If a Tar-Sands Project Fails in the Forest…

October 01, 2014

Back in March, I wrote about the Keystone XL "it's not about the pipe," saying that any rejection of new tar sands pipelines serves the purpose of keeping this dirty oil in the ground. Some good news from last week proves the point that I and others have been making. The Norwegian energy firm Statoil announced that it would pull the plug on a planned multibillion-dollar, 40,000 barrel per day destructive tar sands project in Alberta. What reason did they give? Rising costs and "limited pipeline access which weighs on prices for Alberta oil, squeezing margins and making it difficult for sustainable financial returns." (Translation: We are kicking Keystone's keister.)

In fact, Statoil's is actually the third Canadian tar-sands cancellation this year. This latest one, though, is both the largest and the first in-situ project to get the axe. The other two were strip-mining operations, which carry a higher overhead. If you can't make the numbers work for an in-situ tar sands mine, then your business model is in trouble.

And if Statoil's project is in trouble, you can bet the whole tar sands industry is looking over its shoulder. They may wish they hadn't, because we're gaining on them.

Unless you've watched tar sands mining firsthand (an experience I wouldn't wish on anyone but a couple of Wichita billionaires), it's impossible to comprehend how nightmarish it really is. (Last week's "In Focus" photo feature from The Atlantic comes close, though). No rational reason exists for doing this to our planet -- unless you count greed. Sadly, some people do. But even if you are willing to destroy 50,000 square miles of boreal forest just to make a profit, there's no way to justify destroying our future in the process.

No one knows exactly how much oil lies under Alberta's tar sands fields -- perhaps as much as 3 trillion barrels. But we do know that it would take far less than that to put our planet on a path to runaway climate disruption.

I've said before that we cannot let that happen. Today, I'm proud to say that we aren't letting that happen. Over its lifetime, the Statoil project alone would have released a total of  777.4 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2 into our atmosphere. For comparison, the EPA projects that its Clean Power Plan will be eliminating up to 555 MMT of CO2 emissions annually by 2030. Every single tar-sands project cancellation is a huge victory for the hundreds of thousands of people who've stood up to fight Keystone XL.

But as I said, it's not about the pipe. It's about stopping the expansion of tar-sands mining while we still can. The three dominos that have fallen this year in Alberta are just a beginning.

Let's keep 'em falling: Tell President Obama he needs to reject this pipeline for good.

A Shout Heard Round the World

September 24, 2014

If anyone doubted the existence of a mighty climate movement in this country, then the sight of more than 400,000 determined, joyful, vociferous people marching through midtown Manhattan in the People's Climate March in New York City last Sunday has set them straight. Even for those of us who knew that people are ready for climate action, the sight of so many people from so many different backgrounds, all united behind the same righteous purpose, was both exhilarating and humbling. I'm sure I wasn't the only one thinking, "So this is what it feels like to be part of history."

Only time will tell exactly how big a turning point Sunday was in our progress in stopping climate disruption. Personally, I think it was a huge one. But I also know that what matters most right now is not what we did last weekend, but where we go from here. Our job now is to build on this incredible moment.

Let's not forget, though, that the march in New York was only the largest and most dramatic event on this historic day. People took action at over 2,700 events in more than 150 countries. This was a shout heard round the world -- but it was also heard seven blocks away at the United Nations.

The march was timed to coincide with the UN Climate Summit because, after all, this is the ultimate global issue. We all share the world's climate, and everyone stands to lose if the nations of the world can't agree on a plan to limit carbon pollution. This week's summit and the climate talks scheduled for Paris next year will be critical. As President Obama and representatives from other nations spoke on Tuesday, no one denied the urgency of the crisis, and several countries announced major new commitments.

Among the European nations, France promised $1 billion for the Green Climate Fund, Germany announced that it would not directly finance any new coal plants, and Denmark said it will become fossil-fuel free by 2050. The European Union committed to cutting emissions 80 to 95 percent by 2050.

Chinese vice-premier Zhang Gaoli made his country's first-ever commitment to peak its carbon emissions, but would only set a deadline of "as early as possible." Coming from the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter, that's a start.

