Plundering Public Lands

The effort to turn public money, resources, and programs into gains for private interest has reached a fever pitch in the United States, resulting in an onslaught of efforts to plunder public lands.

After first establishing a footing in American politics in the 1970s, the neoliberal project to turn everything public into a money-making scheme for corporations and the wealthy has grown into an insatiable colossus, setting aside any pretext of benefiting the public through "trickle-down economics" and grabbing anything it can instead. The recent attempts by the U.S. Congress to sell off millions of acres of public land demonstrate the level to which this greed has risen.

We've certainly seen many strategies for turning things that belong to the public into windfalls for the rich. The undermining of public education with charter schools, many of which are controlled by hedge funds would be one example. The rush by the George W. Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations to sell off public lands for oil and gas exploration would be another. On a smaller scale, many municipalities have sold infrastructure and utilities to private companies, which pillage the resources and jack up prices on citizens.

Over the years, politicians from both the Republican and Democratic parties have become increasingly eager to facilitate this neoliberal plundering. The fervor exhibited during the recent attempt to sell off the public lands shows how rabid the supporters of this approach have become. Although this push was turned back, I doubt it will be last such effort.

With the greed of private interests so strong, supporters of the public good need to summon all their strength and defend what we have left.

The Lessons of Initiative 2117's Blowout Loss

If the national Democratic Party cares about winning, it should take a look at the November 2024 election results from Washington state, especially the defeat of Initiative 2117, a proposed repeal of the state's cap on greenhouse gas emissions. 

In an election when most Democrats across the United States struggled, and Republicans took control of the presidency as well as both chambers of Congress, Washington state stood out because of its successes by Democrats and progressive legislation. Washington Democrats won every statewide race handily and increased their majorities in the state House and Senate. In addition, three of the four initiatives backed by wealthy conservatives to repeal progressive legislation went up in flames: An initiative to repeal the state's new capital gains tax received just 36 percent of the vote, another initiative that would have made the state's long-term care insurance optional lost with only 45 percent of the vote, and I-2117 barely reached 38 percent support. Only an initiative to prevent natural gas energy from being disincentivized passed with a slim margin of 3.42 percentage points. That initiative's constitutionality is already being challenged in court.

All told, the legislation Washington Democrats passed to address global warming, wealth inequality, and health care received resounding support, and voters rewarded the party by overwhelmingly backing its candidates for elected office as well. Given that legislation on those three issues consistently receives majority support nationwide, Democrats across the country would do well to take notice of the results in Washington.

The national Democratic Party should also look closer at the results of I-2117. It failed in even traditionally conservative counties, and in the counties where it passed, the margin was unexpectedly close. In only a few counties did it even reach 60 percent support.

How did the climate legislation that I-2117 sought to repeal achieve such thorough support across the state? Answer: The legislation turned the funds from the program's cap-and-invest system into projects that benefitted communities all over Washington. These projects helped those communities prepare for global warming's impacts, including wildfires and extreme weather, and they created local jobs. In other words, the legislation addressed an important issue by making a direct and positive impact on a large number of people. When it came time to vote on the initiative that would have repealed the legislation, the people joined in the campaign against the initiative and voted no. While they were voting against the initiative, they also voted for the candidates from the party who had passed the climate legislation.

That's how a party wins elections: They make a positive impact on people's lives. The question is does the national Democratic Party really want to win?

No on Initiative 2117

In recent years, I've gravitated more toward direct action than politics, but every once in a while, something important comes up in politics that requires attention, and Initiative 2117 on Washington state's ballot this fall is one of those important issues.

I-2117 seeks to repeal the state's cap on greenhouse gas emissions, and I think Washingtonians should vote no.

After watching inaction on so many levels throughout my lifetime, I was very happy when Washington state passed its Climate Commitment Act in 2021. On its own, the legislation couldn't stop global warming, but it was one positive step forward. It created limits on greenhouse gas emissions and helped fund projects that would allow Washingtonians to prepare for global warming's effects on our region.

