If Democrats show that protecting the environment means more jobs, there's hope for real environmental progress, economic salvation and a retreat from old animosities
Login / Register
go to mobile version »

Our Sponsors:

READ MORE »

Our Members

Many thanks to

Gary Gibson

and

Lane Morgan

some of our many supporters.

ALL MEMBERS »

The West »

 

Ending the West's environmental stagnation

 

If Democrats show that protecting the environment means more jobs, there's hope for real environmental progress, economic salvation and a retreat from old animosities

Montana ranch.

A field trip in Montana.

For the last several years, there's been a lot of political focus on the West as the new region that will shape American politics and the prospects of the Democrats. Seeing how Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and very nearly Montana went in the presidential vote of 2008, and factoring in the rapid population growth the entire region is seeing, it's a pretty safe bet that Democrats are going to be serious about building up their base in the Rockies.

But they've still got the past to deal with, and a lot of little landmines, courtesy the Bush administration, to maneuver through. Hard as it may be to believe, given the totality of the destruction left in Bush's wake (the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, our standing in the world, important bits of the Constitution), the past administration didn't pursue its wrecking-ball policy on the environment just because they liked destroying things. It wasn't even, entirely, as a gift to their cronies in industry.

No, the over-the-top anti-environment policies of the past administration were all that and more. They were a way to perpetuate the long-going battle in the West's rural communities against government, against conservationists, and against Democrats. In setting policy after policy that they probably knew would either end up in court, or in reversal by a Democratic administration, they could continue to perpetuate the lie that Democrats (which means environmentalists and lawyers) are anti-job. All of the midnight regulations they pumped out in the last several months to open up sensitive public lands to drilling, every effort to open up just one more bit of roadless area, or national forest, were setting up the next fight over jobs versus the environment.

It's been an incredibly effective tool for Republicans since the late 1970s. It puts the conservation community always with its back against the wall, ensures that they will always have to be fighting, and ensures that those other demons — lawyers — will be fully employed in tying up progress in the courts. And it will all be the Democrat's fault, because when it comes to a jobs versus environment fight, it's always the Democrat's fault.

That tactic has lost some in effectiveness in the last eight years, however. Rural, and particularly Western, citizens have started to see the downside to unregulated industrialization on the lands that have always been there for them to enjoy. When fishing and hunting grounds shrunk, new partnerships between the hook and gun crowd and environmentalists started to spring up. Farmers and ranchers started having to worry about whether their lifeblood — water — was poisoned. Small communities, like Pinedale, Wyoming had to start grappling with big-city social ills because of the huge influx of transient oil and gas workers.

But old habits die hard, and as the economic downturn starts closing more mills and mines, the old scapegoats are going to be blamed again. Unless.

Unless President Obama and the Democrats in Congress see the incredible opportunity open to them now to shift the jobs versus environment debate to their favor, to a new equation: protecting the environment means more jobs.

I've written about the potential for rebuilding our national parks. For every dollar federal dollar invested in the infrastructure of our parks, there's a return of at least four dollars in economic value to the public. But it's not just the national parks where investment would mean jobs.

Joe Kerkvliet, an environmental economist for The Wilderness Society's Northern Rockies Regional office, wrote at New West about the shovel-ready projects in Montana and Idaho forests, and a plan created by a diverse group of Montanans including The Wilderness Society and Pyramid Mountain Lumber:

Among the activities identified by the Forest Service that would receive the largest amount of money are $10 million for road repair and decommissioning, $30 million for clean-up of abandoned mines, and $10 million to combat noxious weeds.

In Montana, the U.S. Forest Service has identified about $59 million of approved restoration projects. Economic impact analysis suggests that, through multiplier effects, completing these projects would result in $92.4 million in additional sales for Montana businesses, $28 million in wages, $14.3 million in small business income, and $2.3 million in state, county, and community tax revenues. The good news for Montana's growing ranks of unemployed is that these projects are projected to create over 1300 new jobs.