As for the U.S., President Obama said only that his administration would announce new carbon reduction goals by next year. He focused instead on how the U.S. will step up its international efforts -- including a new executive order that requires federal agencies be guided by the need to build climate resilience into all international development programs and investments. The president spoke of how "Our citizens keep marching. We cannot pretend we do not hear them." On Keystone XL and the Alberta Clipper tar sands pipelines, on LNG gas exports, and on coal and oil leases, the president will have the opportunity to show us he's listening.

Even before the UN Climate Summit started, though, we were seeing results of the growing moral pressure exemplified by the People's Climate March (and also by the following day's Flood Wall Street protests, which shut down a 10-block stretch of lower Broadway for nearly seven hours).

On Monday, Google chairman Eric Schmidt revealed that his company would no longer help fund the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a free-market lobbying group that has worked to kill renewable energy programs and teach climate denial in schools. "We should not be aligned with such people," Schmidt said, "they're just literally lying."

The Google news was great, but Monday's addition of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund to the fast-growing list of philanthropic organizations that have committed to divest from fossil fuel companies was both welcome and wonderfully ironic. These are the heirs, after all, of John D. Rockefeller, the world's first oil billionaire. More importantly, though, divestment is a trend with momentum. The number of institutions that have committed to divest from fossil fuels since the beginning of this year has more than doubled -- and they represent more than $50 billion in assets. Double that a few more times and -- you do that math.

Ultimately, though, the most important message of the People's Climate March was one of empowerment. Although most people believe we have a responsibility to act on climate, the challenge can seem overwhelming to just one person. After this week, no one ever needs to feel alone in this fight. We are millions of people, all around the world. Together, we have power that even the wealthiest corporations in the world will be unable to resist.

The march may have ended on Sunday, but the movement is just getting going. 

One Woman's Amazing Work

September 19, 2014

We're right in the middle of Wilderness Week, and this year it's a special one because we just celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act -- which is still a high-water mark for the protection of our most precious wild places. On Wednesday night, I attended a big gala in Washington, D.C., along with Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and plenty of other political, movement, and environmental big shots.

Vicky-HooverFor me, though, the real star of the evening was Vicky Hoover, the humble, unassuming Sierra Club volunteer superhero who received  the "A Wilderness-Forever Future" award. Nobody I know has put our motto "explore, enjoy, and protect" to better use. Vicky has done all of those things, with a zest and ageless energy that radiates from her. When I see her well-used blue commuter bike locked up in front of our headquarters, I know stuff is gonna get done.

Like so many wilderness champions, Vicky started by falling in love with the wilderness experience. She took up backpacking in the mid-sixties, after she already had two young children. She and her husband brought them along, much as my wife and I do with our kids today. Soon their whole family was climbing Sierra peaks and, by 1981, Vicky had summited all 247 peaks on the Sierra Peaks Section list. You can find her own version of that story here.

But one thing anyone learns about Vicky in a hurry is that she's not content to be a follower. As I said, she's a doer. Very quickly, she graduated from outings participant to trip leader -- mostly in the Sierra Nevada, but also in Alaska, Utah, and even New Zealand.  She may have been born in Manhattan, but I'd bet her wilderness skills and Sierra knowledge would match even old John Muir's. And word has it she's a much better cook.

Another thing she shares with the Sierra Club's founder is a deep appreciation of the mountains and meadows she's explored. Eventually, that led her to realize that someone must have worked to make sure those places were protected. Vicky was also quick to figure out that wilderness exploration is a gateway to wilderness protection. "When I started leading trips, I took it for granted that these wild places were just there," she once said. "But all those years of leading outings made me think that I should try to get more places protected.

She did a lot more than try.

Vicky had already volunteered with her local chapter's office, but in 1985 she stepped up her game. She got a part-time job in the national Sierra Club office as an assistant to Dr. Edgar Wayburn, himself one of the greatest wilderness activists of all time. She started working hard for Dr. Wayburn's Alaska Task Force -- and has kept going for almost three decades.

