Climate change comes to our National Parks
What does it mean for our national parks when magnum storms perennially wash out roads and curtail public access? At a small gathering at North Cascades National Park last week, sponsored by the National Parks Conservation Association, user groups, National Parks and Forest Service pashas noodled the fallout of the climate elephant. It was a postlude to three severe, 100-year storms, bunched together over the last dozen years, that have walloped Washington's three national parks.
The political rub: America's gems lose their polish when there's no one to take in the shine.
The crux of the climate challenge is zero sum. Park boosters know that it's unsustainable to wring $50 million for repairs from the feds every couple of years. Lawmakers triage these budgets, and such decisions will fundamentally remake how Northwesterners look at their national parks.
For North Cascades Superintendent Chip Jenkins, this Old Testament weather throws into relief the broader question of institutional trust. Families upset over damage to the Colonial Creek Campground or the Stehekin Valley Road are much more likely to blame the National Park Service rather than, say, God (or more accurately, God's fossil-fuel-dependent children). Westerners eye government as an ill-responsive, necessary evil, and park damage only compounds that sense of mistrust and frustration.
The challenges are immense. A warming climate means that some critters will thrive while others disappear. We'll bid a long, sweet good bye to the North Cascades 300-plus glaciers, more than exist at Glacier National Park or at any park in the lower 48 for that matter. (We'll also kick the headwaters conundrum to another generation.) And there's the mountain pine beetle, a Dante-inspired tormenter who feasts on Lodgepole and Ponderosa pines and leaves a sea of combustibles in its wake. As our fire-weary British Columbia neighbors can attest, the pine beetle will go forth and multiply, mating gleefully in the heat.
Forest fires are in fact one of the few instances where interagency cooperation appears seamless. Unfortunately, natural resource apparatchiks are often hemmed by political boundaries, organizational cultures, and regulations that inhibit creative problem solving. One example cited last week was Cascade River Road, with a 300-foot swath washed away by the North Fork of the Cascade River and another section submerged by Boston Creek. Ideally, Skagit County will step up, recognizing the park's central role in the regional economy. Whatever happens, the Forest Service and National Park Service need the tools to horse trade, negotiate, and find a solution. Soon.
The debate taking place at North Cascades, along with earlier meetings at Olympic and Mt. Rainier, brings into focus the larger subject of parks and public life. The late Harvey Manning gave expression to the "keep out!" wilderness school. If you stay away, you can't love a place to death. Think of it as a kind of wilderness celibacy.
The Manning School runs counter to the University of Wisconsin's William Cronon, a historian who famously argued that wilderness requires human contact. Limit access, limit families, and America's Greatest Idea loses its constituency. Then America's (other) Greatest Idea, democracy, will undermine it.
A few of these themes were echoed at a UW conference last week entitled "Three Degrees: The Law of Climate Change and Human Rights." In his Friday keynote, Cornell's Henry Shue underscored the intergenerational nature of climate change and its disproportionate effect on the world's poor. It was the thread of a common narrative. Reduced access to national parks will also affect the poor more than the wealthy, however much we embrace parks as the consummate democratic institution. With money and time, elites will continue to enjoy the North Cascades, Olympic, and Mt. Rainier. The rich always seem to get greener.









Comments:
Posted Fri, Jun 5, 10:53 a.m. inappropriate
Liberalspeak. We've always had climate change, and nature always adapts to it. Much of Washington State used to be covered with glaciers, and someday that again will happen. Trying to modify climate is a fools errand. Adapt! And while the disproportionate effect on the poor? Growing food for fuel is much more devastating to the world's poor. Remember the extra 100 million put at risk of starvation by biofuels driving up grain prices? Are you aware of the significant water supplies required to grow biocrops? http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=58317&CultureCode;=en. Are you aware of the air pollution created by creating and using biofuel crops in production of ozone, N2O (296X more effective than CO2 as a GWG), formaldehyde, and other gases? Are you aware of the Progressives' political manuevering to ignore global forestland clearing as a cost of growing biofuel crops? And yet CO2, the most essential gas to all of Earth's plants, is demonized. Increasing CO2 dramatically increases crop production. If we were to significantly reduce CO2, we would have global starvation. Is that what you want?