This year, wealthy conservatives introduced I-2117 to repeal the legislation, jeopardizing the pollution standards and the projects that would help mitigate the impacts of global warming.

I'm voting no on I-2117, and if you live in Washington, I hope you will too.

Matters in My Own Hands

My recent experiences volunteering for Conservation Northwest's Cascades to Olympics program have produced a lot of lessons, and one of the most important realizations is the power of action over politics.

Even as a kid, the environment and animals mattered a lot to me, and I wanted to translate that into actions that would make for a better world: less pollution, more environmental protections, and protection of other species.

I suppose it was inevitable that my concern for environmental issues would lead to an interest in politics and how political action influenced the environment. However, I came to place too much emphasis on this aspect of the environmental movement. Because I did so, I became disheartened when the politicians of the United States failed time and time again to address global warming. That disappointment began to weigh on me in very personal ways. Feeling powerless is not a good feeling, especially when important issues like global warming are left unresolved.

In early 2023, I began volunteering to clear wildlife corridors for the Cascades to Olympics program, which highlights the importance of southwestern Washington state for wildlife in the region. By reconnecting portions of habitat, the program helps species get where they need to go and find more suitable habitat as the climate changes.

Almost instantly, I felt better. The physical activity of improving the corridors was a good outlet for my frustration at the country's political failures. It was also a chance to connect with others and build community. Perhaps most importantly, it allowed me to translate my concern for the environment into tangible work that could make a difference right away in a place that meant a lot to me.

While I was volunteering last week, I spoke with Conservation Northwest's project manager, and he noted how a lot of people in the area are becoming interested in helping with the program. He said he thought one reason was that participating in it gave people hope in what otherwise seems like a hopeless situation. That's when I realized exactly why volunteering on the project had made me feel better. I said, "You know, I think working on this project has done more to help animals prepare for global warming than any politician who has ever received my vote."

Political action isn't a waste of time, but when it comes down to what's most important, it's sometimes best to take matters into your own hands.

Powering to the Ballot

With the promise of decreasing pollution and making investments in Washington state's communities and clean energy, Initiative 1631 vaulted to the November 2018 ballot behind the energetic support of more than 375,000 signatures.

As this tweet from the Yes on 1631 campaign announces, on August 3, I-1631 received official certification for the ballot from Washington's secretary of state. Needing only 260,000 signatures to qualify, the broad coalition sponsoring the initiative sent a powerful message by collecting nearly one and a half times that in less than four months.

Just qualifying for the ballot carries a certain amount of momentum, but the large total of signatures that made I-1631's certification possible indicates a high level of energy behind this important initiative. It's the kind of strength that can fortify and propel the initiative as it moves toward the election this fall.

Clearly, Washingtonians want to address global warming, and I-1631 provides a practical and effective way of doing so. By putting a fee on carbon pollution from the fossil fuel industry, the initiative discourages carbon emissions, provides funds that help communities cope with the effects of global warming, and invests in renewable sources of energy. For more information, visit the campaign's Web site.

I-1631 seeks to change how we power our society, and it's using the power of people to make that happen.

A Place and Its Moment

Wind turbines churn out renewable
energy near Grayland, Washington.

American journalist Mignon McLaughlin wrote, "The only courage that matters is the kind that gets you from one moment to the next."

The state of Washington needs that courage now from its legislators and from its people. We stand on the edge of a transition from one moment to another, and that move asks us to take a major step.

During the past five years, Washington has seen major impacts of global warming but no legislative action to address it. Consequently, that half-decade did not contain the fondest moments for Washington's environmentalists. In November 2012, voters elected Governor Jay Inslee, a Democrat who has highlighted global warming as a key issue. That same year, two Democrats switched allegiance and began caucusing with Republicans, putting the state senate in GOP control. Every year since then, with major droughts, die-offs in sea life, and record-breaking fire seasons taking place, Inslee has called for climate legislation only to have Republicans block it.