She also began serving on local and then national wilderness committees. One of the great conservation campaigns at that time was to pass the California Desert Protection Act. Right away, Vicky was in the thick of it. She started leading outings to some of the Southwestern lands that would be affected by the act -- so she could be an even more effective advocate. When President Clinton signed the bill in 1996, the American people gained two national parks (Joshua Tree and Death Valley), as well as more than half a million acres of Wilderness Area in the new Mojave National Preserve. I doubt Vicky even paused to catch her breath before plunging into the next campaign. That California and Alaska are the states with the highest percentage of their lands set aside as wilderness is in no small part thanks to Vicky Hoover.

Vicky finally retired as a Sierra Club staffer four years ago, but her idea of "retired" isn't one you'll find in a dictionary. She still chairs the Club's California/Nevada Wilderness Committee (also serving as its newsletter editor). As co-chair of Wilderness50 -- a coalition of federal agencies and nonprofit organizations -- she's also spent the past four years using the 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act as a way to publicize and promote wilderness to as broad and diverse an audience as possible. Oh, and she continues to lead outings -- including five service and other outings already this year to celebrate the 50th anniversary.

Over the years, Vicky's received lots of awards for the incredible work she's done, including the Club's highest honor, the John Muir Award, in 2004. But as much as she deserves this latest accolade, I know it's only a small measure of how much all of us who love wilderness owe to this remarkable woman. What's the best way we can really thank her? Get out and experience some wilderness!

And while you're at it, take a moment to ask Congress to continue the 50-year legacy of the Wilderness Act by passing some of the current wilderness bills with bipartisan support that have been stuck in gridlock for years. Hey, not even Vicky can do it all single-handed!

The World's Most Ambitious Disaster

September 08, 2014

I've long known how wasteful, destructive, and dangerous the process of extracting oil from tar sands is. To get one barrel of oil, you have to dig up four tons of dirt and rock. Beautiful old-growth boreal forest becomes a wasteland. And that single barrel of oil? It creates three times as much climate pollution simply to produce it as a barrel of conventional crude.

So, yes, I knew that tar sands were bad news. That's why I was willing to go to jail for protesting the Keystone XL pipeline. But it's impossible to really comprehend the brutal reality of tar sands mining without seeing it firsthand.

I spent four days in Alberta with filmmaker Darren Aronofsky and First Nations leaders. We met with officials from Suncor Energy, one of the companies most involved in extracting tar sands, and walked through the dismal wreckage of what the company calls a "reclaimed" area. We took a tour of the massive open-pit mines that spread across the landscape, and received a sobering briefing from Erin Flanagan at the Pembina Institute. We also visited with leaders from the Athabasca Chipewyan and Mikisew Cree First Nations, whose communities have been devastated by the immediate environmental consequences of tar sands extraction.

  Tar Sands2

First Nations communities downstream of tar sands operations have suffered a higher than normal incidence of rare and deadly cancers. Photo: Niko Tavernise

The tar sands are the most outsized example I can imagine of misspent energy and ingenuity. About a fifth of tar sands oil is extracted using open-pit mines -- some of the largest strip mines on Earth. But the other four-fifths of the oil is extracted with an even more dangerous process. Basically, they pipe in natural gas, which you can think of as clean energy's antithesis. They then burn that fuel to generate steam to liquefy and extract the bitumen. The bitumen then gets separated and "upgraded" using massive amounts of water and, frequently, toxic chemicals.

Tar Sands3

There is no dirtier, more inefficient way to get oil than by tar sands mining. Photo: Niko Tavernise

As part of this process, the boreal forest is fragmented, cut down, or completely obliterated. And all of this happens before the bitumen is diluted (more toxic chemicals) and then piped under high heat and intense pressure up to a thousand miles or more to where it's refined and stuffed into our cars and trucks. It is immense, complex, and at a scale that arguably dwarfs any other industrial activity on the planet. When you see it happening, you can't help but be impressed by the scale and audacity of the whole crazy process.

