300 MILLION AND COUNTING...
According to the Census Bureau, the population of the United States will reach 300 million on October 17. That figure probably fails to include another 10 to 20 million illegal migrants. Does anybody care?
I heard a story a few years ago, just after a similar press release announced the world’s population had reached six billion. It might have happened in New York or Chicago. Maybe Detroit. Or L.A. A reporter from the local television station was conducting "Man on the Street" interviews, trying to gauge the public’s concern over this very monumental announcement.
A man in a suit hurried down the sidewalk. He was gulping coffee from a paper cup and had a newspaper tucked under his arm–it was turned to the sports page. His other hand gripped a cell phone as if it were a natural extension of his body. The man appeared to be pre-occupied, but the reporter was about to go on the air and needed a sound bite so he stepped onto the sidewalk and asked the man if he’d be willing to talk on camera. The man stopped, hesitated...
"Well," he said uncertainly, "I have a meeting in 15 minutes and I need to get to the office...I’m already late. The traffic on the freeway was awful this morning...bumper-to-bumper for more than five miles. How long will it take?"
The reporter assured him the delay would be momentary.
The businessman paused, glanced at his watch, and then shrugged. "OK...just for a minute. Will I be on tv tonight?"
The reporter nodded. "That’s great. We just have one question and we’d like your impressions." He checked with his cameraman to be sure tape was rolling. The cameraman waved. The director at the studio cued the reporter through his earpiece.
"This is Jack Bannion with Action4 News. We’re with...what is your name sir?"
"Bernie Osterholt," the man said.
"Thank you, Bernie for stopping to chat with us." replied the reporter. "We’re asking citizens this morning to respond to last night’s announcement that the world’s population has now passed the six billion mark. At the beginning of the 20th Century, planet earth was occupied by only one billion humans. My question to you is, ‘If you were to wake up someday and discover there were so many people on Earth that there was no room left to stand, what would you do?"
Bernie blinked at the reporter, "...so many people that there was no place to stand? That’s easy...I’d go back to bed."
The story may be apochryphal. But it does point out the indifference most of us exhibit when confronted with the most critical, devastating crisis to ever face the human race and the planet upon which we reside.
Four decades ago, the U.S. Department of the Interior published and widely distributed a remarkable glossy, full-color, 80 page booklet called, "The Population Challenge: What it means to America." The periodical was available for one dollar at national parks and monuments across the country and from the government printing office. Stewart Udall, then Secretary of the Interior under President Lyndon Johnson, wrote the forward. It can be found in its entirety on page 15. (You might want to pause here and read Udall’s words).
With great insight and vision, Secretary Udall stated the challenge that awaited us and I fully expected the next 78 pages to honestly and bravely weigh the crisis ahead and to examine the choices we needed to make as we dealt with this ticking time bomb.
But visionary thought ended with Udall's forward. The rest of the publication failed miserably to deal with over-population and over-consumption. It failed to offer ways to re-discover the "richness in simplicity" that Udall longed for. Instead it offered a list of untapped natural resources that could be exploited and used to meet explosive future water and energy needs. In particular, USDI praised the Bureau of Reclamation's "18 new dams with a total reservoir capacity of 7.4 million acre feet, 8 powerplants with a combined capacity of 1.8 million kilowatts, and 1,200 miles of high-voltage transmission lines."
Udall had railed against the "blind pursuit of immediate objectives;" yet the recent construction of Glen Canyon Dam was hailed in "The Population Challenge"as a great accomplishment that offered cheap hydro-electric energy while conserving water. Technology, it seems, would solve all our problems without any sacrifice. Nowhere, except in the title of the yearbook series, was the word "conservation" seriously discussed. Udall's comments ultimately seemed frivolous and meaningless. He precisely identified the problem and then allowed the next 10,000 words to refute him.
Jump ahead 40 years. All that Udall feared then is happening and this country is no better prepared to deal with the impacts of over-population or over-consumption than it was when Udall’s Department of Interior skirted the issue in 1965. The Secretary had captured the essence of the crisis when he said, "Our highest aims can be realized only if we face squarely the fact that we must have adequate resources if we are to have a quality existence. But now we must define the word ‘adequate.’ We are beginning to see that it includes purity of surroundings, an opportunity to stretch, a chance for solitude and quiet reflection."
Yet many politicians and scientists and even social scientists fail to see the real danger. They believe that population no longer poses a significant threat to our future survival. But is merely "surviving" a noble goal here? Even TIME magazine, in a cover story a few years ago called "How to Save the World," quoted demographers who believed advances in technology would be able to feed, clothe and provide water for our future human population. "Experts" in that article advised it would peak at somewhere between nine and fourteen billion, a number they believed to be completely manageable.
Even my liberal friends fail to attack the issue head-on. They talk about increasing fuel efficiency standards and embracing alternative energy technologies, but always with the promise that these changes would actually expand the economy—it’s a self-defeating goal. The more expansive the economy becomes, combined with an exploding population, the greater the demand for products—for stuff—becomes. No one talks of trying to live a simpler less materialistic life.
