Wilderness bewilderment (Nature Conservancy Eco-Scandal)

Wilderness bewilderment

A leading protector of US countryside has been severely tarnished by an astonishing environmental scandal

Oliver Burkeman in Washington
Thursday May 29, 2003
The Guardian

The world's wealthiest green group may be investigated by the US government in the light of allegations that it has engaged in practices more commonly associated with the enemies of the environment.

Nature Conservancy felled trees, allegedly drilled for gas beneath the last breeding-ground of an endangered bird and sold unspoilt land at discounted prices to its trustees so they could build luxury homes in some of America's most beautiful landscapes, according to the Washington Post, which spent two years investigating its activities.

The conservancy group has $3bn (£1.8bn) in assets and a million members, and is ubiquitous in the US.

Its image as the preserver of the country's wilderness (widely promoted on television and in print using the actor and environmentalist Paul Newman as its figurehead) has been severely tarnished by the investigation.

The paper says the oil company Mobil gave the charity a stretch of coastline in Texas which supports the almost extinct Attwater's prairie chicken. But the Post claims that instead of shielding the land, Nature Conservancy sank a gas well, losing $10m lawsuit concerning another charity's claim to the oil rights, and exposing the birds, in the words of one of Nature Conservancy's scientists, to "a higher probability of death".

The revelations, confirmed by the Guardian, encompass a scheme in which the conservancy's wealthy supporters, among them the chat show host David Letterman, were sold land by the charity at far less than cost, in return for accepting restrictions on how they could develop it.

Often, those buying the land would make up the difference with a roughly equivalent donation to the conservancy, claiming a large tax deduction for the gift, meaning that the US treasury sweetened the deal. The buyer was free to develop the land as long as the charity's environmental restrictions were followed. But they were often not strict enough to prevent the owner installing swimming pools and tennis courts and clearing trees for a better view.

Mr Letterman, a conservancy trustee, bought part of a 87-hectare (215-acre) stretch on Martha's Vineyard, though it was not clear whether he made a parallel donation.

The charity says it has suspended the "conservation buyer" scheme pending a review. But Democrat and Republican senators are seeking an investigation, bringing into the Washington spotlight a long-running debate on how close the green movement should get to big business.

And Nature Conservancy is certainly very close. Among those with seats on its council are some of America's most notorious environmental offenders: Pacific Gas and Electric - the polluting anti-hero of the movie Erin Brockovich - Exxon Mobil and General Motors. It receives hundreds of millions of dollars a year from business, some for letting companies use its name and logo on products.

"Talking philosophically, there's a spectrum, and, yes, the conservancy is very pragmatic," Jordan Peavey, its spokeswoman, told the Guardian. The charity has admitted that it made mistakes, but, Ms Peavey said, "We have our niche, and we're very effective at what we do. That enables us to get work done that groups like Greenpeace couldn't do - not to pick on them particularly, because they can do things that we couldn't."

A former head of land acquisition for Nature Conservancy, David Morine, told the Post: "It was the wrong decision to get so close to industry. Business got in under the tent, and we are the ones who invited them in. These corporate executives are carnivorous. You bring them in and they just take over. [That policy was] the biggest mistake in my life."

It is the Texas gas-drilling which may do the most damage, because it seems so profoundly at odds with the charity's stated mission of "saving the last great places on earth".

The plan was to buy more land for the Attwater's prairie chicken, which the US National Wildlife Federation calls the country's most endangered bird, but little went right. Oil spills and a gas explosion blighted the operation.

There is no evidence that the drilling directly harmed the birds, but the conservation efforts failed, too, and the number of birds has fallen from 36 birds in 1998 to an estimated 16.

Stanley Temple, a Wisconsin University biologist, wrote in a report for Nature Conservancy that he was "shocked to find that one of the release pens is subject to flooding in heavy rains, and that birds have drowned in the pen".

Mr Temple told the Guardian that his remarks had been blown out of proportion, and that his point was that the location was appropriate only for a short-term project. "The Texas City preserve was an absolutely hopeless site to try to conserve the Attwater's prairie chicken in the long run," he said.

Mark Hertsgaard, author of the book Earth Odyssey, said: "I don't see how you could make up a worse scenario than that I think it tells you something about the lack of accountability in the movement, and the lack of an atmosphere in which people are going to call each other on things.

