Environment

- But what about what is happening in California? My mom protested. How can you want to protect that stupid minnow and let all of those farmers starve? Who is more important, the fish or the humans?


Truthfully, when she brought up this point, I hadn’t thought about the delta smelt for some time and had only learned about the controversy because Jon Stewart did a segment about it on the Daily Show in September of last year. Even though I have lived in San Francisco for almost three years, I knew very little about the Bay area water supply. I certainly knew nothing about the controversy surrounding this fish.


The Sacramento San Joaquin Delta is within the California Central Valley, which is responsible for 8% of the agricultural production in the United States. The Delta is bordered to the north by Sacramento and to the south by Stockton and drains several rivers, including the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. These go on to flow into the San Francisco Bay and out to the Pacific Ocean. Water from this vast system supplies water not only to the Bay Area, but is also pumped to the southern reaches of the Central Valley.

View Larger Map

The delta smelt or Hypomesus transpacificus is endemic to the California delta and specifically to the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary. It is about two-to-three inches long and has a one-year life cycle. Part of its life cycle appears to be dependent on the interaction between fresh and salinated water, and breeding takes place at these intersections. Because this minnow only exists in the California Delta, environmental scientists consider the delta smelt population an indicator of the health of the Delta’s ecosystem. Populations of delta smelt began to decline in the 1980s and the fish was listed as threatened in 1993 under the Federal Endangered Species Act and the habitat was listed as critical in 1994. In 2007, numbers of delta smelt were the lowest ever recorded.

There are many potential reasons for the decline of the delta smelt population including poor water quality due to pesticides and toxic waste as well as competition for food by introduced species. The National Resources Defense Council, an environmentalist group, argued that the water pumps were a principle cause of the decreased fish numbers and in 2007, Judge Oliver Wanger ordered that the pumps be turned down to help save the minnow from extinction. This resulted in a significant decrease in the amount of water delivered to the farmlands for irrigation of the crops. Of course, this would have had a big impact on farmlands at any time, but as California was in the midst of a prolonged drought, the impact was particularly brutal. Unemployment in the area was significantly increased during this time period as well. 

It is hard to ignore the plight of the farmers and this is a situation where conservatives, especially conservative pundits, seem to thrive. Sean Hannity, on his show on the Fox News Network, traveled to the California Delta where he reported on how difficult life was for the farmers without adequate irrigation of the crops. Large signs were paraded about showing the diminutive minnow held in the palm of a hand. Crowds booed the fish as if it were a demon.

Clearly the delta smelt was not the only culprit in the hardships that the farmers were and have been facing over the last few years. The drought has been particularly severe and unemployment was no doubt influenced by the recession. But the delta smelt served as an effective scapegoat and the solution was very simple: turn the pumps back up again to pre-crisis levels. Notably, the slogan used to rally the crowd was “turn the pumps on,” which overstated the actual court decision, which was to reduce the water flow, not eliminate it altogether.

This is a classic environmental struggle where people are asked to sacrifice their income and livelihood, at least in the short run, over the interests of an animal or plant. Environmentalists will argue that the death of the species will lead to further damage to the food chain and to the ecosystem, whereas those humans who stand to lose will argue that humans are more important than animals. What is often times absent from the debate is the long term importance of maintaining the ecosystem in order to maintain the economic markets that the farming supports. This fact is not lost on the fishermen's community (see here for a sense of the conflict between the agriculturalists and the fishermen). 

I remember several times during my childhood where the animals that were listed as endangered drew derision from my peers. That stupid spotted owl! That stupid frog! That stupid salamander! Of course, from the perspective of the environmentalists, the dichotomy is artificial and the continued survival of the ecosystem is vital to the continued survival of humans. Unfortunately, the track record of environmental policies is not always perfect and unintended consequences of policies are never clear a priori. The right, on the other hand, tend to focus on how restrictions to protect species inevitably interfere with property and land use rights, which is hard to ignore as these are tied up in the livelihood of the people who possess them. And the bull dogs of these groups, such as Sean Hannity and Glen Beck, ignore the complexities altogether and stoke the flames for their own gain.

How important is the delta smelt? The delta smelt is essentially at the bottom of the food chain and provides food to striped bass and large mouth bass, both of which are fished commercially. The delta smelt also has a short life span of about a year and reproduces only once. In addition to the fact that the smelt depends on a delicate interface between salt and fresh water, these factors make the fish particularly vulnerable to changes in the environment. As I stated before, the minnow also serves as an indicator for the health of the ecosystem of the delta itself. Ironically, Sean Hannity uses the short life span of the delta smelt to further his argument that the fish is not important. Surely, he seems to imply, the delta smelt would live longer and be bigger than a mere two inches if it had any importance. Even worse, he and the farmers ignore the fact that the downstream fishermen could stand to loose their own livelihood were the smelt to disappear. Hannity even hosts a representative from the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association, but labels him an environmentalist from San Francisco, effectively demonizing him despite the fact that he as well is fighting for working Americans.  

Resolving who is right in this clash between environmentalists and farmers is a momentous task. The science can be difficult to prove and if pesticides and toxic waste continues to pollute the waterways, then reducing fish death through turning down the pumps may be a moot point. I do not pretend to have the answers to this debate, but I do want to address a couple of themes that I think are common in the debate between the left and the right. I think examining these themes can influence the way that we frame future arguments and potentially find common ground.

----

A primary problem is arriving at a notion of justice that will be favorable to all of the parties involved, including both the people and the environment. Determining the stakeholders in this debate is not easy and the scope of the communities of people affected by such a large water system is complicated at best. What may be a just solution for the farmers and their families may not be a just solution for the fisherman. Neither group may truly take into account environmental justice. Including the ecosystem in the debate, especially when the benefits of protecting it are not directly clear to the public, is even more complex. While this country has provisions for protecting the environment, environmental justice is typically thought of as being opposed to and in conflict with justice for humans.

Are fish worth more than humans? Most people would answer this question yes. Hannity titled his interview of the fisherman "Fish vs. The People" to illustrate this, despite the fact that the true debate was fishermen versus farmers. Do the immediate needs of people mean more than the needs of the ecosystem? In as much as this is or is not a “Christian nation”, the impact of Christian ethics and attitudes towards the environment play a huge role in how we have managed our ecosystem in the US over the last several hundred years. When my brother married several years ago, the preacher asked me to read a passage from Genesis:

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good (Genesis 1:28-31).

I hadn’t been to many weddings before my brothers and wasn’t sure how this passage was going to play into my brother’s future. The passage is notable in that it emphasizes human’s place at the top of the food pyramid, with dominion over all and with the duty to multiply and fill the earth with offspring. There is no plea here for coexistence and certainly nothing about hakuna matata. The passage speaks to the ethos that led early US concepts of “the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us” as John O’Sullivan wrote in 1845.

My mom and other family members have used that passage in Genesis and other similar Biblical passages as justification for our ownership of the environment. One particularly memorable moment during my childhood occurred at my uncle’s farm when I was about 8 years old. He had several ponds, which he stocked with a variety of fish including bream, bass and catfish. My brother and I from time to time would go fishing on the farm over weekends. Motivated by my childhood love of animals, one weekend I decided that I wouldn’t bait my line and just sat along side the pond with my hook in the water, baitless, just passing time. My aunt at some point became suspicious and pulled my rod out of the water, exposing my trick. She scolded me and said, “Boy, God put these fish on the earth for you. Now put that worm on your hook and catch them!” She could have used other arguments, but our place in the hierarchy of life and God’s role in putting us there were the first that came to her mind.

While this story may seem innocent, I believe that the way that we are socialized as children directly influences the actions we take as adults. Why should we worry about exploiting the environment if our religion explicitly tells us to do so? Our incessant need for increasing profits drives our economy and forces us to constantly seek out new natural resources and markets. The CFO of Goldman Sachs was recently quoted in an article in the New York Times as saying “This will be the decade” of the emerging market. The article noted the need for identifying natural resources as a primary reason for this push. The principle religion of this country, at least as it is currently taught, reinforces this drive.

Not every culture approaches the environment in this way. I think the most poignant piece of prose arguing a different relationship is the speech given by Chief Seattle in response to the government trying to buy land from his tribe in 1854:

"To us the ashes of our ancestors are sacred and their resting place is hallowed ground. You wander far from the graves of your ancestors and seemingly without regret. Your religion was written upon tablets of stone by the iron finger of your God so that you could not forget. The Red Man could never comprehend or remember it. Our religion is the traditions of our ancestors -- the dreams of our old men, given them in solemn hours of the night by the Great Spirit; and the visions of our sachems, and is written in the hearts of our people.

Your dead cease to love you and the land of their nativity as soon as they pass the portals of the tomb and wander away beyond the stars. They are soon forgotten and never return. Our dead never forget this beautiful world that gave them being. They still love its verdant valleys, its murmuring rivers, its magnificent mountains, sequestered vales and verdant lined lakes and bays, and ever yearn in tender fond affection over the lonely hearted living, and often return from the happy hunting ground to visit, guide, console, and comfort them."

While the veracity of the text is argued, the contrast with our occidental approach to nature is striking and highlights the difficulty we face in changing the general public’s approach to conservation and the environment. Because of this, I think that using environmental justice as a principle argument with conservatives is unlikely to have any significant impact.

----

The second problem, and the one that I think most readily identifies the problem of the conservatives and perhaps political thought in general in the United States is an inability or unwillingness to search beyond the surface of arguments. When I argue with my mom about anything from health care to evolution, it is clear that she has strong feelings about each of these issues, but the feelings are usually supported by a single idea, usually based in concepts of religion and/or liberty and property rights. The phrases that she uses, such as “that stupid minnow” are taken straight from sound bytes on the television. It is painful to watch the way that Hannity uses non sequitur and outright evasion in his argument with the fishermen's representative. But, with his audience, the tactic is clearly effective. 

Arguing against emotion and religion is a zero sum game. This is no Lincoln-Douglas debate and there are no winners. Perhaps the point of breakdown occurs with our education system, where skills in critical thinking are simply not cultivated. Another possibility is that the cultural, religious, and historical identity of the people is just too strong for logic alone. The two are clearly in direct conflict in this country. This is evident in conservatives' disdain for intellectuals and support of thought that comes "from the gut." Perhaps one of Glen Beck's best qualifications is his claim that he is self-educated, free from the taint of left wing universities. 

When passionate television personalities like Glen Beck and Sean Hannity present their message, they are not trying to cultivate a nuanced perspective of reality. In contrast, they are trying to reinforce the beliefs and stereotypes that people have even prior to turning on the television. This is not unique to the right or to the left, but there is no counterpart on the right to personalities like Jon Stewart who operates primarily by pointing out the contradictions and subtlety that make the social contract and politics so very difficult to navigate.

I recognize that there are very well developed arguments for conservatism. I have no doubt that David Brooks or any one of several people at the Heritage Foundation would destroy me in an argument over any particular policy. But I am not addressing them, I am addressing the numerous Americans that are energetically fighting to maintain the status quo under which we have been living for decades.

For those of you who live in isolated urban landscapes, you have to recognize that there are huge swaths of the US population that believe that God created the universe and everything in it over a short week in the very recent past. A Gallop Poll in 2008 found that 47% of people in the US think that God created humans in present day form within the last 10,000 years. In contrast, only 14% thought that humans evolved over millions of years with no role of God. These statistics have largely remained unchanged since 1982. Eighty-five years later, the Scopes trial could easily be replayed today. 

To bring this back to the issue of the environment, trying to convince people that our actions can negatively influence the environment is very difficult for the above reasons. This is typified in the vast skepticism for the science behind man-made global climate change (certainly made worse by recent revelations about conduct on the part of the scientists). While a majority of people in the US believe that the seriousness of global warming as reported in the media is correct or even underestimated, fully 66% of republicans and 44% of independents believe that reports are exaggerated, a trend that has been increasing over the last four years. If conservatives believed that our actions had a real and negative impact on the environment and that continued destruction of the environment could affect their ability to clothe and feed our population, then maybe they would act differently. But this is a very nuanced argument that requires a thoughtful, educated populace, which we do not currently have.

---

So how can we shape a responsible public policy on environmental stewardship and conservation in the face of 1) a mentality that the environment is here for us to dominate and exploit and 2) a populace that does not favor logic and is resistant to science in general? In the first place, I do not think that we will ever be able to convince the right and conservatives in general that man made global climate change is a reality. To illustrate, I recently saw the following status update on Facebook from a childhood friend in the South where it has been unseasonably cold with late season snow:

“Ok, does this mean the "global warming" theory is down the tubes???...what a JOKE!!...lol.”

This was followed by a series of similar comments by other people, the majority of which gored the former Vice President.

The website FreedomWorks, which is maintained by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and is one of the more visible platforms for the Tea Party movement, describes global warming with language that invokes a large conspiracy of monied interests: "Efforts to regulate carbon dioxide are an attempt by the global Left to gain control of the U.S. Economy." In their position statement on the matter, they avoid denying the existence of man made climate change, preferring to "leave it up to the scientists," of which only "some" are concerned that carbon dioxide could be having an impact on the climate. 

I recently went to one of the 350 protests, which is a worldwide campaign to raise awareness of the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The organization claims that the levels should be less than 350 parts per million in order for the planet and humans to be safe. They argue that atmospheric levels are currently at 387 parts per million. 350 has become widely popular over the last year, with protests occurring across the world in developed and undeveloped countries alike. While I fully support manifestations such as this, I left the protest disheartened by how fringe the participants were, even by San Francisco criteria. Unless we mainstream environmentalism, we are unlikely to have a big impact outside of the courtroom.

One of the solutions lies in the way that we frame the argument. For example, when I was a medical resident in Baltimore, a common problem I observed was the difficulty that physicians had in communicating with intravenous drug users, which accounted for a large percentage of our inpatient admissions. The young physicians, most of whom had type A, guilt driven personalities, would try to negotiate with patients by telling them how bad things would be if they kept using heroin and crack cocaine. In contrast, the patients, who were largely motivated by pleasure seeking behavior, responded much more positively to messages of how good they would feel if they successfully kicked the habit. While it didn’t mean that they would go clean, doctors who took the latter approach were far more likely to develop a bond with their patients. 

