Nature Is Nonpartisan

Chairman of the American Conservative Coalition and author of The Conservative Environmentalist, Benji Backer is launching a new venture, Nature is Nonpartisan. The goal is to remove any political association from earth conservation, and Benji believes people deserve an organization that wants to preserve the earth without serving other causes, so he created a unique program.
Benji and Janice discuss conserving the earth in a way that is good for people's livelihoods and America.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

3 days ago

• Yahoo

Conservative blasts Senator Mike Lee for 'secretly trying to sell' US land: 'It's a loser issue to the American people'

A top conservative environmentalist is calling out a Republican U.S. senator as a "liar" and igniting a fiery public debate about whether America's public lands should be for sale. Benji Backer, founder of the nonprofit environmental organization Nature Is Nonpartisan, has publicly condemned Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah for his attempt to reintroduce a controversial proposal into the Senate reconciliation bill that would sell public lands for development. In a post earlier this week, Backer accused Lee of "a secret mass sell-off (of some of America's most sensitive areas)." When Lee responded, arguing that Backer was wrong about the land eligible for development, Backer called Lee a "liar" and pleaded with other Republican senators not to "let this man ruin our legacy on conservation." X's Community Notes moderation tool also called out Senator Lee's response to Backer as "incorrect," fact-checking him with a confirmation of Backer's allegations that Lee's proposal would sell off some of America's most precious lands. In an exclusive interview with The Cool Down, Backer said that while Senator Lee's office has reached out to him about the public spat, he's still not planning to back down. "I'm representing the vast majority of conservatives, and I'm willing to go to the mat on this — I stand by what I said," Backer told The Cool Down. "The American people do not support the mass sell off of public land. It's critical for the future of America that we stop this," he added. "Public lands are part of our legacy." During negotiations in the House of Representatives around the so-called "One Big Beautiful Bill," Utah Representative Celeste Maloy introduced a proposal that would allow 10,000 acres of public lands in Utah and about 500,000 acres in Nevada to be sold off for the development of affordable housing. That proposal received significant criticism from conservatives and environmental advocates, and it was struck from the bill before it moved to the Senate. But when the Bill moved to the Senate, Utah Senator Mike Lee, the chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, reintroduced the proposal at an even larger scale, expanding the sale of up to 3 million acres of public lands to provide additional housing across 11 states. "He put it in there hoping that no one was going to notice it, adding even more acres for sales than the House bill," Backer said in the interview. While Senator Lee's proposal doesn't allow the sale of national parks, it would allow the sale of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service across 11 states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Backer linked to an interactive map on X and displayed screenshots in an Instagram carousel. Sen. Lee argues that, in addition to creating revenue, the proposal would give states like Utah, where two-thirds of the land is managed by the federal government, more control over their land. "We're opening underused federal land to expand housing, support local development and get Washington, D.C., out of the way of communities that are just trying to grow," Lee said in a video. "Washington has proven, time and again, it can't manage this land. This bill puts it in better hands." The bill would require the Interior and Agriculture secretaries to publish a list of lands for sale and consult with local officials and tribes. Proceeds would go to the U.S. Treasury, with 5% of each sale given to the local government to support local housing development and 5% towards maintenance on other BLM and Forest Service land. The proposal also includes plans to expand gas, coal, geothermal, and timber leasing on public lands. The problem, Backer says, is that there are no specifics provided about exactly which lands would be eligible for sale or who would be allowed to buy the lands. "As a conservative, it's also really worrisome that it doesn't say who can and