The Breakthrough Institute (BTI) found that “just 10 organizations initiated 35% of all NEPA cases brought by NGOs.” The Sierra Club and its local chapters alone were responsible for over 14% of these cases. The dominance of a small number of groups is most evident in forest management and energy cases; only 10 groups accounted for 67% and 48% of these cases, respectively. In BTI’s follow-up “The Procedural Hangover: How NEPA Litigation Is Blocking Important Projects”, which extended the analysis to NEPA cases in federal and state court, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and the Center for Biological Diversity were responsible for 24% of all claims against public land management decisions.
To paraphrase Alex Tabarrok, environmental organizations seem to exist to manage the concerns of a small number of sensitive—and potentially malicious—environmental NGOs.
Grant Mulligan’s excellent post shows in detail how environmental groups use the courts to block projects—including environmental projects. But Mulligan finds that a disproportionate share of cases come from a few small organizations. Litigation of plaintiffs’ harassment letters.
Lawsuits give environmentalists a bad name but the bottom line is that most environmental groups are not opposed to development.
What are the big environmental organizations doing with their money if they are not suing to stop development? Two of the big three, the Wildlife Conservation Society and the San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance, primarily use zoos. Land trusts like TNC, The Conservation Fund, and Ducks Unlimited protect land directly. Many also work in research and policy at various levels. Contrary to the common narrative, many use market projects, which have a style of abundance.
The TNC has several programs in line with the pluralist agenda. TNC’s Power of Place research and policy work aims to help build renewable energy infrastructure and transmission. The idea of the study is to identify and speed up the approval and development of renewable energy projects that will not disturb important conservation areas. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) used the study as part of its Western Solar Program, which aims to promote solar development on public lands. TNC also wants to allow change, and their mapping efforts are an example of what a constructive environment can look like – find important habitats that need to be protected and closely monitored while building is removed everywhere.
Although a few aggressive forest management projects have been undertaken, the TNC has been an advocate and activist for forest reduction and prescribed burning to prevent catastrophic wildfires for more than 60 years. In California, they are part of a coalition working to reduce the millions of acres planted.
TNC is not alone. Audubon’s renewable siting work, Ducks Unlimited’s water infrastructure projects, and the Conservation Fund’s Working Lands programs all follow the same pattern of balancing environmental protection with economic imperatives. A number of green groups agree, as Larry Selzer, President and CEO of the Conservation Fund, told Abundance by. Ezra Klein again Derek Thompson“we must build, and build, and build.”
I’m not trying to defend all TNC decisions or suggest that big environmental NGOs don’t promote their share of bad policies. I had many conversations with degrowthers while working at TNC that made me want to pull my hair out. I have also written about the need for the environment to have a very positive sum in frustration due to zero environmental positions. But overall, environmentalists have been made too easy a criminal by the proponents of abundance. Environmentalists are not as restrictive, decadent, and misanthropic as is commonly believed.
Understanding that only a vocal minority of environmentalists complain about the anti-progressive process is important because conservationists and environmentalists are not enemies of nature—and we think they work for either side.
