we would like to think that science can tell us what to do about the environment, we don't need to get into messy politics.  But it doesn't work that way:

• science doesn't give us nice neat answers
• we often have to make decisions before the science is entirely clear
• we need the political process to make reasonable decisions when people have different values and goals
  

What is science?

• in elementary school you learn science as a set of true facts
• next level--science is a method of discovering new true facts
• it often takes a long time before people agree on the "facts": when scientists come up with a new theory there is often a period of controversy before it is accepted
  
• environmental science/ecology are fairly young science haven't gotten to the point yet where scientists agree on a lot
  
• (next level) is there ever such a thing as a true fact?  is Pluto a planet--that is a matter of how you define what a planet is and different definitions have different advantages
• science works--it makes accurate predictions--but our scientific ideas are one way of describing the world, not the only way
  
• is the definition of species based on underlying reality--you have different species if they can't reproduce together.  But it doesn't actually work that neatly.
  
• philosophers say you can never prove something to be true, though maybe you can prove it to be false (Karl Popper)
• science does not give us conclusive answers, there is always still room to argue
  
• it is impossible to teach environmental science in a completely unbiassed way
• different scientists think different things are important, based on what are issues they think we should worry about
  
• you may want to teach about topics where scientists are not yet in agreement
• very often the scientists are not going to be able to come to an agreement in time for the policy decision to be made
• usually there is at least some disagreement among the experts
  
• what should you do when you have to make a decision based on incomplete and disputed information?
• we need to have some idea how to evaluate the quality of information and decide what risks we are willing to take
• the political process needs to set the goals (values) then science/experts can help figure out how to get there
  
• take-home point:  science is not nice and neat--political issues about the environment can't simply be left to science/experts
  

Particularly in the early 1970s, strong public opinion in favor of doing something about environmental issues.  A wide range of people agreed that something ought to be done.  This chapter deals with how that coalition fell apart

James Watt

• an example of how environmental management could become politicized
  
• Appointed by Ronald Reagan as Secretary of the Interior (Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Geological Survey)
  
• his goal was development rather than protecting the environment
• some of his actions made visible divisions hidden in the environmental movement
  
• consider as an issue snowmobiles in Yellowstone (or whether to re-introduce wolves)
  
• allowed on roads--how is this different from cars in the summer?
  
• began to expand in the late 1960s
• environmentalists have fought against this several times
  
• effect on wildlife
• public use and economic benefits vs. wilderness preservation
• limits: 950 snowmobiles allowed per day
  

The Sagebrush Rebellion

• ranchers had traditionally paid small fees to use public land, some limits to how many cattle allowed
  
• ranchers who felt they had the right to continue to use federal land the way they had
• mostly land owned by the Bureau of Land Management
• BLM started to raise fees and further limit the number of grazing animals allowed to protect the land
  
• argued for the states to take over federal land
• several states passed laws claiming that federal land was now state land
• Congress refused to accept this
• an example of anti-environmentalists who were encouraged by the Reagan administration
• Reagan could get away with slowing down environmental protection more than Nixon could because public opinion was more divided
  

As opposition becomes more visible, some environmentalists become more radical
Earth First

• a few people who were very frustrated that the RARE II roadless (wilderness) area review had recommended very few new roadless areas except at high altitudes where it would be difficult to log
  
• frustrated with mainstream environmental organizations (like the Sierra Club) for compromising, even before Reagan became president
• organizers wanted to preserve the maximum amount of wilderness
  
• they wanted not just wilderness preservation but also wilderness recovery--remove roads and dams
• their goal was to be the the shock troops for wilderness
• guerilla theater, demonstrations, civil disobedience--breaking the law to make a point
  
• refused to condemn sabotage that didn't harm lives
• Edward Abbey, The Monkey Wrench Gang, 1975
  
• spiking trees--sneak in and put large nails in trees, a risk to the loggers cutting them down
• the environmental movement was doing things that endangered people--bad publicity
  
• tree-sitting
  
• organized small regional groups, not a national organization
  

The environment movement

• grew in size
• opposition to the environmental movement became more organized
  
• became more divided--some radicals, other groups with other ideas and tactics
  

---