Posted Fri, Jun 5, 1:52 p.m. inappropriate
"...and yet CO2 is ...demonized. Increasing CO2 dramatically increases crop production."
There is ZERO scientific evidence to support this assertion.
Ross
Posted Fri, Jun 5, 10:20 p.m. inappropriate
Randy, please do yourself a favor and check out these two sites which have helpfully compiled all the info to rollback the denial manure you're currently buried under:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
Specific to a few of the myths you've shared:
"We've always had climate change..."
Yes, over a course of millenia. The current *rate* of change is much faster: over the course of a hundred years, and quickening.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/22147/335
"Trying to modify climate is a fool's errand..."
Yes, if you are trying to modify it this moment...or day, or week or even this year. What we do or don't do now will have an effect decades from now. I know that's a long way off in our current short-term culture, but so is retirement and that doesn't stop people from saving for it.
http://www.grist.org/article/kyoto-is-a-big-effort-for-almost-nothing/
"Increasing CO2 dramatically increases crop production."
Yes and if it weren't for that heat, drought and disturbed weather patterns that come along with that increased warming due to increasing CO2 we'd sure have a bumper crop!
"If we were to significantly reduce CO2, we would have global starvation."
Um, so first you were saying we can't hope to influence the climate and now you're accusing us of knocking the food out of starving people's mouths--which one is it? Let me help: Thanks to the clearing of a huge percentage of the world's forests over time, there is no chance that our current crops will somehow be starved of CO2--there's plenty to go 'round among the little vegetation left and will be for millenia. All we want to do is get the CO2 contributed by humanity (50 bilion tons annually) out of the equation--the plants will have all they need from natural sources just like before the industrial era.
For more info:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/5109251/Trees-are-growing-faster-and-could-buy-time-to-halt-global-warming.html
Posted Fri, Jun 5, 10:42 p.m. inappropriate
PebbleCreek speaks the AGW gospel - distorted science and lies !
Global temps are now about .1 degree C above the 1970 - 2000 span, as if that means anything OTHER than there has been no recent warming .
Try looking at the ACTUAL data sites rather than your *gristmill* ! Come back with some current climate or atmospheric science instead of your AGW crap !
Posted Sat, Jun 6, 9:16 a.m. inappropriate
I actually have no complaint about the substance of the article, which seems likely to attract the usual tinfoil hate wearing global warming denier crowd. The argument is sound, and the dilemmas very real.
My only complaint is that you attribute a very simplistic view of the wilderness to my late father, and I would respectfully like to set the record straight. You attribute a kind of 'wilderness celibacy' to my father, and it is true, anyone who is honest will have to admit to themselves that this is the unachievable ideal, because it is the very definition of 'wilderness': true wilderness, by definition of what we mean when we say 'wild', would be the sort of thing that the moment humans go there, would cease to exist. So, anyone who wants to protect wilderness will have that sort of idea lurking at the back of their head, because otherwise they really don't know what the word means, in English, it seems to me. But this is an unachievable daydream, a utopia. But utopias are very necessary for practical politics, too. Daydreams which help create real changes.
But humans are ambivalent, and my father no less so. any political program must be divided into its utopian moment, the ideal case which you cannot achieve, but which serves as the measurement of the practical program, what you can achieve. Call it a negotiating position. The position of William Cronon is in fact my father's position, it formed the raison d'etre of writing trail guides as a form of political action. He always said that every new hiker that was brought into the mountains by his trail guides was a potential voter. Boots on trails leads to votes in the polling box. Every last stage of his writing was aimed at this goal, to bring them into the wilderness, starting with edge wildernesses, with day hikers and campers, to places where they could see the true wilderness from afar, and then get them in deeper and deeper.