What a waste -- not just of forests, habitat, energy, air, water, health, and our climate. What a waste of human talent. Watching all this, I found myself contemplating how much could be achieved if all of this effort, ingenuity, and engineering prowess were instead directed toward developing clean power? What if, instead of extracting oil by brute force using mining trucks and shovels the size of apartment buildings, these engineers and technicians were designing better wind turbines or perfecting advanced battery storage? Why go to so much trouble to do something so difficult and so destructive when you could invest the same effort into something positive that can literally save the world and power it to boot?

Tar Sands4

Tar sands mining destroys entire landscapes. Photo: Niko Tavernise

Maybe it's just a question of human nature. History is filled with examples of those who stubbornly clung to old paradigms even when it was against their own best interest. Of course, the better way of doing things eventually wins out. But in the case of tar sands and other carbon-intensive, extreme energy-extraction methods, we simply can't afford to wait any longer for common sense to prevail. Not if we want to stop climate disruption.

That's why it is so important that, as a society, we increase the pressure on our leaders to take action right now to advance clean energy solutions and to resist the temptation to drill, mine, and frack as if there were no consequences and no tomorrow.

In a couple of weeks, on September 21, I will be marching along with thousands of Sierra Club members and so many others in New York City. The People's Climate March will be the biggest climate demonstration in U.S. history. The march will include a "Tar Sands Bloc" of people affected by tar sands at every stage -- from First Nations communities in the north to refineries in the south and along the pipelines and train routes in-between. There'll be blocs of families with young children, gatherings of clean energy advocates, and much more. We'll be calling on President Obama other world leaders to take more-significant action to curb carbon pollution. Join us, and take a stand where you stand.

Because we're starting to move in the right direction toward clean energy. We are already building an economy based on clean energy that is creating more jobs than building pipelines or stripmining forests for oil. We're replacing power plants, switching to wind and solar, and improving fuel efficiency. It's not fast enough, nor at the scale that we need -- yet -- but momentum is building. Every day, smart people are coming up with new ideas and innovations. But just think what we will accomplish once our civilization commits all of its genius to making this transformation happen and stops working overtime to prolong the use of fossil fuels.

Forget about "if we can put a man on the moon" analogies. Any society that can conceive of and execute something as recklessly ambitious as tar-sands mining should find the transformation to a clean-energy economy to be a walk in the park.

See you in NY. Please RSVP and find out more about the People's Climate March here.

Landmark Victory in Fight Against Coal Exports

August 19, 2014

Years ago, the conventional wisdom was that going up against the coal industry was a losing proposition. After all, there was a reason the industry was called "King Coal." But after a decade in which more than 180 proposed coal plants were defeated or withdrawn -- and an additional 170 coal plants have been or will soon be retired -- dirty coal's size, power, and influence is rapidly diminishing. And this week's defeat of a proposed export terminal in Oregon will only accelerate that trend.

This is good news. When the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) rejected a permit for Ambre Energy to build a coal export terminal on the Columbia River at Boardman, Oregon, the winners weren't Ambre and its deep-pocketed financial backers. Victory went to the families, doctors, tribal nations, businesses, and local, county, and state-level leaders from across Oregon and the entire Pacific Northwest who have come together to form the nation's largest movement to stop coal exports.

But there's more work to be done. Even as global demand for coal falls and its financial picture continues to dim, coal export companies want to build two other export facilities in Washington State. Millions of tons of coal would travel by rail in open-top cars from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana to both terminals.

These mile-long trains would spew coal dust along rail lines, snarl traffic in communities along the route, and create lengthy delays for the passengers, goods, and services that rely on already-congested train lines. (Just this month, a transporter of refrigerated goods from Washington State to the rest of the country ended its express rail service, citing poor railway performance.) Once Powder River Basin coal reaches the export facilities, it would be shipped overseas to be burned, and return to our shores in the form of mercury contamination, air pollution, and acidifying oceans. In a relentless drive for profits, Big Coal is willing to risk the health and safety of individuals, families, and communities across the American West.

But the DSL's August 18 rejection of the permit for the Morrow Pacific project at Boardman makes it clear: coal exports are not in the best interest of the Pacific Northwest or anywhere else on our coasts.

The reason for the decision is clear -- there is no way to transport coal that will do no harm to communities and natural resources near the facility. Knowing of those impacts, a broad, deep coalition of Oregonians and other Northwesterners united in opposition to Ambre's project.

We're on a roll. From the Pacific Northwest to the Gulf of Mexico, communities are rolling up the welcome mat to coal exports. Just last week, hundreds of people showed up to a city council meeting in Gretna, Louisiana, asking them to reject coal exports in their community.

But the fight is far from over. The DSL's rejection of the Morrow Pacific permit is a major blow to Ambre, but the company will undoubtedly continue to search for new ways to try and push their dirty and troubled project forward.

We can't let up until we have stopped every single coal export facility. Big Coal's window of opportunity is closing. To date, the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign and a broad coalition of organizations have retired one third of the nation's existing coal-fired power plants. But we have to keep fighting coal export terminals if we want to keep Powder River Basin coal in the ground. This week, it's worth pausing to celebrate how much we've accomplished against such powerful opponents. But our work is not nearly done, so let's keep organizing!


Who's Cool?

August 12, 2014

For the eighth year in a row, Sierra magazine has dedicated a big chunk of its September/October issue to higher education. So why is the "Cool Schools" issue such a big deal? I'll give you a hint: It's not because of the schools.

Over the last few years, I've spoken to many different audiences about how clean energy is going to change our world -- I never get tired of talking about it. And people seem to appreciate hearing the good news that we're already well on our way to a future without fossil fuels. But one particular audience always leaves me with a net surplus of energy -- and that's college students. I don't know if it's because young people have always been passionate about social issues or because our planet's future is especially important to the people who'll be spending the most time there, but young people seem to possess a singular fervor for making the world a better place.

So, although the "Cool Schools" sustainability rankings of universities around the country are interesting in and of themselves, their most important function is to foster accountability. Colleges and universities should be leading the charge on sustainability and the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy. When they don't, students will be the first to speak up.

Here's how the Sierra Club is going to help them do that. Tomorrow, the Sierra Student Coalition will launch a new Campuses for Clean Energy campaign. Its goal is to build on the growing student-led movement around the country calling on school administrations to demand enough clean energy from their utility providers to power campuses with 100 percent renewable energy. Universities are often some of the biggest energy users, which means they're well positioned to put significant pressure on utility providers.

Universities can apply pressure in other ways, too, such as divesting from fossil-fuel companies. Sierra's "Cool Schools" issue examines a partial but significant victory along those lines: Stanford University's decision to divest from coal-mining stocks. The U.S. currently has more than 400 student-led campaigns to persuade institutional investors to divest from fossil-fuel stocks.

In addition to committing to renewable energy and divesting from dirty fuels, colleges and universities can use their influence to advocate for statewide policies that will bring more clean energy online. Given the current inertia in Washington, D.C., such campaigns will be crucial for years to come.

Regardless of how "cool" they may be, though, colleges and universities are still institutions, and institutions tend to accumulate quite a bit of inertia of their own. You can't say the same, thank goodness, for their students. The issue may be called "Cool Schools," but really it's awesome students whom we're counting on.

Who Needs Clean Water?

August 08, 2014

With a couple of decisions in 2001 and 2006, the Supreme Court managed to break the Clean Water Act by calling into question what Congress meant by "the waters of the United States." The existing law had been working just fine for almost 30 years. When the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972, about two-thirds of America's lakes, rivers, and coastal waters were unsafe for fishing and swimming. Before the Supreme Court waded in, that number had been cut in half.

That still left about a third of America's waters polluted, and yet the Clean Water Act could no longer be counted on to do its job. Overnight, millions of wetland acres and stream miles had lost protection. Good news for condo developers; bad news for wetlands.

Thus began a long and painstaking effort by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers to fix what the Supreme Court had broken. The result is a proposed EPA rule to clarify which wetlands and streams in the U.S. are covered under the Clean Water Act. This new rule would restore protection to most, though not all, of the waterways previously covered.