Election results from a single race on Tuesday made possible a new and brighter moment in Washington government. Democrat Manka Dhingra won election to the senate in a district previously represented by a Republican, returning control of the chamber to Democrats. That means, no obstacles remain to prevent Inslee's desired legislation. As long as Democrats have the courage to make it happen, we can finally address this urgent issue.

This is the moment the state has waited for, and we must make the most of it. Our beloved region desperately needs action on global warming, and that work has to start at home. No excuses, no procrastinating. Whether the legislation comes in the form of a cap-and-trade system like the one Inslee proposed three years ago or a carbon tax like the one voters placed on the ballot in 2016, this legislation needs to get done, and needs to be done well.

Our moment is here, Washington, and we must be courageous. Contact your legislators and the governor, and tell them to seize this opportunity for a healthier planet.

One Bird, One Voice

I am one bird. I am one voice. That is all. That is enough.

For many, the 2016 election brought frustration, fear, anger, and sadness. I too felt some of those things during a Democratic primary in which what was fair, right, and smart seemed disregarded. Watching the Democratic Party's insiders control the process tore at my sense of fair play and stabbed at my core values. However, by the end of the election, I felt much different because, for the first time, I took to heart the understanding that I am one voice.

During the summer, I stepped back from the election and concentrated on enjoying the things most important to me: nature, family, and home. Outside of the political whirlwind, I discovered peace in being a single voice. I realized that all I can do is do my best, be informed, and make sound decisions. I can't control others or let my life hinge on their decisions.

Because of my hard-won, new perspective, fall 2016 went much differently for me than any general election since I became a voter. After a few months of living with that perspective, I realized that half of October had passed without my becoming drained or overwhelmed by the general election. When the results came in, I was cool and calm in the knowledge that I had done my best.

Rather than dwelling on the negative, my mind gravitated toward what I thought had been the best parts of the election. At the top of that list, sat a bird. During a primary rally in Oregon, a female house finch landed on Bernie Sanders' podium in a powerful moment of hope and life. The bird later became known as Birdie Sanders. If you never had the chance to see Birdie in action, you can watch her below:



That bird, that podium, that moment: That is the image I choose to take from this election, and given my personal breakthrough over the summer, it's not really surprising that it came back to me in the end. With it, I will walk away from the 2016 campaign holding on to the two most powerful things I know: nature and my ideals. They give me my heart, my joy, my indomitable spirit, my unbreakable will, and my sense of direction. They are who I am and what I do. I leave the rest to others and those others to their own choices.

I am just one bird, and all I can do is use my single voice in the hope of making the planet a little better in my own way.

Darkness on the Edge of Reason

If we want to see it, global warming is easily found.

The signs of a warming planet pop up everywhere; and years ago, scientists reached a consensus in determining that the phenomenon is caused by humans. Yet global warming remains a political debate, and we continue delaying attempts to address it. Dale Jamieson tries to explain the causes and consequences of our inaction in a new book called "Reason in a Dark Time."

Jamieson shares ideas that put our communication about the environment in the spotlight. To get a sample of what the book covers, read this interview with the author. The interview, all by itself, offers amazing insights about how we construct our relationship with the environment. "Reason in a Dark Time" is available now.

In covering a range of topics, including science communication, the importance of environmental values, and the complexities of our relationship with nature, Jamieson holds a mirror up to our faces. This reflective enlightenment shows us that if we have failed to address global warming, it is only because we have chosen not to see it. Science has given us all the information we need to take urgent action, yet we allow ourselves to delay.

The dark can be scary, but it's scarier that we'd choose to stay in it.

A Range of Options

The simplest answer isn't always the right one.

In dealing with wolves, we can take the easy route and exterminate them again, or we can look for solutions that allow us to live with them. The second option is infinitely more complex in terms of both its challenges and its opportunities.

Living with wolves requires planning and work, but it also has impacts that reach far into our ecosystems. For example, the presence of wolves decreases bank erosion along rivers because they keep elk from eating all the vegetation beside the streams.