The economic impact of these projects would be felt across every sector of our economy, especially in our state's rural workforce. The biggest benefactors by economic sector would include $24.5 million in forestry and agricultural services, $13.8 million in road work, $9.5 million in environmental and technical consulting, and $5.7 million in the beleaguered logging industry.

These kinds of restoration projects are available throughout the West — projects that could put construction workers, loggers, miners back to work. Montana's politicians and public interest groups have been leading the way in developing a restoration economy. I talked with Gov. Schweitzer about this over a year ago:

Schweitzer: What they did 25 years ago is they demagogued environmentalists and people who were pro-environment as people that are going to take away your logging job and your mining job. Well, as it turned out it wasn't environmentalists who took your job away. It was mechanization and trade policy. My gosh, in Butte we're mining as much ore with 380 as we did with 30,000 people in 1920. It's mechanization. The timber industry's mechanization and it's cheap B.C. wood. But, the Republicans managed to message it that it was environmentalists who took away your job, and it was always a question of the environment or your job, and people had to choose. And people chose, in big numbers, their jobs, and blamed it all on Democrats and on environmentalists.

All right. I don't use those terms. [I say] we're going to be in a position where you can hand Montana off along to your grandkids in as good or better shape as when we found it. Now that doesn't sound like a guy whose going to take away your job. And I'm not. In fact, with our restoration economy in Montana, heck, we're creating jobs like crazy, cleaning up the messes from the past. Making the rivers cleaner, making the fisheries better. Improving the roads that we have in the forests so they don't increase siltation and kill bull trout. All those are jobs. Heck, there's as many or more jobs doing that than there was digging the holes or cutting down the trees in the first place. So it turns out it was all a lie: jobs or the environment. To a large extent, what's driving Montana's economy today is people moving here to live in close proximity to those wildlands.

He and his team, as well as Montana's environmental and timber communities, are working together to blow up that old myth of jobs versus environment. It's a brilliant plan, and one that is desperately needed both to repair damage done not just by the Bush administration but by decades of poor resource management, and at the same time create good-paying, sustainable jobs. These kinds of projects are available all across the nation, but particularly in the West, and that's just on public lands alone.

1 | 2 next page

Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!

Comments:

Posted Thu, Jan 29, 10:22 a.m. Inappropriate

We can do this in Washington state as well -- moving up the timeline of Elwha dam removal from 2012 to 2010 would help create jobs on the Olympic Peninsula this year and help kick off Puget Sound/Salish Sea restoration with a bang (literally). The project is shovel ready and would restore a wilderness salmon run that will someday again reach the hundreds of thousands.

Posted Fri, Jan 30, 5:28 a.m. Inappropriate

Important facts and contexts are missing from this piece.
I can see how new arrivals would contribute to Montana's economy, but blaming mechanization for timber industry job losses leaves out other important factors. Lack of log supply has killed off many otherwise well run and profitable sawmills. It is the environmental movement, with their lawsuits and regulations that go too far, most responsible for this. With diminishing forestry infrastructure, forestland management suffers and hense the serious forest health issues on many forests. It's not global warming, it's lack of any sane management.
I have been involved in some of these public works type projects and I can say that they generally are wasteful and poorly managed. It would yield better on the ground results to have a good timber sale program with an eye on profit, and then use that money for forest and road restoration projects.
Don't forget that the money proposed for these projects will be printed money that will eventually inflate the currency. Is this something our generation wants to lay off on our children?

Posted Sat, Jan 31, 6:03 p.m. Inappropriate

" ..... already pump $730 billion to our economy in outdoor recreation. That supports 6.5 million jobs or one in 20 American jobs."