Frankly, clean water should be a no-brainer. Our wetlands, lakes, and streams aren't a luxury -- they're a necessity. We rely on them for flood protection and control, surface water filtration, and groundwater recharge. The health of our families, our environment, and our economy all depend on this critical resource. Today, 117 million Americans get their drinking water from public systems that rely on seasonal, rain-dependent, and headwater streams that are now at risk of pollution.

Believe it or not, though, some polluters and developers want to stop the restoration of these clean water protections. Some polluter pals in Congress even tried to tack on legislative amendments that would have ordered the Army Corps of Engineers not to recognize or enforce any change in federal jurisdiction over water pollution.

Sometimes you have to ask yourself: "What are they drinking?"

Let's get this thing fixed! Send a message to the EPA in support of its proposal to protect America's streams and wetlands from dangerous pollution!

A Historic Week for Clean Air and Energy

August 04, 2014

Wow! I was confident that people would turn out to support the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan at last week's public hearings in Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Denver, and Washington, D.C., but I wasn't counting on a success this big. Advocates for clean air and cleaning up carbon pollution made their voices heard with both passion and eloquence. The opposition showed up, but they really couldn't compete with the notion that clean energy will cut costs, create jobs, clean up our air and water, and give us a shot at stabilizing our climate. All week long, the hearings confirmed the broad support we've seen from all kinds of people since the day the EPA announced its plan.

The diversity of the voices demanding action was especially impressive. In Denver, for instance, testifiers included a retired Air Force Captain who literally wrote the book on the national security implications of climate disruption, local clean-energy business owners, some kids from New Mexico who sang a song in support of the Clean Power Plan (lots of kids at these hearings!), representatives from the ski and winter sports industry, and tribal leaders from across the West.

In Washington, my friend the Rev. Lennox Yearwood of the Hip Hop Caucus was just one of many faith leaders (including quite a few evangelicals and conservative Christians) who spoke eloquently about our responsibility as stewards of God's creation.

And everywhere: People showed up because they believe it's long past time our nation gets serious about the pollution that's disrupting our climate.

But you don't have to take my word for it. You can see for yourself what' happened and who testified by checking out the Sierra Club's Storify page.

Successful as it was, though, last week only marked the first steps of a much longer journey toward our goal of ending carbon pollution from coal- and gas-fired power plants and accelerating the transition from dirty fuels to clean energy. The good news is that the way the EPA has structured its plan -- with each state required to develop its own plan for meeting the guidelines -- tilts the field to our advantage. The Sierra Club not only is the largest environmental organization in the country; we're also the one with the most grassroots organizing muscle. That means we can push hard to make each state's plan both smart and effective, with as much clean energy and energy efficiency as possible.

One last thing to remember about these hearings: Most opposition to the plan has come from the usual suspects -- the same voices that have opposed every attempt to curb pollution for the past 40 years. But some people at the hearings, those whose livelihood depends on the coal industry, are sincerely afraid for their jobs. The truth is that coal jobs have been in trouble for a long time, and the Clean Power Plan, at most, will only hasten the inevitable. But we still have a responsibility to hear those voices -- and to make sure that in the rush to clean energy we don't leave those folks behind. We've already shown how to do that in Washington State, where we worked with municipalities and utilities to ease the transition from coal plants by ensuring that workers are transferred to other energy jobs. As in Washington State, we need to make sure that the transition to clean energy isn't made on the backs of workers and their families.

Overall, though, last week's hearings look like cause for celebration. The Clean Power Plan is not perfect and needs to be strengthened, but it is the most significant piece of President Obama's Climate Action Plan. And it's off to a rousing start. We'll see bumps along the way, I'm sure, but the path to clean energy, clean air, and climate action has never looked brighter.  

Couldn't make it to one of the hearings? We still need your voice! Please submit your comment to the EPA here.

Idaho at Its Best

July 23, 2014

Last year, about 900,000 people marveled at the majestic old-growth redwoods of Muir Woods. But if President Theodore Roosevelt had not saved those trees by declaring a national monument, people would be admiring a municipal reservoir rather than the majestic Cathedral Grove.

