Environmentalism & Development Series, Part Two: Misconceptions About Environmentalists Opposing Developments
In this second part of our Green Development series, we look at the common misconceptions of environmental opposition to certain questionable development projects, how they gained the negative connotations of extremism, and what the opposition is actually trying to achieve. You can read Part One, Why Do Environmentalists Oppose Developments? by clicking here.
Oftentimes, there are misconceptions and attacks on environmentalist opposition to development projects. The reason why this problem develops can be narrowed down to one issue: optics. Environmentalists have limited legal tools to protect the environment. This means that no matter how ill-thought out a project is or how detrimental the impacts to the environment are, there may only be a single valid legal claim to oppose the project. When environmentalists can only make one argument in court on why a project shouldn’t go forward, it becomes easy for the developers to frame the environmentalists as extremists. It’s an easy narrative to sell in the media with catching headlines; for example, the idea of stopping billion-dollar projects due to the harmful effects on a handful of animals, or even a single species, may seem odd to many Americans. This can create widespread public support of the project in the face of “extremists.”
While environmentalists do care about the animals at stake, they are also considering the broader impacts projects have on entire ecosystems. Looking at an example helps illustrate this problem.
The Delta Smelt Controversy
The delta smelt: if you don’t recognize the name of the tiny fish, you will probably recognize the controversy over it. Protection of this tiny fish is one of the greatest controversies concerning environmentalists opposing developments. It only lives in the San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in Northern California. It has been at the center of controversy in nearly every water development project in the Delta and is nearing extinction due to decades of drought and excessive water diversions.
The current president of the United States even recently tried to use the example of the fish to blame environmentalists for the destructive fires that raged across California.
The controversy over the endangered delta smelt has become a rallying cry for industrial interests, lobbyists, and representatives to launch a publicity campaign against “overzealous environmentalists.” In the words of the greatest representative of industrial interests today:
“No, we have plenty of water. … We shove it out to sea.’ … The environmentalists don’t know why. They’re trying to protect a certain kind of three-inch fish…”
Donald Trump
But, as the Los Angeles Times frames it, “the fate of the smelt itself is a distraction; the real issue is the fate of the delta.”
Those who have opposed limiting the extraction of waters from the Delta have effectively manipulated the narrative to make it seem like environmentalists would rather fires burn and agriculture suffer than give up this tiny fish. However, the reality is that environmentalists have carefully considered both the environmental and human impacts of additional water extraction. These projects would harm the delta estuaries and prevent any water from the delta from reaching its natural destination: the Pacific Ocean.
The Endangered Species Act is one of the few tools environmentalists have to stop major projects that are likely to destroy the delta. The delta smelt is an endangered species and so comes with high protections for its habitat. Now, every time a project is restrained from polluting the delta, or pulling more water from it, industry groups gripe about how, “a sparse population of minnow-like smelt … turn off the drinking and irrigation water spigots for 25 million Californians and almost 1 million acres of farmland.”
While it is difficult to explain and quantify long term impacts in support of environmental protection, it is easy to create clickbait headlines in support of development. Here are a few highlights about the delta, the delta smelt, and the impact of expanded development projects:
- The delta smelt is what is known as an indicator species. If the smelt declines or disappears it means the entire ecosystem in which it lives is in decline or collapse.
- The smelt is in decline today even with protections, and the ecosystem is starting to show serious strain. In 2016, 200 miles of West Coast salmon fishing was closed to protect dwindling populations of chinook salmon because of delta estuary health decline.
- There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that climate change is creating permanent changes to precipitation rates in California. Those who deny climate change use “water mismanagement” as a scapegoat to avoid dealing with the real problem and avoid accountability.
- If you compare management of water in Florida to California, you will see some of the long-term impacts of actual water mismanagement in Florida’s aquifers, which are being destroyed by saltwater intrusion because of overutilization.
A list of the actual impacts of projects that divert water can’t be easily covered in any article. For example, an environmental study on one project known as twin tunnels to tunnel bellow the freshwater estuary of the delta to supply water to the southern part of the state that was completed in 2016 is 90,000 pages by itself.
Environmentalists oppose unrestrained and unsustainable developments that negatively impact water, air quality, or affect our ecosystems. With limited means to protect the environment, environmentalists must raise their voices and use all the tools at their disposal to prevent environmental degradation and extinction of species.
Stay tuned for our follow up post, which will discuss what sustainable and green development looks like from the perspective of environmentalists and how it’s possible to both have environmental protection and community growth.