In the same way, we need to know our audience. While conservatives may not be pleasure seeking, we do need to consider what it is that they want and how we can arrive at as close to a compromised notion of justice as possible. A friend recently sent me a photo of a banner which read, “If you knew your baby were gay, would you still not abort him?” This message is likely to be read with some degree of self satisfying humor by people on the left and horror by people on the right with no net benefit for anyone. These extreme slogans might be useful at closed rallies, but this country is already too polarized. We should target our messages so that we are most likely to achieve the desired result. 

Conservatives do not have to accept theories of global warming to recognize that large scale agriculture that is reliant on pesticides leads to leaching of the soil and pollution of the waterways. In fact, one of the cited reasons against turning down the pumps in the California Delta was that the delta smelt population was diminished because of toxins and pesticides. They also do not have to accept global warming to recognize that in times of drought, utilization of water is precious and should be conserved in order to maintain a steady supply. If we shift regulation to things that people can identify with then maybe the issue of turning down the pumps would never be an issue to begin with. 

We should as much as possible shift the debate away from “Save the Planet” and to save our own backyard. The planet is too abstract and too full of unknowns for most people. The backyard is a concept that is frequently used, albeit typically negatively as in “Not in my backyard!” However, this could be as an advantage. If we concentrate on demonstrating how ill health, clean water, and clean reusable soil can benefit their communities, then maybe we will have the global, or at least national side effect that we ultimately desire. And since the US is the highest producer of carbon dioxide emissions on the planet, changing our consumption patterns on a local level can and will have a global effect. 

Rather than try to convince conservatives of our larger ideology, we can show them how protecting the water can have direct benefits to their families. And we cannot allow the conservative arms of the media to highjack the debate as Hannity has so effectively done. In the meantime, we need to make sure that we protect our farmers from abject poverty and starvation during their times of need. This is no easy task. Conservative thought as it is practiced by the masses is largely based on wanting to maintain the status quo. Opting for more fuel efficient cars, house hold energy reduction, decreased use of pesticides and sustainably farming practices force people to change their habits and we as a culture are largely addicted to these habits.

As I will discuss throughout this blog, I think that the ultimate battleground for all of these issues that span our political spectrum is in the classroom. While the adults will be very difficult to convince, the children are still malleable. Conservatives are currently winning this battle by shaping the content of textbooks. If we do not fight back, I doubt that the Gallop Poll results I referred to earlier will change any time soon.

We must act now. 

Timeline of Delta Smelt Debate

August 22, 2007. Environmentalist, water users debate fate of tiny delta smelt. Peter Fimrite, Chronicle Staff Writer.

September 1, 2007. Ruling to protect delta smelt may force water rationing in Bay Area. Peter Fimrite. San Francisco Chronicle.

September 2, 2007. California judge helps declining fish. Associated Press. New York

May 22, 2007. Delta smelt numbers plunge / Debate over state's pumping of water after only 25 found. Patrick Hoge. Chronicle Staff Writer.

September 15, 2007. California reels from save-the-minnow ruling. Harry Cline. Western Farm Press.

October 6, 2007. Minnow-protection ruling leaves water supply uncertain. Harry Cline. Western Farm Press.

February 8, 2008. Longfin smelt’s bid for state protection. Jane Kay. SF Gate.

July 10, 2008. US proposes to put smelt on endangered list. US asks scientists for info in debate over water quality. Steve Rubenstein. Chronicle Staff Writer.

July 11, 2008. California’s delta smelt could merit endangered listing. Environment News Service.

December 16, 2008. US Issues rules to protect delta smelt. Smelt’s survival may mean less drinking, agriculture water. Peter Fimrite. Chronicle Staff Writer.

March 29, 2009. Water Shortage in the Central Valley. ABC News.

May 9, 2009. State asks feds to review pro-smelt water rules. Kelly Zito. SF Gate.

May 12, 2009. Calif. Water agency changes course on delta smelt. Colin Sullivan. New York Times

June 1, 2009. Judge Wanger reverses stance on Delta Smelt. Dan Bacher. San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center.

Septmeber 2, 2009. California’s Man Made Drought: The Green War Against San Joaquin Valley Farmers. Wall Street Journal.

November 15, 2009. 2 new lawsuits to save SF Bay-delta smelt. Bob Egelko. Chronicle Staff Writer.

February 11, 2010. Judge rejects plea to limit smelt water limits. Associated Press

February 18, 2010. Rev’ em up. With Delta Smelt moved, pumps are a go. Bettina Boxall. Los Angeles Times.