The importance of national monuments was on our minds as we headed to the final stop on our family tour of special places that the Sierra Club is working to protect. If it happens, the proposed Boulder-White Clouds National Monument in Idaho will be one of the biggest conservation achievements of the Obama administration. At 572,000 acres, it would be more than 1,000 times larger than Muir Woods. Just east of the Sawtooth Range in the Northern Rockies, the proposed monument's boundaries include the largest still-unprotected roadless wilderness in the U.S. outside of Alaska. This is Idaho at its best: stunning beauty, clear water, and rich wildlife habitat.

With three young kids and a long weekend, we knew that experiencing more than a fraction of this mountainous wilderness -- where Idahoans love to hike, mountain bike, backpack, ski, hunt, and fish -- would be impossible. What we did get to see, though, was spectacular.

We drove from our campground on the Big Wood River (just north of Ketchum) into the southern tip of the proposed monument. The last ten miles along a dusty Forest Service road brought us to the trailhead for our final family hike of the trip.

Road to Fourth of July Lake

The road to the mountains. See more pics and updates from our trip here.

Hiking to lakes seems to be a recurring theme on this trip, and the short trek to Fourth of July Lake rewarded us with yet another sparkling alpine gem. Lakes and mountains go together really well, don't they? Retreating glaciers carved hundreds of lakes into these mountains.

Fourth of July Lake

Sebastian hangs with Matt Kirby, from the Sierra Club's Our Wild America campaign, at Fourth of July Lake.

This scenic, remote, and rugged landscape is beloved by locals and visitors alike. It's a national treasure, and (not counting the odd mining company) nobody wants to see it despoiled. And yet despite many years of effort by both concerned citizens and enlightened politicians, the U.S. Congress has stubbornly refused to move on legislation that would provide proper wilderness protection for these lands.

That failure by Congress means that it's up to President Obama to ensure long-term protection for these pristine mountain ranges. The Sierra Club's Idaho Chapter is part of a broad coalition of local groups that support a monument proposal that reflects the many ways people love to experience this wilderness. Whether we are hikers, backpackers, or sportsmen -- we all know that protection for these mountains can't wait. A new national monument would ensure wise management of recreational access, while creating a lasting sanctuary for people, fish, and wildlife.

After my first taste of what the proposed Boulder-White Clouds National Monument has to offer, I needed to see more. So, early on Saturday, I headed back up the highway to the Smiley Creek Airport (actually, a well-mowed grass strip) and squeezed myself into the backseat of a small plane for a flyover. From above, the mountains and canyons looked as wild and inviolable as they have for millennia. Yet without long-term protection, they have an uncertain future.


A bird's-eye view of the proposed monument.

President Obama has stepped up the pace of his national monument designations during his second term and, as I heard him say at the signing ceremony last May for the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument, he's not finished yet. Here, in the heart of Idaho, is one of the last and greatest unprotected jewels of American wilderness. You can help us convince President Obama to save it.

Let President Obama know that you think Boulder-White Clouds deserves to be our next national monument. You can tell him the Brune family sent you. 

G and Dad

"Anywhere So Beautiful"

July 21, 2014

No matter how much I love my job, being away from Mary and the kids while I travel for work is always tough. Even on a fantastic trip like the one I took to the Arctic last month, I constantly catch myself wishing they could be there to see it with me.

That's why these two weeks of summer are the best of both worlds. I get to meet fantastic Sierra Club volunteers from all over the Northwest, learn about the work they're doing, and see the beautiful places that inspire them. Plus, I get to do it with the whole family. Believe me, that makes up for a lot of budget and policy meetings.

After a brief layover in Seattle with relatives, we and our three junior explorers set off for the Cascades again, this time to the little town of Index, Washington -- on the North Fork Skykomish River. Index was once a mining and lumber town, but today outdoor recreation drives the local economy. In fact, every year, direct consumer spending on outdoor recreation adds $22.5 billion to Washington State's economy and supports more than 226,600 jobs.

We reached Index by lunchtime and hung out with locals and some great folks from the Sierra Club's Washington State Chapter at a riverside BBQ hosted by the Outdoor Adventure Center. Rafting and kayaking are a major attraction here. Thousands of people come here for some of the best whitewater in Washington. Although we didn't have time to do any rafting ourselves, the kids got in some practice on dry land.