So we can recreate our way out of this? other than government jobs and government contracted work what you are talking about is tourism. OK, tourism is a respected industry but, without explicitly saying so, you imply tourism is environmentally benign, much better than those old loggers and miners. Well how much do waitresses get paid these days? motel maids? bartenders? the airlines hire people and they pay at least a few of them well. I guess your idea of a vibrant economy would be Hawaii? or why be ambiguous, how about Las Vegas? that's where your "..one in 20 American jobs" are.

Posted Sun, Feb 1, 3 a.m. Inappropriate

Important facts and context are indeeed missing from this piece, but they probably aren't the ones eastkingcountyrednecklogger is thinking of. The word "restoration" has now been diluted to the point where it can mean just about anything, good or bad. The author mentions the "timber industry" and "Pyramid Lumber" as being involved, but never mentions logging. I rather suspect that much or most of what those actors call "restoration" is or will be in fact logging. Of course it may be dressed up with all kinds of pious talk about how it will "restore" forests, but the reality will be good old fashioned taxpayer subsidized logging of public lands. Which is not to say that there aren't a lot of opportunities out there for real restoration. Some will create jobs, though they will almost certainly require continuous infusions of public money, freshly printed or otherwise. But be aware that just because someone (especially the timber industry,) calls something "restoration" doesn't make it so.

How on Earth did forests ever manage to survive all those millions of years before people were around to manage and "restore" them?

Posted Sun, Feb 1, 8:12 a.m. Inappropriate

Snoqualman,
What does a "good timber sale program" mean? Of course it means logging. Are you a "no touch" preservationist who thinks all logging is evil?
Lets look at some of the statements in the article to illustrate 'facts and contexts' missing. "Rural citizens are starting to see the downside in unregulated industrialization". This statement is not factual. I have logged 5 forest service timber sales in my career of 36 years and a consistent problem is overregulation. Then there's "road repair and decommissioning". This really means fixing a few roads and decommissoning(destroying)a lot more. Do we want to spend money undoing assets created previously?
Then this tired old argument 'subsidized logging of public lands'. I've never seen this. Tell me how it works. When I logged it was competitive bid, when I put in improvements on the forests, it was competitive bid. Now you are going to tell me it's better to have printed money pay for a environmental wish list administered by bureacrats?

The forest service had one of the best logging programs for years. They would open up an area and do a series of non-adjacent cuts each year to achieve age diversity in the forest to support the different values. Now the endless process and lawsuits has destroyed any ability to manage in this fashion. Hense the present forest health crisis. The responsibilty for this situation lies firmly at the feet of extremeist environmentalists who are ususally too lazy to really look at what has happened. It isn't global warming.

It would be infinitely better to have a profitable forest industry generating real money to pay for projects that make sense while addressing forest health by thinning dead trees before they burn.

Posted Mon, Feb 2, 3:26 a.m. Inappropriate

Just about all the good timberland is private land and those lands can easily supply all the wood we will ever need. (See: Timberlands, Industrial) The National Forests were the dregs left over from the Great Barbecue, mountainous, the places Fredrich Weyerhaeuser didn't want. So yeah, let's leave 'em alone, let's let nature run rampant on them, let moss grow all over their backs, let 'em get totally overmature and decadent. Let's have them overgrown like a wino's beard, a last refuge for randomness. If parts of them turn into dark and scary places that make you want to keep the kids right next to you, so much the better. As for those so-called "improvements" such as logging roads and bridges that have been temporarily put in, long may they crumble. Given enough time, we may even be so lucky as to see the return of animals that can kill and eat people.

Posted Wed, Feb 4, 5:09 a.m. Inappropriate

Is your real name Wallace Stegner?

OK, so no income from the National forests, which had multiple use mandates originally by the way. How do you pay for the environmental wish list? How do you pay for the agency to administer the forest? what happens when fire spreads to or from private land? (Yellowstone 1988)?

Printed money?

My grandfather worked on the road project that accessed Paradise on Mt. Rainer. Let it fall into disrepair? Only 3% of the population accesses wilderness. Is it who cares about the rest?

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »