Megan Foote

October 30, 2001

By now, the tragic events of September 11, 2001 are forever etched in our minds.  Pictures of the tumbling World Trade Center towers, the gaping hole in the side of the Pentagon, and the scattered jet debris across a Pennsylvania field are constant reminders of the thousands of innocent lives lost to these cowardly acts of terrorism.  Many refer to September 11th as "the day that changed the world."[1]

In many ways, it has changed the world.  Our priorities as a nation have clearly changed, as well as the concerns of the American people.  As the bombing of Afghanistan continues, concerns over the safety of the United States against further acts of terrorist aggression remain on the forefront of the national agenda.  Many environmental issues, including the debate over arsenic in drinking water and national forest protections have taken the backburner, while others such as drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) have taken on a new dimension.  Understandably, this transformation of the national agenda has taken place; however, the question that remains is whether the environment will ultimately become a casualty of America's war on terrorism.

With evening news broadcasts entitled "America Strikes Back,"[2] headlines detailing the most recent infection of anthrax, and the imminence of ground troops being sent into Afghanistan, many Americans are scared - not only by the further loss of American life, but also by how these most recent events will affect their lives.  Whether it is a fear of flying or of opening mail containing anthrax spores, most Americans and our leaders are totally consumed by the terrorist attacks and their aftermath.  A surge of patriotism has swept the country, as a result.[3]  "United We Stand" has become the slogan of the citizens of the United States as well as many citizens of other world nations.[4]  Cars are adorned with U.S. flags and bumper stickers.  People have hung flags on their front porches.  Children are having bake sales in their front yards with proceeds going to the Red Cross relief effort.  Such patriotism and unity are necessary in a period of national disaster and rebuilding.

The cry for unity, however, has put many environmentalists and environmental organizations in a state of limbo.  Issues such as drilling within ANWR, arsenic in drinking water, and national forest protections are fairly divisive issues, which pose to force Americans and national leaders to choose sides.  As a result, many of these issues have disappeared from the national agenda and have been replaced with concerns over national security and terrorist invasion.  The shift of our national agenda has caused many environmental groups to become less vocal for fear of seeming insensitive to the plight of the country or weakening the bond unifying the country.[5]  Some groups have pledged their support for the Bush Administration and the Congress since the attacks of September 11th, while others have withdrawn television and radio advertisements that criticize the Administration's environmental policy choices.[6]

Specifically, websites of the major environmental groups now contain messages to the American people stressing their concern over the recent tragic events.  While reaffirming their commitment to the protection of the environment, they do so with a noticeably different attitude and tone of environmental advocacy.[7]  The President of the Sierra Club provides:

As our nation makes plans for the future, environmental issues will continue to arise.  The Sierra Club will engage in these discussions; we believe that protecting our air, land, and water is a critical part of protecting our homelandÖAnd we will conduct our advocacy in a fashion and tone that helps Americans unite around our common environmental values.[8]

Keeping with the theme of national unity, environmental groups are encouraging Americans to join together and unite around common environmental values, rather than stressing the political divisiveness of many environmental issues.[9]  The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) promotes a similar view of unity, but with a stronger message regarding fossil fuel dependence: "As Americans, we must now join together in shaping a strong response to terrorism.  For NRDC that means advocating policies that will immediately begin reducing our nation's dependence on oil, whether imported or domestic."[10]

While some issues such as arsenic, the roadless debate, and global climate change have fallen from the radar screen in recent weeks, ANWR, an issue of particular interest to many environmentalists, has resurfaced, but with a clearly different battle cry.[11]  As indicated by the message of the NRDC president excerpted above, the concern over America's reliance on oil and most particularly America's reliance on foreign oil from the Middle East in light of the terrorist attacks has led to a renewed appeal from many politicians and the President to allow drilling for oil within the ANWR.[12]  However, the debate over drilling in ANWR has clearly taken a different spin in light of the terrorist attacks and the beginning of the United States' Operation Restore Freedom.  Many politicians in favor of drilling in ANWR have exploited the events of September 11th in an attempt to push for drilling in ANWR.  For example, one member of the Senate attempted to attach energy riders to the defense appropriations bill and the President decided to link national security with drilling in ANWR.

During the Senate's consideration of the FY '02 Defense Authorization bill, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., attempted to attach two amendments to the bill, which would have opened ANWR to drilling.[13]  He argued that the drilling was needed to provide oil for U.S. troops at war.[14]  However, the measure was defeated by a vote of 100-0.[15]  In addition to Sen. Inhofe's attempts, President Bush portrayed the issue of oil drilling in ANWR as a matter of national security and encouraged the Senate on October 11, 2001, to pass an energy bill that would permit such drilling.[16]  According to the President, "The less dependent we are on foreign sources of crude oil, the more secure we are at home."[17]  Responding to these tactics, Sen. James Jeffords, I-Vt., Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, warned that many senators who once opposed opening ANWR might be pressured to open the wildlife refuge by calls to patriotism in the future.[18]  Using threats of national security and urging patriotism as a ploy to open ANWR is simply misplaced and exploits of the fears of Americans, as they come to terms with the changes since September 11th tragedy.

The face of environmentalism has certainly changed.  With many issues taking on a whole new dimension and others seemingly disappearing from sight, environmental advocates will have to take on a whole different focus.  According to Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, "the next couple of months will be tricky for us .... Our issues are understandably not going to be as much in the public eye.  That gives an opportunity for people who don't want to take care of the environment to get away with something."[19]  The political setting and attitude may have changed, but the issues are essentially the same.  The same battles need to be won.

Whether the environment will become a casualty of America's war on terrorism is yet to be seen.  With certain issues far from the public view, it may be easier for anti-environmental policy and regulation too seep through the cracks unnoticed.  However, environmental groups are still advocating for the environment and hopefully, the tragic events of September 11th and their aftermath will be not be exploited as an attempt to weaken environmental protections.

______________

[1] Sierra Club, An Open E-mail from Sierra Club President Jennifer Ferenstein, at http://www.sierraclub.org/update.asp.

[2] NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw (NBC television broadcast, Oct. 15, 2001).

[3] The surge of patriotism is not just present in the United States.  In a recent visit to two Canadian provinces, Quebec and Ontario, various Canadians were showing their support of America with jointly hanging U.S. and Canadian flags at businesses and on billboards and t-shirts indicating Canadian support of American war activities.

[4] See, e.g., United We Stand America - The Grass Roots, at http://www.uwsa.com.

[5] See Senate debate simmers while enviros take a break, GREENWIRE, Sept. 27, 2001, at http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire.htm.

[6] Erin Kelly, Environment might become war casualty, BURLINGTON FREE PRESS, Oct. 10, 2001, at A2.

[7] See, e.g., Sierra Club, supra note 1; The Nature Conservancy, Message from the President, at http://nature.org/aboutus/about/; Natural Resources Defense Council, A message to NRDC members and activists in the wake of the September 11th tragedy, at http://www.nrdc.org/about/jha0901.asp.

[8] Sierra Club, supra note 1.

[9] See id.

[10] Natural Resources Defense Council, A message to NRDC members and activists in the wake of the September 11th tragedy, at http://www.nrdc.org/about/jha0901.asp.

[11] ANWR, other issues poised to resurface soon, GREENWIRE, Oct. 1, 2001, at http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire.htm.

[12] Katharine Q. Seelye, Bush Promotes Energy Bill as Security Issue, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 12, 2001, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/12/politics/12ENER.html.

[13] Daschle may seek cloture to oust Inhofe energy amendments, ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY DAILY, Oct. 1, 2001, at http://www.eenews.net/EEDaily.htm.

[14] Kelly, supra note 6, at A2.

[15] Senate votes 100-0 to quash Inhofe energy effort, ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY DAILY, Oct. 3, 2001, at http://www.eenews.net/EEDaily.htm.  The Senate invoked cloture by a vote of 100-0.  Id.
[16] Seelye, supra note 12.

[17] Id.  Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., currently has control of the Senate version of the bill, as the Energy and natural Resources Committee suspended discussion of the bill in order to "avoid quarrelsome, divisive votes in committee."  Id.

[18] Kelly, supra note 6, at A2.

[19] Id.