Every year, Earth Day puts a spotlight on the environment. There are a lot of conversations and a lot of messaging, but at its core, the idea is simple: We are responsible for what we have been given. At Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship (CRS), that belief drives everything we do. Stewardship is not a trend or a talking point. It is a responsibility that comes with using and benefiting from our natural resources. Ronald Reagan once described Earth as “this magical planet of ours.” That mindset matters. When you recognize the value of something, you are more likely to take care of it. Not out of obligation, but out of respect. The Risk of Short-Term Thinking History has made it clear that resources are not unlimited. Theodore Roosevelt warned, “We are prone to speak of the resources of this country as inexhaustible; this is not so.” That reminder still matters today. When decisions are made with only the short term in mind, the long-term consequences do not disappear. They grow. Stewardship Means Balance Taking care of the environment does not mean shutting down growth. It means being smart about how we grow. It means:• Using resources responsibly• Making sure impact and accountability go hand in hand• Protecting what cannot easily be replaced As Barry Goldwater said, “We must not allow our natural resources to be destroyed.” That is not a complicated idea. It is a practical one. What This Looks Like in Practice Stewardship shows up in real ways. It means making sure taxpayers are not left covering environmental costs they did not create. It means protecting land, water,...
The Trump Administration’s Plan to Roll Back Oil and Gas Bonding Requirements Will Cost Taxpayers Billions, New Analysis Shows Lowering Bond Amounts Will Risk Leaving Taxpayers on the Hook to Pay Billions to Clean Up Industry’s Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells on National Public Lands. Open...
Last year Congress allowed the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), one of America’s most important conservation and recreation funding tools, to expire. Public lands legislation (S. 47) that just passed in the U.S. Senate includes a long overdue provision to permanently reauthorize this critical program. It is urgent that CRS members—and anyone who cares about America’s great outdoors—contact their representatives immediately and ask them to also pass S. 47 to restore LWCF. This longstanding program is based on a very conservative idea: use a small portion of revenues from the use of one type of natural resource, offshore oil and gas, to support the conservation of others, our parks, forests, rivers, and other conservation lands. Please click this link, RESTORE LWCF, and use the quick and easy interface to ask your Senators to permanently reauthorize LWCF. If you wish, you can edit and personalize the prewritten letter before sending. About LWCF LWCF, the brainchild of a commission established by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, was created more than 50 years ago to ensure that we balance the use of our natural resources with investment in conservation and stewardship. It is a critical tool in the protection of land for hunting, fishing, hiking, camping and virtually any other outdoor activity. In addition, LWCF safeguards our water supplies, protects critical wildlife habitat, reduces wildfire losses and helps prevent flooding. Investments in this program pay huge dividends, improving our quality of life, our health, and our economic well-being. LWCF accomplishes all of this without a dime of taxpayer money! What is more conservative than that? It makes sense that for more than 50 years,...
Comprehensive and bi-partisan legislation to address climate change, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2018, has recently been introduced in both the House and the Senate. This progress is long overdue. Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and George H.W. Bush were all calling for action to address climate change 30 years ago. Since then we have seen this important issue fall victim to special interests influence and partisan politics. This legislation will reduce greenhouse gas pollution by placing a modest fee on carbon intensive fossil fuels to spur innovation and encourage the use of cleaner energy sources. The money collected from the carbon fee will then be allocated in equal shares every month to the American people to spend as they see fit. The government would not keep any of the money from the fee. If passed, this revenue neutral and market friendly policy will reduce America’s emissions by at least 40% within 12 years. It will also give America’s energy sector the regulatory predictability it needs to plan its future investments. This approach has strong support from economists and scientists as a simple, comprehensive, and effective climate solution. Current co-sponsors of the House bill, H.R. 7173, include Representatives Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Francis Rooney (R-Fl), Dave Trott (R-MI), Charlie Crist (D-FL), Ted Deutch (D-FL), John Delaney (D-MD), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Judy Chu (D-CA), Dan Lipinski (D-IL) and Scott Peters (D-CA). Current co-sponsors of the Senate bill, S. 3791, are Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Chris Coons (D-DE). While many conservatives in Congress privately recognize the need to address climate change, they have been reluctant to take a stand publicly. A...
On November 19, CRS filed amici curiae briefs supporting lawsuits against the Trump administration over its dramatic rollback of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments in Utah. These briefs were filed in opposition to the administration’s motions to dismiss the cases. CRS argues that the Antiquities Act, which provides presidents with specific authority to establish national monuments, in no way authorizes them to diminish or undo previously established monuments. Under that law—and the U.S. Constitution—such two-way authority rests only with Congress. “We have always maintained that these national monument rollbacks are illegal. The Antiquities Act was enacted exclusively to protect America’s natural and cultural heritage, it in no way confers authority on the president to diminish or destroy it,” said CRS president David Jenkins. In the early 1900s our nation faced a serious problem with the rampant looting and destruction of historic and scientifically important artifacts on public lands, much of which was done to turn a quick buck. Time after time, Congress failed to act quickly enough to preserve them. With the Antiquities Act, Congress responded to that problem by specifically granting the president authority to protect these resources by designating national monuments. There was never any thought of giving presidents the authority to unprotect. Trump’s claim to the contrary is ludicrous. It is also worth noting that the Antiquities Act, and its subsequent use to safeguard America’s national treasures, has a rich conservative heritage. It was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by Republican president Theodore Roosevelt. Sixteen Presidents (8 Republican and 8 Democrats) have since used its authority to create national monuments....
CRS was actively involved in three ballot measures that were decided on Election Day. We scored important victories in two of those. Here is a brief recap: Nevada Question 6 – CRS supported this measure that would increase Nevada’s renewable energy standard for electricity to 50 percent by 2030. Such a standard is needed because Nevada, which has abundant solar and geothermal resources, still depends on natural gas piped in from other states for 75 percent of its electricity generation. This lopsided energy mix makes little sense because solar energy in Nevada, even with storage for overnight power, is currently cheaper than power generated by natural gas. Even more important for ratepayers, while solar energy will keep getting cheaper, the price of natural gas is expected to double over the next decade. Question 6 passed, and will need to pass again in 2020 to become law. Colorado Amendment 74 – CRS opposed this amendment pushed by American Farm Bureau and the oil and gas industry. Had it passed, Amendment 74 would require taxpayers to compensate property owners when a law or regulation reduces the value of their property. In other words, individuals and corporations could sue local governments over any law they contend might cost them money, even if the law is necessary to protect the public. Not only would it fleece taxpayers, it would also create a strong disincentive for enacting laws that limit pollution, manage development, or protect health and safety. Amendment 74 thankfully failed. Arizona Proposition 127 – This measure was the same as Nevada’s Question 6. It would have increased the renewable energy standard to...