It is true, as more hikers hit the wilderness, the other ideal, of saving the wilderness from those who love it too much, becomes a goal that all who love the wilderness must regretfully embrace. The practical way to do this, my father argued, was to provide alternative wildernesses, closer to home, to diffuse the impact away from those, like mount ranier, that were being loved too much. It's not like it is possible to set up straw men who embrace either position completely, because this ambivalence is the only intellectual honest position. The other two positions you set up are both half right, and therefore all wrong. If I had to ask which was worse as a position, I would have to conclude that they are both worse.
If you want to see this ambivalent, and to my mind, deeply honest struggle of a man who committed his life to steering between these two mutually contradictory, and yet equally valid, positions, see the documentary recently made about my father's thinking about wilderness 'The Irate Birdwatcher', for news about which see http://www.crestpictures.com/.
While your article is useful and valuable, it sets up straw man oppositions which are too narrow to capture the real ambivalence of my father's thinking, and I would submit, anyone's thinking who has confronted the fact that with respect to the wilderness, we have met the enemy, he is us. We who love the wilderness are also those who are most dangerous to it. That's just being honest. Anyone who has been in the wilderness would admit that there is no sense that wilderness, as wilderness, is improved by human presence. The human presence there is what produces votes here that help protect it to some extent, there is a trade off. But let's face it, if we were all to die tomorrow it wouldn't need our protection anymore. That's pretty strightforward home truth. After all, we are the agents of global warming. The real problem is that we can no longer accept a paradigm of wilderness that it can be protected locally, with parks and wilderness areas. I think your article draws attention to that, and it is an important thing, which is that wilderness conservation needs to be part of a broad, global environmental program that includes pristine wilderness and the most sullied of all possible cityscapes, as part of a single thing we need to protect, Earth.
Respectfully
Paul Manning
Associate Professor of Anthropology
Trent University
Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.
Posted Sat, Jun 6, 4:42 p.m. inappropriate
Professor Manning,
Thank you for your very thoughtful response. I'm guilty of taking the intellectually lazy route of framing a complex argument as an either/or proposition (and straw men serve that purpose). In the process, I used your father as shorthand for the "keep out" school which, as you rightly point out, simplifies the rich legacy of a complicated man. Harvey Manning was not only the consummate conservationist, but the consummate Northwesterner as well. In terms of connecting hikers and families to the wilds of the Northwest, he stands unrivaled.
You've also held up a mirror to my own ambivalence. Last week Superintendent Jenkins observed that it's the same distance from the Pike Place Market to Paradise at Mt. Rainier as it is from the market to North Cascades National Park. I consciously chose not to trumpet this little fact because, well, the North Cascades are my equivalent of a secret fishing hole. I'd much rather have tourists overrun Paradise (no pun intended) than the pristine and extraordinary North Cascades--a national park, by the way, that would not exist without the leadership and tireless elbowing of Harvey Manning.
Sincerely, Pete Jackson
Posted Sat, Jun 6, 10:32 p.m. inappropriate
Once again, PM, offer up some current data instead of the usual AGW religion mantra responses !
Posted Thu, Jun 18, 5:37 p.m. inappropriate
It's not so much the actual people that adversely affect wild country as the infrastructure required to get them there. Specifically, roads, and even trails in a few instances.
There are a number of beauty spots that are normally reached by long roads penetrating deeply into wild country. Often these long roads lead to relatively short trails. Roads are very expensive to maintain. The current reality is that very few of the thousands of miles of roads which were carved across the Cascades during the heyday of subsidized Forest Service logging are being maintained.
Some of these roads do reach attractive trails but there is just no money to maintain them, leading to the unavoidable conclusion that the road system needs to shrink radically. And that is now happening, however in an unplanned, haphazard way with collapsing roads doing untold harm to streams and the fish that live in them.
We do need people to appreciate, and hopefully protect the wilderness. But that needs to happen from a much smaller road network. Some trails will get much longer as the roads leading to them decay and revert to trails. New trails can be built in more accessible areas. The days of driving many miles through wild country to a short trail to a beauty spot are coming to a close. But that's not necessarily bad. The blank spots on the map are getting bigger, and the acreage of wild country is increasing, a good thing, at least in my opinion.