On January 22^nd 2004, the White House announced its plans to begin oil leasing in the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, or NPR-A. Located in the Western Arctic regions of Alaska, the NRP-A, a 23.5 million-acre piece of land and the largest body of remaining unprotected land in the United States. The recent decisions of the Bush Administration make eight and a half million acres of the NPR-A available to oil leasing and impending development. These recent proposals for expansion starkly contrast with President Woodrow Wilson’s proclamations in the year 1918. During this year, Wilson declared more than one million Alaskan acres of national forest land named the Katmai National Monument. The Katmai Monument was later enlarged to nearly 3 million acres.

Over the course of the last century there have been various shifts in presidential administrations’ attitudes towards environmental conservation. At times the ethics behind the conservation ideology have strayed from the old standpoint of environmental conservation to a constant utilization of resources. This shift in policy toward Alaskan resources reflects the various shifts in conservation views of presidential administrations over the last century. This variability of ethos and progress was commonly due to certain political situations occurring in the United States such as war and crisis.

In Adam Rome’s essay Conservation, Preservation, and Environmental Activism: A Survey of the Historical Literature, he offers the problems that faced conservationists at the end of the 19^th century. “One problem was the prospect that the nation soon would run out of vital natural resources, especially wood. To ensure that future generations would have adequate supplies of essential raw materials, many people joined ‘the conservation movement’” (Rome). As Rome has stated, the early conservationists feared a deficiency of materials. Conscious and concerned about repercussions that may ensue for future generations, conservation ideology was born. An additional environmental issue that faced American society was “the fate of ‘wilderness’” (Rome) as well as a third problem of pollution (Rome). These three problems focused a group of individuals on the conservation of the nation’s natural resources. This group soon took on the name of the conservationists in the early 20^th century.

The early conservationists began to voice their concern of the nation’s limited resources and environmental effects of mining and logging in the late 1800s. They spoke to Congress with pleas to “save or intelligently use America’s natural resources before they were exhausted” (Miller, 110). Unlike contemporary preservationists, the conservationists of that time acknowledged the economic opportunities of the nation’s natural resources. Despite the inherent value of the resources, the conservationists remained passionate towards the land and felt that any development should be closely controlled.

As one conservationist pointed out, “a forest… had multiple uses, including timber cutting, grazing, and mining, but such activities needed to be regulated by qualified experts” (Miller, 110).

With the turn of the century, President Roosevelt gave a boost to the conservation cause. Taking his oath of office following the death of President McKinley in 1901, Theodore Roosevelt benchmarked the initial stages of the conversation movement. A passionate conservationist, President Roosevelt established 150 national forests and the U.S. Forest Service, a new group that would maintain these lands. Roosevelt also declared dozens of National Monuments under the newly passed Antiquities Act, including Arizona’s Grand Canyon. Roosevelt knew that our resources were critical to the economy and society.

During his Seventh Annual Message Roosevelt stated that “The conservation of our natural resources and their proper use constitute the fundamental problem which underlies almost every other problem of our national life, to substitute a planned and orderly development of our resources in place of a haphazard striving for immediate profit” ( HYPERLINK “http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amrvhtml/cnchron4.html”)

As Chief of Federal Forestry, Gifford Pinchot served under both the McKinley and Roosevelt Administrations from 1898 through 1910. Pinchot encouraged and advised President Roosevelt to protect millions of acres of land from development and preserve them for scientific studies (Miller, 110). Pinchot summarized his conservation beliefs in the publication of The Fight for Conservation:

“Conservation means the greatest good to the greatest number for the longest time, it demands the complete and orderly development of all our resources for the benefit of all the people, instead of the partial exploitation of them for the benefit of a few. It recognizes fully the right of the present generation to use what it needs and all it needs of the natural resources now available, but it recognizes equally our obligation so to use what we need that our descendants shall not be deprived of what they need” (Pinchot).

Pinchot, however, was not to be confused with a preservationist. He felt that “forests could be ‘saved’ and used simultaneously” (Udall, 103). Pinchot was fired as Chief of Federal Forestry in 1910 for criticizing the new Taft administration for being too lenient with its conservation policies.

In 1917, upon the United State’s involvement in World War I, “the federal government set aside both conservation and preservation efforts to meet the resource demands of the war” (Miller, 111). The high demands of war materials easily overrode the concerns of conservation groups. Despite President Woodrow Wilson’s several established national monuments in the following years, the war drained most attention from the conservation cause. It was not until the 1930s that environmental concern arose once again.

Herbert Hoover (R) and Franklin Douglas Roosevelt (D) both served as president during the 1930s revitalizing the conservation ideology. The two presidents proved to be environmentally concerned through their establishment of over twenty national monuments under the Antiquities Act. The declarations included: Holy Cross (1929), Zion (1937) and Jackson Hole (1943) national monuments. This regained environmental concern however, was once again affected by the elements of war and the state of the nation during World War II. The effects that ensued during the war were similar to that of World War I. However, the wake of World War II proved to be quite different.