can't buy [this land]," he told The Cool Down. "You're telling me that China can't come in and develop it — you're telling us that they're not going to take this opportunity to buy these lands?" As Republicans such as Rep. Mike Collins of Georgia has expressed concern about, companies from China, some state-run, have been buying American agriculture land and businesses over the last decade. NPR reported the figure to be near 400,000 acres of land in 2023. Backer argued that the areas under threat are some of the most pristine wilderness in our country. National polling of 4,000 Americans surveyed this spring from YouGov showed that 71% of those surveyed oppose selling lands. "This is a non-starter, it's a loser issue to the American people," he said. The proposal is also receiving serious backlash from hunters, fishers, anglers, and leaders in the outdoor recreation industry, who sent a letter to Sen. John Thune and Sen. Chuck Schumer encouraging them to omit federal public land sales from the budget reconciliation bill. "While we appreciate the desire to address federal land management challenges and respond to local community needs, we ask that any public land disposal be considered within transparent, public channels and that funding from sales be reinvested back into habitat and access," the letter said. In fact, the existing bipartisan Federal Land Transaction Act already requires that proceeds from public land sales be reinvested in conservation or ecological restoration. The letter to Thune and Schumer also outlined several concerns about the public lands sell-off proposal: It wouldn't allow for public engagement among hunters, anglers, recreationalists, and other stakeholders The proceeds from land sales would go toward economic development instead of land conservation and would "likely lower the ecological and recreational value of our public lands." Sales could have a negative effect on rural economies and cultural heritage, noting that the outdoor recreation industry has demonstrated a $1.2 trillion economic output nationally. Underneath the public land dispute is a real challenge around the availability of affordable housing for Americans and the protection of our natural resources. But Backer argues that there is another way to tackle these issues without sacrificing the country's natural beauty. "Affordable housing is a real challenge, and the lack of space for cities to grow is something that is challenging," he said. "At the same time, we aren't managing our national lands very well. But the answer to those challenges is not to sell off millions of acres of land secretly with places for sale being the most pristine." Do you think America is in a housing crisis? Definitely Not sure No way Only in some cities Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Backer argues that any considerations around public land sales should be supported by local buy-in and data — and any land sales should focus on non-ecologically sensitive areas. Backer also warns that the proposal is "a very slippery slope." Selling off even a limited number of acres now could set a troubling precedent for the future. That, Backer says, risks triggering a cascading effect of land sale and development, which could "impact conservation for the rest of our lives." "We don't get these lands back," he said, "This is our legacy." Backer, whose organization is working with the current administration and other national leaders to advance nonpartisan environmental policy, is hoping that speaking out will inspire people to reach out to their Senators to voice their opposition to the proposal and demand stronger protections for public lands. "There is nothing 'conservative' or 'American' about selling a massive chunk of our nation's most beautiful landscape to developers," Backer wrote on X. "This should always transcend partisan politics…always." While he told The Cool Down that he's willing to have a conversation with any Senator who wants to discuss solutions, he added that he's "not willing to back down until lawmakers are willing to 'try a different approach' to tackling challenges like access to affordable housing alongside the protection of our national lands." "Americans don't want their public lands to be developed for economic gain," he said. "That's not what Teddy Roosevelt intended. That's not what Ronald Reagan intended. That's not what Richard Nixon intended. That's not what President Trump intended in his first term," he said. "Public lands have always been for the public's benefit. They are one of our best ideas." Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.

Vox

03-06-2025

• Vox

Hurricane season is here. NOAA is in shambles. What could go wrong?

is an environmental correspondent at Vox, covering biodiversity loss and climate change. Before joining Vox, he was a senior energy reporter at Business Insider. Benji previously worked as a wildlife researcher. Hurricane season in the Atlantic has officially begun. And while this year will likely be less extreme than in 2024 — one of the most destructive seasons ever, with the earliest Category 5 hurricane on record — it's still shaping up to be a doozy. Forecasters at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predict 'above-average' activity this season, with six to 10 hurricanes. The season runs from June 1 to November 30. NOAA's 2025 hurricane forecast, by the numbers 60 percent: Chance of an above-normal hurricane season. 6 to 10: Hurricanes expected this season, meaning tropical storms with wind speeds reaching at least 74 mph. 3 to 5: Major hurricanes, or storms with wind speeds reaching 111 mph or higher. 13 to 19: Named storms, referring to tropical systems with wind speeds of at least 39 mph. NOAA says it will update its forecast in early August. At least three of those storms will be category 3 or higher, the forecasters project, meaning they will have gusts reaching at least 111 miles per hour. Other reputable forecasts predict a similarly active 2025 season with around nine hurricanes. Last year, there were 11 Atlantic hurricanes, whereas the average for 1991 to 2020 was just over 7, according to hurricane researchers at Colorado State University. A highly active hurricane season is obviously never a good thing, especially for people living in places like Florida, Louisiana, and, apparently, North Carolina (see: Hurricane Helene, the deadliest inland hurricane on record). Even when government agencies that forecast and respond to severe storms — namely, NOAA and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA — are fully staffed and funded, big hurricanes inflict billions of dollars of damage, and they cost lives. Under the Trump administration, however, these agencies are not well staffed and face steep budget cuts. Hundreds of government employees across these agencies have been fired or left, including those involved in hurricane forecasting. What could go wrong? Why forecasters expect more hurricanes than average this year The primary reason is that Caribbean waters are unusually warm right now, Brian McNoldy, a hurricane expert at the University of Miami, told Vox. Warm water provides fuel for hurricanes, and waters in and around the Caribbean tend to be where hurricanes form early in the season. If this sounds familiar, that's because the Caribbean has been unusually warm for a while now. That was a key reason why the 2024 and 2023 hurricane seasons were so active. Warm ocean water, and its ability to help form and then intensify hurricanes, is one of the clearest signals — and consequences — of climate change. Data indicates that climate change has made current temperatures in parts of the Caribbean and near Florida several (and in some cases 30 to 60) times more likely. The Atlantic has cooled some since hitting extremely high temperatures over the last two summers, yet 'the overall long-term trend is to warm,' said McNoldy, a senior research associate at the Rosenstiel School of Marine, Atmospheric, and Earth Science. The Caribbean is currently far hotter than average. Courtesy of Brian McNoldy The other key reason why forecasters expect an ample number of hurricanes this year has to do with a complicated climate phenomenon known as the ENSO cycle. ENSO has three phases — El Niño, La Niña, and neutral — that are determined by ocean temperatures and wind patterns. And each phase means something slightly different for hurricane season. Put simply, El Niño tends to suppress hurricanes because it causes an increase in wind shear — the abrupt changes in wind speed and direction. And wind shear can disrupt hurricanes. In La Niña years, meanwhile, there's little wind shear, allowing hurricanes to form, and they're often accompanied by higher sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic. Right now the ENSO phase is, rather unexcitedly, neutral. That means there won't be the high, hurricane-blocking wind shear of El Niño, but the conditions won't be as favorable as they are in La Niña. This all leads to more unpredictability, according to climate scientists. The government says it's prepared. Is it? When publishing the NOAA hurricane forecast last month, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who oversees NOAA, said 'we have never been more prepared for hurricane season.' Climate scientists have challenged that claim. They point out that, under the Trump administration, hundreds of workers at NOAA have been fired or otherwise pushed out, which threatens the accuracy of weather forecasts that can help save lives. FEMA has also lost employees, denied requests for hurricane relief, and is reportedly ending door-to-door canvassing in disaster regions designed to help survivors access government aid. 'Secretary Lutnick's claim is the sort of lie that endangers the lives of people living along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts, and even those further inland unable to escape the extensive reach of associated torrential rains and flooding,' Marc Alessi, an atmospheric scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental advocacy group, told Vox. 'Notwithstanding the valiant efforts of dedicated career staff, this administration has taken to actively thwarting the vital scientific work at agencies including NOAA that communities rely on to stay safe throughout hurricane season.' According to Alessi, a handful of National Weather Service offices along the Gulf Coast — which is often hit by hurricanes — currently lack lead meteorologists. 'Missing this sort of expertise in the face of a projected above-average hurricane season could lead to a breakdown in proper warning and evacuation in vulnerable communities should a storm strike, potentially leading to more deaths that could have otherwise been avoided,' Alessi said. As my colleague Umair Irfan has reported, the National Weather Service is also launching weather balloons less frequently, due to staffing cuts. Those balloons measure temperature, humidity, and windspeed, providing data that feeds into forecasts. 'They've been short-staffed for a long time, but the recent spate of people retiring or being let go have led some stations now to the point where they do not have enough folks to go out and launch those balloons,' Pamela Knox, an agricultural climatologist at the University of Georgia extension and director of the UGA weather network, told Irfan in May. 'We're becoming more blind because we are not having access to that data anymore. A bigger issue is when you have extreme events, because extreme events have a tendency to happen very quickly. You have to have real-time data.' The White House is also trying to dramatically shrink NOAA's funding, proposing a budget cut of roughly $2 billion. In response to the proposed cuts, five former directors of the National Weather Service signed an open letter that raises alarm about what funding and staffing losses mean for all Americans. 'Our worst nightmare is that weather forecast offices will be so understaffed that there will be needless loss of life,' the former directors wrote in the letter. 'We know that's a nightmare shared by those on the forecasting front lines — and by the people who depend on their efforts.'