Here's some news from Conservation Northwest that shows living with wolves is possible if we embrace more developed ideas. To sum it up, the article talks about the use of "range riders," who are individuals that watch over livestock herds. The strategy virtually eliminates predation by wolves.

The easy road is to ignore science and delist wolves, turning them over to state governments whose intention is to kill wolves, not manage them.

We have more and better options though, and it's in the interest of both humans and wolves that we choose them.

What a Contrast

See? It's not really that hard.

Two days ago, I blogged about the approach taken by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in deciding whether to take away the protections wolves have as an endangered species. The main issue was that FWS had removed top scientists from its decision-making panel. As a contrast to that, take a look at how Metro Parks of Summit County in Ohio has made science the centerpiece of its approach to living with coyotes:



It is clear that science is the key to how Metro Parks deals with fears about coyotes. By comparison, FWS appears rooted in a fear-based approach. The difference is stunning. Using Metro Parks' method, people learn about coyotes and the best ways to handle relationships with them. Also, listen to the language used by Metro Parks' agents. It is based on the idea of connecting to and understanding the environment. FWS, on the other hand, has excluded the sources of information needed for such understanding.

Scientific information is crucial to developing our connection with our environment and making the best decisions for the entire system. Metro Parks of Summit County sets a great example, showing it can be done.

Silenced Science

To make the best possible decisions, we must listen to those who know most about the issues.

With this basic fact in mind, one must question whether the United States Fish and Wildlife Service really wants to make the best decision when it comes to wolves. As the following interview from the California Wolf Center shows, wolf experts were recently removed from a panel that is to help decide if wolves should have their protections as an endangered species removed. Listen to the interview by playing the YouTube video:



It turned out that objections to the removal of the scientists caused FWS to rethink its approach to the decision-making process. However, its initial decision to remove the scientists undermines the agency's credibility on this issue. No one genuinely interested in doing what is right for wolves would think of silencing those who study the species for a living.

Click here to comment on the proposed delisting and tell FWS that wolves still need protection.

Wolf experts say the species should not be delisted. This scientific perspective should lead the decision-making process, not be excluded from it.

Rally Time

We know their sound well, but wolves rarely get heard as far as environmental policy is concerned. The National Rally to Protect America's Wolves in Washington, D.C., on September 7 hopes to change this.

Wolves were nearly wiped out in the lower 48 states by the 1970s and received protection under the US Endangered Species Act in 1974. Now, less than 20 years after their reintroduction to the American West, they are being hunted in high numbers again, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed removing their ESA protection.

The idea of pulling federal support from wolf recovery at this point raises the question of why the government even bothered to reintroduce them in the first place. Doing so has simply given people yet another thing to kill.

In response to the current political climate, the organizers of the wolf rally are bringing people together to show support for wolf recovery and for protecting the animals under the ESA. For more information about the rally, click here.

Giving wolves a political voice now is important to ensuring their sound remains a part of this world.

Getting to the Line First

The United States just completed its latest election cycle, and the country has some excitement over the progress that might be made in the coming years. However, four years ago, we had even more excitement, and environmentally, it got us very little.

During the last four years, few elected officials have prioritized environment issues, and President Barack Obama has declined to throw the weight of the White House behind issues like carbon emissions, often maintaining a silence about global warming.

After seeing this unfold since 2008, I did not share in the excitement from four days ago. However, I like what the group 350.org is planning to do.

The group has decided to bring its protest of the Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline back to Washington, DC, on November 18. (I wrote about last year's protests here and here.) The 2011 protests were effective in delaying the pipeline, but the president will have to make a final decision soon. Rather than waiting to see if Obama will take a strong stand on the issue when his second term begins, 350.org is getting out in front and making sure the environment becomes a priority.

Go to the 350.org Web site by clicking here. To sign up to be part of the protest, click here.