Post World War II effects on the conservation movement were quite complex. With a growth of the middle class, a greater appreciation was given to the wilderness. Larger support for the conservation of the nation’s wilderness was soon garnered and conservation concerns were soon resurging for the first time since the outbreak of the World Wars. “Those who had long advocated the preservation of wilderness now found that they had a larger audience who could put pressure on legislators to enact conservation-friendly legislation” (Miller, 119).

Many of these new environmentally concerned citizens accessed national parks and wilderness areas via automobile. The U.S. Federal-Aid Highway of 1956, led to post-war construction of highways, which caused population expansion. “As they provided greater access to wild spaces, they also bulldozed through deserts, meadows, and wetlands. In helping to build the glittering, steel-and-glass skylines of Toronto and Vancouver, Houston and Los Angeles, the car also wrapped them in a smoggy haze” (Miller, 119).

Despite the growing interest in the wilderness and the support that it may have accumulated, this period of domestic expansion strongly set back environmental conservation. New highways sparked quick development, which cleared acres of land. This post-war scenario consumed many of the nation’s valuable resources.

Concerned with post-war growth and domestic expansion, presidents Harry Truman (D) and Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) established only three national monuments during their combined three terms in office. Protecting little of the nation’s remaining natural resources they backed the newly born consumer culture and product-oriented society. The economic boom brought technology that led to rapid productivity and consumption of natural resources. The presidents’ minimal concern for conservation comes as little surprise during this period of domestic growth.

During the time of the Cold War and the United States’ involvement in Vietnam, next to no new protection was granted for the United States’ wilderness. From 1946 when the west first declared the Cold war until the Northern Vietnamese triumph in 1975, six national monuments were declared. Over three decades had elapsed during which six presidents held office, both Democrat and Republican. This era of heavy political circumstances had drawn attention away from the conservation cause once again.

Almost three decades after the end of the Second World War, an energy crisis occurred in 1973, greatly affecting the nation’s feelings towards its natural resources. The energy crisis, a large-scale petroleum shortage, caused major inflation of oil and put heavy restrictions on consumption. During the Yom Kippur War (Arab States-Israel), the Arab Oil Embargo banned oil exports from many middle-eastern countries to allies of Israel, including the United States. Losing its main sources of petroleum, the United States was forced to conserve and look elsewhere for energy sources. “[The energy crisis] also led to greater pressure to exploit North American oil sources, and also increased the West’s dependence on coal and nuclear power based electricity as well” (.org HYPERLINK “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_energy_crisis” /wiki/1973_energy_crisis). The high demand for new nuclear power plants peaked in 1973 (Miller, 157) causing rapid development of these new facilities. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was also created in response to the scare of the oil embargo. The Petroleum Reserve, four sites located along the Gulf of Mexico in Texas and Louisiana is controlled by the United States Department of Energy.

Currently in the United States, similar situations are occurring due to political circumstances and our associations in the Middle East. These recent circumstances are causing similar utilization of resources. With the United States’ occupation of Iraq and involvement the Middle East, and with the associated political relationships that could easily fall apart, the nation dependent on foreign oil has started looking for alternate domestic energy options.

These options include numerous expeditions for oil throughout the nation and research for both coal and clean/renewable & energy-efficient tech. Being so economically dependent on Middle Eastern oil, the United States cannot help but to feel a bit insecure.

“clean, renewable energy-efficient technologies, such as hybrid and fuel-cell vehicles, residential solar heating systems, renewable energy produced from landfill gas, wind or biomass, and efficient combined heat and power systems” ( HYPERLINK “http://www.doi.gov/news/040202a” http://www.doi.gov/news/040202a). 

Late in 2001, the Bush Administration requested of the Department of Energy that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve be filled to capacity, 700 million barrels. This reserve was created to offset any oil shortages that the nation may endure, but has never been filled anywhere close to capacity. Not only has the administration stockpiled warehouses with emergency petroleum, but it has also begun pursuing such energy resources within the nation.

Despite the Bush Administration’s inflated environmental budget for 2005, a few main priorities have been left in the shadows. Masked with Budget boosts for the National Park systems, Department of Agriculture and similar groups, the plan fails to protect the last of the unprotected and untouched lands within our borders.

New budgets were established in order to pursue eco-positive progress towards the benefits of developing an energy future for the green new future.

The new budget “will continue positive environmental progress,” which is defined by several key features, which include the goal of “developing clean, domestic energy options that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil” ( HYPERLINK “http://www.doi.gov/news/040202a”).

Under various subsections of this segment of the budget are the explained intents of the administration to increase funding for research for hydrogen cells and reduction of emissions. One subsection however, one that was not included in the text of the bill itself, one that could easily fit into context of the clause is the exploration of the Alaskan Arctic and the utilization of these unprotected resources.

“President Bush’s [proposed 2005] budget is focused on achieving results to conserve our natural and cultural resources” (HYPERLINK “http://www.doi.gov/news/040202a” http://www.doi.gov/news/040202a), said former Secretary of Interior Gale Norton.

Norton goes on to state, “a tremendous example of the president’s environmental commitment is his $53 million increase for the Abandoned Mine Lands program… a plan to eliminate all significant health and safety problems associated with abandoned coal mines within 25 years” ( HYPERLINK “http://www.doi.gov/news/040202a”.