Vox

15-05-2025

• Vox

Trump officials are trying to yank this animal's last shot at survival

is an environmental correspondent at Vox, covering biodiversity loss and climate change. Before joining Vox, he was a senior energy reporter at Business Insider. Benji previously worked as a wildlife researcher. The bird above is not your typical charismatic species. It's no bald eagle, no peregrine falcon. It's a groundbird known as the lesser prairie-chicken that lives in the southern Great Plains. It's not even the greater prairie-chicken, another, related avian species, that's a bit larger. Today, however, this bird is very much worth paying attention to. In 2023, lesser prairie-chickens — which are actually fascinating birds, not least for their ridiculous mating rituals — were granted protection under the Endangered Species Act, the country's strongest wildlife law. Scientists say this protection is justified: The population of lesser prairie-chickens has crashed since the last century from hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of birds to roughly 30,000 today. Now the Trump administration is trying to axe those extinction-thwarting protections. In a motion filed earlier this month in a Texas court, the administration argued that federal officials made an error when listing prairie-chickens under the Endangered Species Act. The listing — which makes it illegal to kill or harm the birds, with a number of exceptions — should be tossed out, the administration said. The move isn't totally unexpected. Prairie-chickens overlap in some areas with oil and gas drilling. And President Donald Trump has signaled that he will prioritize drilling over environmental safeguards. Yet it reveals that his administration will take extreme steps to undo wildlife protections if they stand in the way of his agenda. If his administration is successful in delisting the bird, it will signal that no endangered species is safe — especially those, like these chickens, that happen to live where fossil fuels are buried. The dance of the prairie-chicken Male lesser prairie-chickens are extremely extra. Each spring, they come together in breeding grounds called leks to dance for females, hoping to attract them as mates. They inflate large sacs on their neck, flare yellow combs above their eyes, and raise wing-like feathers behind their heads. Then they stomp their feet and start booming, producing a noise that sounds like sped-up yodeling. (These are not to be confused with the greater sage-grouse, a bird in the same family that has a similarly spectacular display.) The Great Plains were once filled with these unusual dancing birds, which play important roles in grassland ecosystems: They provide food for raptors, spread seeds, and control insects. But in the last few centuries, prairie-chickens lost most of their habitat — largely to the expansion of oil and gas, commercial farming, housing developments, and, more recently, wind energy. Scientists estimate that the range of lesser prairie-chickens has shrunk by 83 percent to 90 percent since European settlement. 'Grasslands are the most threatened ecosystem on the continent and in the world, and nowhere more so than in the southwestern Great Plains,' said Ted Koch, executive director of the North American Grouse Partnership, a bird conservation group. Facing extinction as a result of powerful industries, the prairie-chicken has been caught up in a game of political ping pong. The government first granted them federal protection in 2014. Then, in response to a lawsuit filed by an oil-industry trade group and several counties in New Mexico, the Texas court tossed out the listing in 2015. They were officially delisted in 2016. The suit argued that in granting federal protections the government didn't adequately consider existing voluntary efforts, such as habitat conservation, to conserve the birds. Shortly after, the Interior Department — the government agency that oversees endangered species listings — reevaluated the bird and once again determined, under the Biden administration, that it is at risk of extinction, even with those voluntary efforts in place. In 2023, Interior added the chickens back on the endangered species list. That brings us to the present day, when these forsaken birds could once again lose protection. Trump moves to strip endangered species protections on a technicality The Trump administration is arguing that the Interior Department made a mistake when it recently listed the birds again. It comes down to a somewhat wonky technicality. Briefly, the Endangered Species Act allows the government to grant formal protection to a species or to a population of a species — if those populations are important on their own, and at risk. That's what the Biden administration did: It determined that there were two distinct populations of lesser-prairie chickens and it granted each of them slightly different protections. One of the populations is in the northern end of the birds' range, including Oklahoma and Kansas, and the other is in the southern reaches of its range, in Texas and New Mexico. Under the Trump administration, Interior claims that it didn't provide enough information to show that the two bird populations are distinct. That's reason enough to delist the birds, the administration argues, while it reviews their status over the next year. If the species is delisted — even temporarily — the government would be able to permit activities, such as energy projects, even if they might harm the bird and the endangered grasslands it's found in. Male lesser prairie-chickens fight for territory at a lek in Edwards County, Kansas. Michael Pearce/Wichita Eagle/Tribune News Service via Getty Images Avian experts, meanwhile, say the reasoning behind the original listing — which was the result of months of work and more than 30,000 public comments — is sound, and these birds are very clearly in trouble. 