Water, Water, Everywhere

It is true that we receive a lot of things, including our lives, from water. However, our relationship with it is even more complex and precious.

Our reliance on water is one of the most important ways our actions related to the environment come back to us. We are largely water, so whatever we put into our water eventually becomes part of us. For these reasons, I want to acknowledge that tomorrow is the 40th anniversary of the Clean Water Act.

After nearly a half of a century, even the most important legislation can be taken for granted, but water is so crucial to our lives, we can't afford to forget the value of the CWA. The act was passed just three years after the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught on fire because of the pollution it contained. Since that time, we have made improvements in our management of water pollution, but we have also created new threats, and many waterways continue to struggle.

Remembering our connection to water is a key step in maintaining high water-quality standards and pollution regulation.

Hot Talk

The election season is heating up, and the weather has been scorching all year, so it is strange that our elected officials seem so cold to the idea of talking about global warming.

News about record heat and heat-related disasters continues to mount. Last week, MSNBC reported that as of the end of August, 2012 is the hottest year in the history of the United States. Today, USA Today published an article saying this summer was the third warmest summer on record in world history. Then, there is the following video, which shows the record amount of ice melting that occurred in the Arctic this year:



Additionally, in my corner of the world, the Pacific Northwest is beginning to experience the kind of drought conditions that have occurred across the country. Washington state and Oregon are both fighting many forest fires, and I spent last week breathing the smoke from those fires.

Despite all these events, global warming doesn't seem to be a very hot topic of discussion among politicians. In response, I would like to encourage everyone to contact their elected representatives and ask them to talk about global warming and how we should address it.

Finnish VP

I'll end this series of entries on my Finland trip with a news story that is actually about the United States. However, since I saw the story in Finland and it probably received as much attention there as it did in the US, it still counts as part of my Finnish experience.

The news is that the US Green Party's vice presidential nominee will be a Finnish-American woman. Born into poverty in Minnesota, Cheri Honkala is an advocate for poor people's rights (she and Green Party presidential nominee Dr. Jill Stein were just arrested for protesting housing foreclosures).

Honkala's ancestors immigrated to the US from Finland. You can read an English-language version of the news article about her nomination on Finnish news outlet Yle's Web site by clicking here.

As a fellow Finnish-American and an environmentalist, I find the news exciting.

Another Part of Reality

I thought I would single out one more piece of Al Gore's 24 Hours of Reality. This one looks at the efforts to question the science that studies global warming. Such efforts have eerie similarities to the campaign that sought to reassure the public that cigarettes pose no threat to human health.

 Watch:


DOUBT from The Climate Reality Project on Vimeo.

Parts of Reality

As I already blogged about, Al Gore's 24 Hours of Reality took place last week. I don't expect you to consume all 24 hours of the coverage, but if you didn't get a chance to watch it a week ago, you can check out a few pieces below. And for more pieces of the coverage, click here.

Here is the introduction to the coverage. It is done by Bill Nye, aka the Science Guy, and offers a great overview of global warming:


CLIMATE 101 from The Climate Reality Project on Vimeo.


Also, here are the highlights from Hour 2, which featured a presentation from Boulder, Colorado, and a panel discussion that included Gore and actor Mark Ruffalo:

Remember Big Moves

Two months ago, I talked about two big events planned for late September. Today, I am just posting a reminder that September 22 is World Carfree Day and September 24 is the day for Moving Planet.

If you can, make plans not to use a car for transportation on those days, and if you feel like it, participate in a Moving Planet event near you.

Right now, a lot of efforts (like Al Gore's 24 Hours of Reality, which wraps up today) are being made to push for better environmental policies and practices, so it's a great time to get involved and help maintain the momentum.

Reality Reminder

Just a reminder: As I blogged about in July, September 14 is the beginning of Al Gore's "24 Hours of Reality."

Larry Schweiger, the president of the National Wildlife Federation, is one of the presenters. Check out his pre-presentation interview by clicking here. For more information about the event in general, click here.