"It really points to a much bigger problem, which is, how do you deal with corporate power and capitalism."

As for the conservation buyer scheme, Ms Peavey insisted that it did not entail selling land to conservancy trustees and donors at a loss, because the development restrictions decreased the value.

"You're giving up substantial rights to develop, in perpetuity - owners hundreds of years from now will still have to abide by those restrictions," she said.

"So while it is true that the land was sold at a cheaper price, it was because it was worth less, by independent appraisals."

No, they aren't my friends. I mistrust these guys way more than I mistrust corporate fair/common use advocates. In fact, I think the Republican party is going to have the power to make some of the choices we're discussing here very soon. My position remains in short:

There is a silent majority of Americans who agree with conservation, and they're not ecoterrorists. I consider myself one of them. We don't agree with either the ecofreaks or the privatization advocates.
There is no formula for disaster in public conservation. I believe this is disinformation with an obvious corporate bias. It's as transparent as a drop of dew.
Teddy's conservation is worth preserving. "Problems" we have now are not necessarily caused by his legislation. We simply have new datapoints to use in future forest management.
Our redwoods, sequoias, and true old-growth are worth protecting 100%. Thinning is OK if it really works, but I don't trust those who profit from the practice to limit their consumption.

The right is much more likely to be setting the tone of these debates in the next 20 years than the left, and so I care a lot more about what you all think than I do the econuts! I'm a non-corporate fair/common use advocate, and I have nothing to gain or lose by this except a deeply-held commitment to conservation.

I don't trust those who profit from the practice to limit their consumption.

Carry_Okie's system would make it profitable for them to limit their consumption. The best of both worlds.

I have nothing to gain or lose by this except a deeply-held commitment to conservation.

Then I take it you will be looking into Natural Process on a deeper level. I suggest buying the book.

Risk, you really should purchase Carry-okie's book, and another on is "Undue Influence" by Ron Arnold....Ron also has several others and I am trying to get them....one thing I don't think you understand about me, farmfriend and carry_okie, as well as all the other posters to these threads, are that we all love the land and consider ourselfs to be conservationists......I do at any rate, and as such, I feel that I am the best steward of my land!

Again, please get the books, this will help you to see both sides of this coin!!! If you will look at my bookmarks, you will also understand that I stand to lose my home, my way of life, my heritage all because of a "view-shed" that is not even a "view-shed" yet, but will be if the NPS has it's way and gets a scenic parkway built along the New River from I-64 to Hinton, WV!

What is the problem we're trying to solve? Here is the Natural Process synopsis:

To improve ecosystem health, invest in shares of private enterprises selling uses of natural processes that are priced by their ability to offset environmental risk.

Again, why does anyone need to profit from our conservancies at all?

It's counter-intuitive to suggest that someone who makes a profit from stomping around in the woods will suddenly acquire a conscience and decide to limit that behavior. Staying totally out of these areas would make more sense. But we don't have to do that to learn from previous forestry mistakes. I'm not buying privatization as a solution. It's the fox guarding the henhouse.

I do at any rate, and as such, I feel that I am the best steward of my land!

It's good to know you guys are conservationists. I also agree that you should have the right to choose how to conserve your own resources as long as you don't impact people downstream or cause mudslides, etc...

But the land Teddy Roosevelt saved is not your private land, and I don't have to trust you personally to do what's best for it. I'd prefer to keep it that way, and if there are issues with habitat damage caused by poorly managed agencies, then we need to solve that problem directly, not with privatization.

As soon as you privatize, the resources will go to the highest bidder, and we know who that is.

Staying totally out of these areas would make more sense.

No, it doesn't because of the problem with invasive species. I'll see if I can find the thread with the pictures of Conservancy land that has been destroyed by leaving it alone. Setting land aside is what is killing the land. You need to read further and get off the whole profit thing.

I'm not buying privatization as a solution. It's the fox guarding the henhouse.

That right there tells me you have no clue what Natural Process is all about. Buy the book before you judge.

Let me ask you this, is the UL tag on electrical stuff "the fox guarding the hen house"? Is innovation in the health care system, Conservation of peoples lives, driven by profit or a desire to save people? Innovation in environmental conservation can be driven by profit and will be more effective if it is. Open your mind. Natural Process is a whole new way of thinking. You can't get there using old models.