'The North American Grouse Partnership agrees completely that listing of chickens is warranted,' Koch said. The move to delist prairie-chickens appears to be an effort by the Trump administration to skirt wildlife regulations that some perceive to stand in the way of the oil industry, said Jonathan Hayes, executive director of Audubon Southwest, a regional office of the National Audubon Society, a large environmental nonprofit. 'Whether it's true or not, this chicken symbolizes a challenge, or an impediment, to oil and gas development for industry,' Hayes told Vox. 'We would expect this administration to push back on regulations that may or may not impact oil and gas. That's what it feels like is happening here.' In a statement to Vox, the Interior Department said it has an 'unwavering commitment to conserving and managing the nation's natural and cultural resources…and overseeing public lands and waters for the benefit of all Americans, while prioritizing fiscal responsibility for the American people.' The new administration can quibble with the technical points of the listing, Koch said, but that will do nothing to change the reality: The bird is at risk of extinction and needs to be protected. 'Whether somebody wants to engage in debate on technicalities is up to them, but simply and fundamentally lesser prairie-chickens are threatened with extinction,' Koch said. 'Delisting lesser prairie chickens on a technicality is going to do nothing to address the underlying threat to these ecosystems.' The future for threatened species in the US There's no guarantee that prairie-chickens will lose protection. The Trump administration's motion to delist the birds came in response to a pair of lawsuits filed by both the state of Texas and groups representing the oil and livestock industries. The suits allege that the Interior Department made a mistake in splitting the birds into two distinct populations and failed to follow the best available information. (Interior's spokesperson told Vox they will not comment on ongoing litigation.) Before Trump took office, the government was planning to defend its decision to protect the birds — and to split them up — in court, in response to those lawsuits. Now it's reversing course and agreeing with Texas and the oil industry to toss out the listing. It's possible that the judge overseeing this case could agree to remove protections, said Jason Rylander, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. In that case, groups like his would try to appeal to block the delisting. The court could also tell the government to review the bird's status while keeping existing protections in place, Rylander says. What's key here is that the decision to list lesser prairie-chickens involved a formal rulemaking process with public input. It's not clear that the government can simply reverse its decision and yank federal protections without going through that process again. 'The government can't act in a capricious way,' Hayes of Audubon said. 'It can't just blow with the wind, and that's exactly what it did here. They just changed their minds when the administration changed. I'm not sure how they will legally defend their complete 180.' But no matter how this plays out, this effort to delist lesser prairie-chickens puts other threatened species in an even more precarious spot, especially those that live in regions with oil and gas. One example is the endangered dunes sagebrush lizard. It's a small, scaly reptile that lives in the Permian Basin of Texas, the largest oil-producing region in the country, and nowhere else on Earth. The state of Texas similarly sued the government after it listed the dunes sagebrush lizard as endangered last year. The suit — which asks the court to vacate the endangered listing — alleges, among other things, that the government didn't rely on the best available data to evaluate the lizard's extinction risk. That case is still pending, though environmental advocates fear that the Trump administration could side with Texas and claim it made a mistake when listing the lizard. Then there's the beloved monarch butterfly. Following decades of population decline, the government proposed federal protections for the iconic insect late last year. Monarch habitat similarly overlaps with the oil and gas industry, as well as commercial farmland. Fossil-fuel groups have already asked the Trump administration to reconsider the listing. 'As the Trump administration is in power, we can expect that endangered species protections are going to be under attack,' Rylander said. 'I think there's a chance we can stop this in court,' he said of efforts to delist the prairie-chicken, 'but I think if we don't, we will see more efforts to remand and vacate listings that they [the Trump administration] don't want to have in place anymore.' It's important to remember that wildlife protections benefit people, Koch said. And prairie-chickens are a good example. Most of the remaining birds live on sustainably managed, private ranchlands in the Great Plains, he said. Those lands — those working grassland ecosystems — are under threat from energy development and other industries that are more profitable. Saving prairie chickens means saving those lands. And saving those lands benefits the ranchers that live on them, he said.