function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); WASHINGTONInterior Secretary Ryan Zinke penned an op-edfor the conservative Washington Times this week that argued, among other things, that natural areas can actually benefit from the extraction of oil, gas and other resources.Its better for the environment that the U.S. produces energy, Zinke wrote. We can responsibly develop our energy resources and return the land to equal or better quality than it was before extraction.Ive spent a lot of time as a Navy SEAL in the Middle East, and I can tell you with 100 percent certainty it is better to develop our energy here under reasonable regulations rather than have it produced overseas under little or no regulations, he added, repeating a comment he made last week.Setting aside the argument that producing energy in the U.S., rather than elsewhere, isless badfor the planet, HuffPost asked the Interior Department to elaborate on how exactly itimprovesthe environment ' eventually making it better quality.First Id like to note that youre asking a question that is not based upon what the Secretary wrote, Interior Department spokeswoman Heather Swift wrote in an email on Thursday.It is exactly what Zinke wrote.Swift went on to describe two examples of successful reclamation projects. One, mining company BHP Billiton Ltds cleanup of an area near Fruitland, New Mexico, createda central water source that attracted ducks, geese, and other wildlife to an area that would normally not see animals without such a source, she wrote.The other involved coal company Solar Sources Inc. reclaiming more than 2,500 mined acres into farmland near Cannelburg, Indiana. The company has demonstrated how decompacted soil, properly handled and treated, increased crop yields for different species, Swift wrote.Those two projects are noteworthy for reclaiming areas disturbed by mining operations. But reclamation is not the same as restoration ' the former returns land to a suitable condition for use, while the latter returns land to what it was before.And the implication that the land is better than it was before extraction is, at the very least, debatable.Jenise Bauman,a restoration ecologist and professor at Western Washington Universitys Huxley College of the Environment, told HuffPost shes seen many successful reclamation projects. The bottom line, however, is the ecosystem is not what it once was. As for whether a site isbetter, she said, that depends on how you define the word.What is better than' What does that even mean' Bauman asked. That depends.Is the goal [that] youre going to be able to feed half the nation or preserve the water resources there post-restoration' I dont know. But its not an old-growth forest, if thats what was in place [before].The quality of a piece of land depends on the desired use, saidRichard Stehouwer, a professor of environmental soil science at Pennsylvania State University. For example, if a community is interested in having a lake and the reclamation adds one, you could argue the area is better. But it certainly isnt what it was.To say that you can go into an undisturbed landscape and extract coal and then return it to that prior undisturbed condition, I dont think that can be done, Stehouwer said.He added that the coal industry is doing a better job than it was before the passage of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, a 1977 law that regulates surface coal mining activities.Zinkes assertion, however, is obviously trying to give the impression that things can be done without any problem, and I dont think thats true, Stehouwer said.Athan Manuel,director of the Sierra Clubs Lands Protection Program, said improving a site beyond what it was before being mined or drilled would be a scientific breakthrough.I dont know why [Zinke]thought he could say that with a straight face and no one would notice, Manuel said. Its obviously patently false that you can improve a natural area with an oil rig or an open pit.From any kind of standpoint, whether youre talking about physics or artworkno one is going to go out there and say, Oh look at this beautiful vista with an oil rig on it. Im going to come back and paint this at sunset, he added.To say that you can go into an undisturbed landscape and extract coal and then return it to that prior undisturbed condition, I don't think that can be done.Richard Stehouwer, Pennsylvania State University Citing his hero Theodore Roosevelt ' to whom he compares Trump ' Zinke echoes many of the Trump administrations talking points in his op-ed, describing the Interior Departments new mission to end job-crushing energy regulations that have become a tool of political advocacy rather than public interest.He also appears to take a swing at former President Barack Obamas environmental policies by arguing that being a good steward of our land and resources does not mean locking it up.But Manuel said its not protections that lock up land ' its leasing areas for drilling or mining.The opposite is true, he said. When you lease an area to an oil company, you cant go birding on it, you cant go hiking on it. They put a fence around it and the public doesnt have any access to it. They want to lock these areas up just for the fossil fuel industry to exploit. And these areas dont get improved when that happens.Manuel said Zinkes editorial reminded him of James Watt, President Ronald Reagans controversial interior secretarywhopushedto increase mining and oil and gas drilling in national forests and on other federal lands in the 1980s.Zinke also writes that the Trump administrations push for energy independence will add thousands of jobs and generate billions in revenue for the American taxpayer. But the focus on fossil fuels, at a time when oil and gas prices are relatively low,proves the administrations agenda is ideologically driven, Manuel said.When you lease an area to an oil company, you can't go birding on it, you can't go hiking on it. They put a fence around it and the public doesn't have any access to it.Athan Manuel, director of the Sierra Club's Lands Protection Program Since taking office, Trump has moved quickly to unravel Obama-era regulationsmeant to reduce the United States carbon footprint and fight climate change. He had proposed deep budget cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency and other scientific agencies, and has signed executive orders that aim to increase fossil fuel production.Hes also vowed topull the U.S.out of the Paris Agreement, the landmark climate accord in which nearly 200 countries committed to slashing carbon emissions. White House sources tell HuffPostthat a withdrawal could happen as early as next week.Last week, Trump signed an executive order aimed atopening protected areas of the Arctic and Atlantic oceansto oil and gas development. Zinke celebrated the move, saying itwill cement our nations position as a global energy leader and foster energy security for the benefit of the American people without removing any of the stringent environmental safeguards that are currently in place.Cassady Craighill, a spokeswoman for Greenpeace, said that instead of being a watchdog of the fossil fuel industry, Zinkesimply regurgitates the talking points of oil and gas executives while carving up this country into corporate giveaways. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Click here to read full news..