Future rafters Genevieve and Olivia. See more pics and updates from our trip here.

Although only an hour's drive from Seattle, Index is a gateway to the Wild Sky Wilderness, which was created by Congress in 2008, after a long, hard-fought campaign that had strong local support but kept getting derailed by anti-environmental legislators from other states. Wild Sky is Washington State's newest wilderness, and it's already extremely popular.

One thing we couldn't help but notice was the railroad trestle that crosses the Skykomish here, which led to the subject of oil trains. People here and throughout the Northwest are understandably worried that, sooner or later, a big increase in oil shipments by rail will lead to disaster. It doesn't inspire confidence that this same trestle bridge across the Skykomish was the site of a seven-car derailment in 1981.

After lunch, we headed for our first family hike in Washington, which started at a trailhead only about a dozen miles from Index. Together with some of our new Sierra Club friends, we hiked about two miles to Barclay Lake, which is nestled right on the edge of the Wild Sky Wilderness but still in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. The gently rolling trail was perfect for a family with kids, and the lake itself was gorgeous -- clear and cold (as my kids and I can personally attest), with steep, rocky Mt. Baring looming over us like a fortress.

The dozens of vehicles parked at the trailhead testified to the popularity of both the trail and the lake -- and we saw lots of other families as we hiked. Like the Wild Sky Wilderness itself, Barclay Lake is a great example of what the Sierra Club calls "Nearby Nature." Although it's great that we can protect remote wilderness areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, it's also important that we have more accessible wild places where a young family from, say, Seattle, can enjoy hiking, camping, and all kinds of outdoor recreation. Our family had a great time.

We also had a fantastic time camping and hiking in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, which was created by Congress in 1976 and includes more than 700 lakes and mountain ponds scattered across more than 300,000 acres of the Cascade Range. We enjoyed another family-friendly but longish hike to one of those lakes (Talapus) through Douglas fir, cedar, and western hemlock. However, we may have overtaxed the endurance of our youngest explorer. 


Getting carried up and down hills can be exhausting!

Like the smaller Wild Sky Wilderness, parts of the Alpine Lakes area were logged and mined before finally being protected. Interestingly, the bills that protected each of these wilderness areas were both signed by Republican presidents: Gerald Ford and George W. Bush. President Ford actually acted against the advice of the Forest Service. He supposedly made up his mind after spending an hour with Washington State's governor (a fellow Eagle Scout) admiring the photos in a book called The Alpine Lakes. "Anywhere so beautiful should be preserved," Ford said. What a great example of the personal prevailing over the political.

By the way, that coffee-table book, which saved hundreds of thousands of acres of wilderness, was coauthored by my friend (and former Sierra Club Northwest representative) Brock Evans, who's still out there fighting the good fight to this day.

And there's still plenty to fight for. The west side of the North Cascades has more than 250 miles of eligible wild and scenic rivers, along with over 350,000 acres of federally owned, unprotected wildlands. Unfortunately, politicians who share President Ford's opinion are in short supply these days -- especially in Congress. But though political tides may shift, you can be sure that Sierra Club folk will not only be exploring and enjoying these wild lands but also working hard to protect them.


Our next stop: Idaho and the Boulder-White Cloud mountains.


User comments or postings reflect the opinions of the responsible contributor only, and do not reflect the viewpoint of the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club does not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of any posting. The Sierra Club accepts no obligation to review every posting, but reserves the right (but not the obligation) to delete postings that may be considered offensive, illegal or inappropriate.

Up to Top

Michael Brune

Join Michael Brune's email list:

   Please leave this field empty

Find us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Rss Feed

Sierra Club Main | Contact Us | Terms and Conditions of Use | Privacy Policy/Your California Privacy Rights | Website Help

Sierra Club® and "Explore, enjoy and protect the planet"® are registered trademarks of the Sierra Club. © 2013 Sierra Club.
The Sierra Club Seal is a registered copyright, service mark, and trademark of the Sierra Club.