Mark will get back to you this evening. He is out pulling weeds right now. Mean while, I'll look for those pictures.

Mark will get back to you this evening. He is out pulling weeds right now.

That makes it sound like we are in the same place, we are not. He had just told me he was going to pull weeds.

I support Mark's work in an official capacity. I supported it when I was Legislative Director for the California State Grange and I continue to support it as part of the Conservation and Environmental Affairs Committee. I advocate Grange policy. This work fits very well and covers policy from both the left and right of our organization. All Grange policy is drafted by local Granges. It is truly Grassroots. Founded in 1867, the Grange is the oldest general farm and public policy organization in the United States.

Buy the book before you judge.

Wait, I don't need to spend my money to be convinced of an argument I am not likely to agree with anyway. That's the invisible hand at work again :)

The forests were fine without us. We're not likely to help them by fighting all fires, or "thinning" as much as we would by just leaving them alone. I don't think that's necessary, but it illustrates my point: less is more in the case of activity with regard to conservation.
People have to take care of themselves. They need to find ways of making a living without invading the preserved lands. If the conservation is constant, we won't need to worry about this. There is no "manifest destiny" of natural resource consumption.
I've camped and played in these areas, and I'm proud of the charter of the national agencies like the Forest Service and the BLM. If there's a problem, we need to solve it from within, not by tearing them down.

Sorry, but the problems we're having with the enviralists are not caused by public conservation in and of itself, and they won't go away if we privatize the lands and their resources. The resources would soon disappear, however.

Regardless of the extremists on the side of the corporations or the enviralist terrorist-wannabes, there is still a choice to be made: do we save the preserves for future generations or do we not. I favor limiting access, saving what we have left, and restricting profiteering. Sorry, but I think we have more at stake here than the current generation, and I'm sure Teddy Roosevelt understood that choice as well.

That choice will not go away. You can dress it up any way you like, but it's the same debate. And plenty of Americans are in favor of limiting use of these resources one way or another. And they're not all leftists.

Wait, I don't need to spend my money to be convinced of an argument I am not likely to agree with anyway.

That is the most rediculous thing you have said. IT's not an argument, it's a process. A new way of doing things. A better way of doing things.

do we save the preserves for future generations or do we not. I favor limiting access, saving what we have left, and restricting profiteering.

Hello, have you been listening? Limiting access is what is killing the forest and perserves in general. Whether or not someone makes a profit should be irreleven if what you are conserned about it preservation.

The forests were fine without us.

NO they are not, that is why the Biscuit fire burned a National Monument not PL's land.

I've camped and played in these areas, and I'm proud of the charter of the national agencies like the Forest Service and the BLM.

And as the daughter of a registered forester, I grew up in the Los Padres, Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests.

Limiting access is what is killing the forest and perserves in general.

What? Forests were there for thousands of years before we got here, but they'd be better off with our "well-researched" (i.e. a couple of generations of data, not much else) techniques?

I'm not buying it. It's obvious to me that the whole point of this "patented process" is to get the resources into the hands of those who can profit from it. The American people will say no thank you. So do I.

Forests were there for thousands of years before we got here

The forest have been manage by aboriginals for thousands of years.

It's obvious to me that the whole point of this "patented process" is to get the resources into the hands of those who can profit from it.

Wrong, I know, I've read the book. The whole point is to better improve the environment. The process has been patented to protect the investment he has made researching and writing the book. Read the stuff in that last link, then get back to me. I'm starting to believe that you won't read the link. I doubt you went and looked at the pictures of destroyed conservation land and you seem more conserned with profit than the environment.

But the land Teddy Roosevelt saved is not your private land, and I don't have to trust you personally to do what's best for it.

Teddy Roosevelt was one of the most prolific land grabbers ever.

First of all, whatever land the Feds manage to put on welfare, becomes ruined. Fires, floods, invasive species etc. Examples are all the ruined lands out west and the ill Everglades National Park.

When the crackers and Indians had it, it was all well groomed praries with tons of small game and in turn large game. Now it's managed by disinterested bureacrats from Rhode Island or the Northwest or wherever. Nearly all species of warm blooded vertibates have been depletd in the last 50 years.

The government is the worst possible steward of natural resources, you're a damn fool if you think otherwise.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.