For a moment consider Moab. What do the more "progressive" elements of Grand County advocate? They praise the wind energy program, in affiliation with Rocky Mountain Power; yet Grand County, with its stunning and seemingly never ending construction, must be the largest consumer of natural resources of any county in SE Utah. They promote recycling, and light ordinances and bike paths, but aren’t these just band-aids? Let me put it this way, if Grand County could use alternative energy sources like wind and solar that allowed its population to double or triple, while keeping energy consumption at current levels, most "progressives" would consider that a success.
To me, contemplating a Moab with 30,000 people in 30 years, or a U.S. Population of 500 million by mid-century, or a world population of nine to fourteen billion people by 2050 is a nightmare. Rats in a box...that’s the future, if we don’t address the issue NOW. Numbers that large can be managed, but only if enough force and fear are imposed to keep them under control, and aren’t we already seeing that today? In a world of only six billion? And a nation of only 300 million?
If there is a personal silver lining to all this, it’s the comfort of knowing I’ll be long-gone by 2050. But if you’re reading this and you’re under 35, you should be scared to death.
A GENERATION SHIFT AT NATIONAL PARKS?
Longtime Zephyr subscriber Hank Ramsey sent me some disturbing information lately. He introduced me to an organization called "Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Units" or CESUs. According to CESU it is, "a network of cooperative research units (that) has been established to provide research, technical assistance, and education to resource and environmental managers...multiple Federal agencies and universities are among the partners in this program. Ecosystem studies involve the biological, physical, social, and cultural sciences needed to address resource issues and interdisciplinary problem solving at multiple scales and in an ecosystem context. Resources encompass natural and cultural resources."
At a joint meeting of the Rocky Mountains and Great Plains CESUs in April, the topic was "Tourism Break-Out." Here are some excerpts:
"Regarding tourism and tourism patterns in the West, the key issue is CHANGE – including changes in visitor groups, desired activities, desired experiences, tourism patterns – and how these changes will influence federal land managers – in the short and long term."
This section particularly moved me:
"A recurring discussion theme was that it’s important to have young people involved in projects – because they are a primary age group that we need to know more about, and a group that can help federal agencies recognize future needs. CESU collaboration with universities provides an excellent way to reach this group of young researchers/project team members.
"It is critical for federal managers to understand how different groups want to use federal lands and, in the same way, how they value federal lands. For example, how do BLM and/or NPS lands "resonate" with different age groups or ethnic groups – and what will this mean for the long-term support and interest in their federal lands." Among the topics associated with this are:
"The changing values of generations regarding parks – what one generation values in a park (such as solitude) may be less important to another generation (that may be more interested in extreme sports).
"Use of Ipods, GIS, computer technology and how that can assist in site interpretation. Issue of "Receptivity.")
"Great potential for partnerships with outdoor recreation outfitters, suppliers, clothing manufacturers, etc., who already know a great deal about our federal land visitors and have a strong handle on how people are using that land."
This is how CESU views the future of our national parks. As if th future isn’t already here.
HERE COMES "24 HOURS" AGAIN
I was mildly comforted this summer when environmentalists finally took note, albeit belatedly, of a non-motorized recreational event, Primal Quest—PQ was an extreme endurance race that crossed or ran adjacent to several Utah Wilderness Coalition wilderness areas. Unfortunately the protests occurred after the environmental assessment comment period closed, so the objections had little effect. Still, I’m hoping that when the "24 Hours of Moab" bicycle race returns in October, groups like SUWA and the Sierra Club will send out some monitors at least, to be sure the bikes avoid proposed wilderness, which stand within inches of the race route At one point, years ago, the race was run inside SUWA proposed wilderness and Kevin Walker, a former SUWA staffer, took me to task in a recent High Country News letter for suggesting SUWA might have altered its boundaries to accommodate the bikers.
Kevin wrote, "His claim is completely false. I was in charge of drawing the boundaries for this part of the Utah Wilderness Coalition’s proposal, and I drew them based solely on off-road vehicle damage (emphasis added) that extended beyond (and was unrelated to) the bike race route."
Walker complained that my views were not based on the facts at all. He wrote, "This might seem like a small point, but I think it is indicative of a larger issue —— Jim’s tendency to stick stubbornly to his opinions even when the facts don’t support them. Jim’s complaint with SUWA and other wilderness preservation groups the past few years has been that ‘New West’ recreation (like mountain biking) and rural sprawl have become threats to wilderness comparable to off-road vehicles and oil/gas exploration."
I was almost hoping Kevin would reply.
Here are the facts. Utah enviros have consistently clung to the notion that the mountain bike industry strongly supports wilderness. In October 1996, SUWA praised the "24 Hours" race in The Zephyr. SUWA noted that it was "a huge event, consisting of up to 1000 bikers and potentially 1500 spectators" and added, "The mountain bike community is a large advocacy group promoting low impact recreation...We believe that both wilderness advocates and biking enthusiasts have a lot to gain by working together..." SUWA also reported, "we did not get involved because the race course did not enter lands proposed for wilderness."
