General Discussion

babylonsister

(171,079 posts) Thu Mar 9, 2017, 08:04 PM Mar 2017

Charles P. Pierce: What Will Become of National Parks Under Republican Rule?

It revolts me that not one of these people are concerned about what they would be ruining, as long as they can make money doing so.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a53720/republicans-national-parks-plans/

What Will Become of National Parks Under Republican Rule?
Soon you'll be able to visit the Tostitos™ Old Faithful.
By Charles P. Pierce
Mar 8, 2017

Because I believe even at this late date that America's political system can walk and chew gum at the same time, I am not among those who believe that the torrent of news concerning the (alleged) possible Russian sublet in the White House necessarily has to drown out the real mischief being done by the congressional majorities. Not only do they get to undermine the legacy of Barack Obama, they get to do it by fulfilling the entire wish list of the people who finance their campaign.

Their vehicle is the Congressional Review Act, one of the longest lasting active viruses left in the body politic by Newt Gingrich's revolution in 1996. Before this current bunch came to town, and before Camp Runamuck opened in the Executive Branch, the device was used exactly once since it was created. Now, though, it's Christmas in March for the deregulation crowd. Already, the CRA's been used to eliminate both the stream-protection policy and a rule that said the financial services set has to work in the best interest of its client. (I found that one particularly hilarious because, unlike most of the people who voted to overturn the rule, I guess, I was alive in 2008.) The most recent victim of this parliamentary vandalism is the Bureau of Land Management.

On Monday, the Senate used a CRA vote in the House to roll back the BLM's attempt to improve the management of our 247 million acres of public land. At issue was something called Planning 2.0, an ambitious program best explained by the Natural Resources Defense Council:

The rule…was an earnest and long-overdue attempt by the BLM to modernize how the public and stakeholders are engaged in order to improve management decisions that could impact lands all across the Western U.S. It established a dynamic framework intended to involve developers and other stakeholders alike earlier in the planning process. The rule also allowed the BLM to adopt more advance planning tools, such as Geographic Information System mapping, to improve transparency and outcomes.

This seems fairly benign, but it was enacted during the previous administration, so there has to be some secret Kenyan magic spell buried in it somewhere, so it was very important to shred it as quickly (and as quietly) as possible. Not that there isn't another motive in play here.

That requires ignoring a lot of changes. Since the 1980s, there has been a rapidly accelerating amount of pressure placed on our federal lands, including increased oil and gas drilling and the expansion of recreational activities on federal lands, not to mention dramatic changes to our public landscapes thanks to climate change. But with a CRA, even if the BLM wanted to make minor modifications in how it plans for change in the future, it may have to go through the Congressional process first for approval. And that means that the BLM would be handcuffed with a framework from 1983, to the point where staff may not even be able to employ modern tools—including now-standard technology like GIS maps or online databases—to inform the public.

In other words, if you're a member of the deregulatory cult, and you see nothing wrong with digging uranium out of Zion National Park, or on asking people to pay to see Tostitos Old Faithful in Yellowstone, a BLM hamstrung by obsolescence is exactly what you might need. So, you kick Obama and you do what your paymasters want. Win-win. A lot of people, it seems, can walk and chew gum at the same time.