual "cut."

The proposal will now be subject to a 90-day comment period. Environmentalists and all those in Congress who care about the forests should use that time to object as forcefully as they can.

Copyright The New York Times Company

~~~

and for those of us who love him...from the NY Times Magazine...


QUESTIONS FOR ROBERT REDFORD

The Outsider
Interview by AMANDA GRISCOM

Last month the Vote Solar Initiative, an organization you're involved with that promotes renewable energy, celebrated the dedication of one of the country's largest solar installations in San Francisco. What's the importance of an effort like this right now?

From the moment Bush stepped into office, he's been leading a sly and extremely disciplined campaign to destroy, dismantle, unravel, undo 30 years of environmental-regulations development. I know because for the last 30 years I've been a part of the organizations and activists fighting tooth and nail for those regulations. The current assault on environmental policy is unspeakably disturbing and shortsighted, and we're going to be paying for it.

Is there any upside?

In the absence of any federal-level leadership on these issues, that's where something like Vote Solar comes in. Last year San Francisco residents voted to spend $100 million on solar installations on buildings like schools, libraries, even sewage treatment plants. Now this initiative is catching on in cities and states nationwide.

So that's cause for optimism?

It's hard, but I do see the positive, otherwise it would be too hard to keep going. I find hope coming from the bottom up now, when the Bush administration is making it virtually impossible for the smaller groups to have a say and we're surrounded by so much apathy.

Apathy?

Yeah, it's like people skim right past all news about the ozone hole and the wetlands being drained and junked by developers and the Glacier National Park in Montana that could have no glaciers by midcentury. They skim past the fact that the reservoirs along the Colorado River will be more than a third lower in the next 20 to 50 years -- in our lifetimes! My God! The Colorado River is drying up in our lifetimes!

How does the Bush administration get away with it?

They are very, very shrewd in couching it in patriotism. Nearly every statement that comes from this administration includes the phrase "the American people." Every time I hear that phrase I just substitute "industrial interests." Look at the people who are calling the shots -- you've got Cheney, you've got Rove, you just look at the murderer's row there, and the handwriting is on the wall.

If Dick Cheney were an animal, what would he be?

Coyote? The group of 'em, a pack of coyotes -- tricky, cunning, making sure they take care of themselves but doing it in a wily way, making sure they never get caught.

So many of the figures you're talking about come, like you, from the West. Why doesn't coming from that environment produce a stronger desire to preserve it?

Part of the West still has this outdated philosophy of manifest destiny: what we can take, we deserve.

Why haven't you ever become a politician?

I like my freedom too much. I like to have a good time. I don't want to be held to such compromises.

Is it hard for you to communicate to the kids of the MTV generation?

Entertainment is a double-edged sword, quite frankly, and it's kind of weird to be saying this because it's my day job. But I'm a little critical of how completely oppressive it's getting. Newspapers now have box-office scores on the front page. The front page should be left for major issues that really affect us. And top 10 this, top 10 that -- it's always changing. It's about as shallow and transitory as you can get.

Have you heard about the "What would Jesus drive?" campaign? Religious figures promoting fuel-efficient cars to protect God's earth?

Oh, that's great! But Jesus would ride a horse is what he'd ride. You know, I spend a lot of time on horses.

You don't drive all-terrain vehicles?

Well, I'm extremely hypocritical. I used to race cars when I was a kid, so it's very hard for me to let go of the idea of a racing vehicle in my life. As for S.U.V.'s, I now have only one, which I use in the mountains. Do I need an S.U.V. in Los Angeles? No, that is wasteful. But if you're in a wilderness area -- which I'm on the edge of -- I would have a justification for using the S.U.V. for exploring and off-road.

You couldn't just use a horse?

As a matter of fact, I don't do as much off-roading as I used to, and now I really do spend pretty much of my time on horseback. And I'm very happy because of it.

Copyright The New York Times Company

last / next



~~~~~~~~~~~peace, love and smooches~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Don't know why you'd wanna, but on the off-chance you may feel tempted to steal any of my words and claim them as your own, please be advised: All material
Copyright 2002-2005, Howl-at-the-Moon Words



***DISCLAIMER: These are my thoughts and my thoughts alone. If you know me in my "real life" off the net and have come across this page purely by accident, please keep in mind that you were not invited here and I would suggest you leave this page now. However, should you choose not to do so, please be warned that reading my thoughts here is not an invitation to discuss them off-line. You may discover things you do not know about me and may not like very much. Such is life. Again, this is MY space and I will use it as I see fit. If you are offended by anything here, well that's pretty much your own fault at this point. I say all of this with love, of course, but there it is.