This budget increase however, has nothing to do with conserving our ‘natural and cultural resources.’ It was Norton after all, who “delayed implementing management plans for 16 of 21 monuments that Clinton created” (Ressner).

Not only has the United States’ current overseas involvement moved its attention to domestic resources but it has also altered the conservation ideology itself. The ideology that once sought to save all land, wilderness and resources possible has been turned into a hasty employment of assets and disregard of many concerns for the environment. The Roadless Rule is one such example. Established by Clinton in the light of the early conservationists, the rule protected 58.5 million acres from the building of roads. This initiative however was quickly put on hold as soon as the Bush Administration took power.

“We’re talking about the last remaining 58.5 Million acres of roadless forest” said forest policy expert Sean Cosgrove, “and one of the first things […] was to tell the forest service to halt implementation.” ([HYPERLINK  “https://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2003/09/we_53107.html“]).

Others however view Clinton’s Roadless Rule in a different way. “Idaho Sen. Larry Craig, a Republican, said that Clinton’s monument designations and his effort to ban road building on a 43 million acres of forest land “[…] is a very transparent attempt to create a legacy for this president in a most inappropriate way” (Long, 4).

The Bush Administration has taken the Roadless rule and turned it into a series of protections that would be amended ‘on a forest-by-forest basis’.  The administration then went on to “[…] exempt the two largest federal forests – Alaska’s Tongass and Chugach” (Long, pp).

Different presidential administrations have altered the conservation ideology in times of political and economical crisis.  Times such as these have had to power the change ethos of pure conservation for future generations to continual usage of the United States’ resources. Stewart Udall explained in his book The Quiet Crisis the true meaning of conservation.

“Beyond all plans and programs, true conservation is ultimately something of the mind—an ideal of men who cherish their past and believe in their future. Our civilization will be measured by its fidelity to this ideal as surely as by its art and poetry and system of justice. In our perpetual search for abundance, beauty, and order we manifest both our love for the land and our sense of responsibility toward future generations” (Udall, 188).

In this passage Udall suggests that society today will be remembered for its conservationist actions just as much as its art and literature.

Theodore Roosevelt once said, “Shortsighted men… in their greed and selfishness will, if permitted, rob our country of half its charm by their reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful wild things” (Mitchell).

President Roosevelt protected 240 million acres of wilderness area during his term.  The Bush Administration has currently “weakened protections of 234 million acres” (Mitchell).  This example appropriately portrays that transformation that the conservation ideology has undergone.

In the early 1900s T.R. was able to freely conserve wilderness areas as he pleased. Recent political circumstances however, have hindered the nation’s ability to conserve these resources.  As was the case during the first and second World Wars, political affairs have absorbed most concern from environmental conservation.  George W. Bush has designated a mere 500,000 acres of wilderness area since his inauguration in 2001 showing the lack of environmental concern that his administration embodies.

As these situations have shown, the conservation of the United States’ natural resources has fluxed in times of war and crisis.  Both World Wars caused major declines in the importance of conservation and their post-war scenarios have proved environmentally unfriendly.  The Cold War era and Vietnam caused over 30 years of environmental obliviousness under six presidential administrations.  The Energy Crisis of 1973 caused the need to exploit some of the nations’ most valuable resources and to explore methods of energy production detrimental the environment.

Recent political events abroad have caused a shift in the conservationist beliefs within the nation. At times the ethics behind the conservation ideology have strayed from the old standpoint of environmental conservation to a constant consumption of resources. War, current events and political crisis have determined the amount of concern that is placed on the United States’ environment.

WORKS CITED

Long, Ben. The Roadless Initiative. Defenders of Wildlife, 2000.

Miller, Char. The Atlas of U.S. and Canadian Environmental History. New York: Routledge, 2003.

Mitchell, John G. Our Great Estate. Sierra Club Magazine, March/April 2004.

Pinchot, Gifford. The Fight for Conservation. 1910.

Ressner, Jeffrey. Free-For-All In a Forest. Time, 2001.

Udall, Stewart L. The Quiet Crisis And The Next Generation. Utah: Gibbs Smith, 1988.

HYPERLINK “http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amrvhtml/cnchron4.html” http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amrvhtml/cnchron4.html. Documentary Chronology of Selected Events in the Development of the American Conservation Movement, 1847-1920. Accessed 2/3/04.

HYPERLINK “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_energy_crisis” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_energy_crisis. 1973 Energy Crisis. Wikipedia. Accessed 2/22/04.

HYPERLINK “http://www.doi.gov/news/040202a” http://www.doi.gov/news/040202a.. President Bush’s FY2005 Budget Will Continue Positive Environmental Progress. Accessed 2/3/04.

HYPERLINK “http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2003/09/we_53107.html” http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2003/09/we_53107.html. The Bottom Line. Accessed 2/3/04.

HYPERLINK “http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/hisnps/NPSThinking/nps-oah/htm” http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/hisnps/NPSThinking/nps-oah/htm. Rome, Adam. Conservation, Preservation, and Environmental Activism: A Survey of the Historical Literature. Accessed 2/3/04.