However, a month later, in the November 1996 Zephyr, even SUWA had to note the damage. "Throughout the course," it wrote, "riders rode off the track creating new, shortcut switchbacks. Whether this was intentional because of the competitive nature of the event, or a consequence of racing in the dark, we do not know." Still SUWA commended the race sponsor for staying out of proposed wilderness.
Years later, I compared the "24" race route to SUWA’s wilderness maps in its book "Wilderness on the Edge" and discovered that the race had indeed entered their proposed wilderness areas. I showed the maps to SUWA’s then-executive director, Larry Young, who referred them to Kevin Walker. In an email from Kevin on November 5, 2003, he wrote, "When we revised our proposed boundaries in 1998, we dropped some areas around Moab." He explained that the race was now completely out of proposed wilderness but added, "I think Jim (Stiles) is right about the course going inside the old boundaries." In other words, for years, the race entered lands proposed for wilderness and it slipped by SUWA.
Walker did insist, then and now, that the boundary alteration had nothing to do with bicycles. Just to repeat Kevin, all the damage he saw was caused by "off road vehicle damage." The fact is, thousands of bikers repeatedly pounded miles of old jeep road and other SUWA staffers noted the damage, even in 1996 (The race has grown exponentially since then.). Still Kevin could see no bike-inflicted impacts. He may have honestly believed that all the impacts were ORV-caused, but it speaks volumes for the blinders-type strategy groups like SUWA have embraced, in order to justify their narrowly constricted policies. The West has changed since 1985.
In Kevin’s HCN letter, he gets to the heart of SUWA’s environmental philosophy. He wrote, "But throw a dart at a map of proposed wilderness in Utah, then visit that point on the ground and make a list of all the threats. You will probably see far more off-road vehicle tracks, grazing damage and oil exploration scars than you will see mountain bike tracks, footprints or new homes. Yes, ‘New West’ threats are growing, but ORV abuse and oil exploration are growing at least as fast, and these ‘Old West’ issues remain by far the biggest threats to wilderness."
Walker is right when he notes that impacts from non-motorized recreation and the amenities economy are only a part of the problem, and that is EXACTLY what I’ve been saying for years. Last spring, when I suggested that SUWA share some of its $5 million in net assets with other environmental groups who might be willing to deal with some of these amenities economy impacts, I was careful to note, "SUWA remains Utah’s most vigilant watchdog in areas of ORV abuse, oil and gas exploration and public lands grazing." This was the same essay that caused SUWA’s executive director Groene to have a public temper tantrum in the Salt Lake Tribune.
What I cannot understand is how mainstream environmental groups can fail to see the connection between oil and gas exploitation and these kinds of issues? Does the Sierra Club or the Wilderness Society or SUWA think only conservative Republicans consume energy? The amenities economy is driven by an ever-expanding consumption of natural resources. Until environmentalists find the honesty to acknowledge these kinds of contradictions and admit that we are part of the problem, I will, as Kevin says, "stick stubbornly to (my) opinion
POETRY COMES TO THE ZEPHYR
For almost 20 years I have resisted a poetry page in the Zephyr. I already have a problem with unsolicited contributions of prose and opening the poetry gate was not a viable option for my sanity. But a few weeks ago, I was in Fruita, Colorado and had breakfast with a friend of mine, Danny Rosen. Danny owns the Westsky Planetarium and is a remarkable human being. I rarely see him but we seem to stay in contact. Over coffee and bagels, Danny pulled out a slim booklet. "Here," he said. "Take a look at this. I’ve been writing some poetry."
Oh no, I thought. I’m not a poetry expert. I’m no intellectual by any means. Poetry is something I either like or don’t like, for reasons that are totally subjective. Usually, amateur poets send me running. So I cautiously and skeptically took Danny’s volume, called "That Curve," home with me. To my surprise, I loved all of them, so much so that I wanted to share them with you. And so I offer a collection of Danny Rosen’s poetry on page 7.
And thanks Danny.
InDesign IS HERE.
This is the first issue of The Zephyr produced via the computer layout program called InDesign. The old paper layout boards are collecting dust in the Zephyr annex–my 1954 Avion trailer. Incredibly, the hand waxer broke just as I was finishing the Aug/Sep issue...hot wax started leaking all over my layout table. It served me well for almost 18 years.
I hope there aren’t too many technical flaws in this issue. I think I know what I’m doing but the fear of hidden embedded codes that I can’t see onscreen and other technical problems I cannot begin to grasp will not reveal themselves until this issue is printed. So let’s hope for the best. And if there are errors, bear with me while I try to work them out.
I want to thank Bill Boyle, publisher of The San Juan record for his assitance and especially to Andrea Montgomery, whose instruction and patience went far beyond rthe call of duty.
