Massive Coalition Calls on President Obama to Nominate Rep. Raúl Grijalva as Interior Secretary

letter sent today, a broad coalition of 238 conservation, Hispanic, recreation, animal welfare, religious, labor, youth, business and women’s groups urged President Barack Obama to nominate Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) as the next interior secretary when that position opens. Grijalva is currently ranking member of the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, and a leading Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee. 

The selection of the next interior secretary is “an important moment to place a renewed emphasis and urgency on some of the most critical issues of our age, including climate change, the protection of endangered species and preservation of water and wild lands,” reads the letter. “We strongly believe Congressman Grijalva exemplifies the modern and forward-thinking vision of the Department of the Interior.”

Rudi Navarra, director of Latinos Go Green, said: “Congressman Grijalva would be an excellent secretary of the interior. He understands conservation issues, and would represent all Americans of diverse backgrounds in protecting America’s great wildlife and wild places for generations to come.”

Kierán Suckling, director of the Center for Biological Diversity, said: “Congressman Grijalva’s a visionary leader with the courage and practical skills to solve the long list of pressing environmental issues we face. There’s no better person for interior secretary than Mr. Grijalva.”

Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth, said: “Representative Grijalva has long been an environmental leader on the Natural Resources Committee, and his expertise is just what is needed at the Department of the Interior. For too long the oil, mining and coal interests have been at the helm of the Department of the Interior, but Rep. Grijalva would remake the agency to put the American people before polluters.”

Carole King, musician and spokesperson for the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, said: “President Obama is a very smart man who was elected by a broad coalition to accomplish great things. If he nominates Congressman Raúl Grijalva as the next secretary of the interior, he will be choosing a highly qualified, experienced leader who will help him protect America’s public lands, address climate change, and ensure a sustainable economy for future generations.”

Suzan Shown Harjo (Cheyenne & Hodulgee Muscogee), president of The Morning Star Institute, said: “Raúl Grijalva has worked with Native American nations and people for many years. He understands what we face as ancient cultural continuums, as governments and as families. He is brilliant, dedicated and effective at protecting our vital natural resources and national heritage. He is perfect for this job.”

Brock Evans of the Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs, and president of the Endangered Species Coalition, said: “The secretary of the interior is the most important environmental position in the whole U.S. government. Whoever holds this position has tremendous power over wildlife, national parks and wildlife refuges, and many other legal authorities that ensure American environmental health. In the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt, this coalition will continue to insist to the White House that only someone with a strong and proven environmental record should be secretary of the interior.”

Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of Center for Food Safety, said: “As ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee and co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Congressman Grijalva has been a strong force for environmental stewardship, protection of public lands and resources, and economic justice. Grijalva’s leadership and thorough understanding of complex issues throughout his tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives makes him the ideal candidate for secretary of the interior.”

The letter with a full list of 238 signatory groups from around the country is available here. The groups include Latinos Go Green, Latina Lista, Ciudadanos Del Karso, Vegabajenos Impulsando Ambiental Sustentable, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, Women Food and Agriculture Network, Friends of the Earth, Rainforest Action Network, American Forests, Labor Network for Sustainability, Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs, Christians Caring for Creation, Public Citizen, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Food and Water Watch, New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, Committee on Idaho’s High Desert, Southwest Montana Wildlands Association, Washington Wild, Wild Utah Project, Wildlife Alliance of Maine, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, South Florida Wildlands Association, Tennessee Environmental Council, the Wisconsin Resource Protection Council, the Arizona Wilderness Coalition, Desert Protective Council, Friends of Animals, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, Green Delaware, Kentucky Heartwood, Kids vs. Global Warming, United Church of Christ Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility, Rocky Mountain Wild, Sea Turtle Conservancy, Tucson Audubon, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, West North Carolina Alliance, Wild Idaho Rising and WildWest Institute.

24 thoughts on “Massive Coalition Calls on President Obama to Nominate Rep. Raúl Grijalva as Interior Secretary”

  1. This letter is premature and a bit rude. Premature because Sec. Salazar has not announced his plans for a second term nor is there any indication that the President is seeking to replace him. Rude because the letter shows an eagerness to bury Salazar’s body that is unprofessional. Not so much as a “Thanks” for his four years of service. Strange way of making friends and influencing people. Perhaps that’s why none of the big NGOs signed on, e.g., TWS, the Club, Defenders, NWF, etc.

    • As predicted…..

      Environment & Energy Wednesday, December 12, 2012

      Salazar ‘thinking hard’ about second-term plans
      BY Phil Taylor, E&E reporter

      Interior Secretary Ken Salazar last night said he has not decided whether he will return for President Obama’s second term.

      “We’re thinking hard about it,” he told reporters. “My family and I are having lots of great conversations.”

      His remarks, while brief, were some of his first since the November elections and will do nothing to tamp down speculation over whether he will continue to lead an agency that oversees energy development, recreation and conservation on hundreds of millions of acres of federal lands.

      Salazar said he does not know when he will make a decision.

      His comment, made after a speech at a women’s history forum at the U.S. Capitol, contrasts with the account of at least one source who said Salazar last month told a group of 100 Interior employees that he was “staying for the foreseeable future.”

      “He in fact took out a piece of paper and wrote down that he would be there for the foreseeable future and signed it,” said the source, who is close to Salazar. “It means he’s not going anywhere soon.”

      Salazar is seen as a leading contender among members of President Obama’s energy and environment team to remain in his post during a second term, though uncertainty remains.

      U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s future is surrounded by similar uncertainty (Greenwire, Nov. 1). On the other hand, Energy Secretary Steven Chu is widely expected to depart now that the election is over (Greenwire, Nov. 1).

      Some observers have speculated that Salazar is considering returning to his home state of Colorado to spend more time with his wife and granddaughter, while others have said he could be eying a run for Colorado governor depending on current Gov. John Hickenlooper’s (D) future plans.

      Regardless, the department enters 2013 with many high-ranking vacancies, including unconfirmed assistant secretaries for lands and minerals and for fish, wildlife and parks, and director of the Bureau of Land Management (Greenwire, Dec. 11).

  2. Actually Andy, we have good, recent insider information that Salazar will be leaving before too long. Others have it to which is why Gregoire is already jockeying for position. By the time Salazar announces, the White House will have already picked its front runners, so it would be very late to try to influence the process. Believe me, industry is already knocking on doors to advance their favorites, we need to be as well.

    Four years ago when the process was in full swing and Grijalva and Salazar were the very public final candidates, not one of the big NGOs you mentioned signed onto letters either supporting Grijalva or opposing Salazar. They were afraid to enter the fray for fear of losing access if they backed the wrong horse. The haven’t signed onto this letter because they won’t sign onto any letter at any stage of the process. Same dynamic this year; that’s how DC works unfortunately. It’s why we have a grassroots.

    Kieran Suckling
    Executive Director
    Center for Biological Diversity

  3. Kieran, I went to Grijalva’s site and found this about natural resources

    Natural Resources The Environment

    Rep. Grijalva has made an effort to lead on numerous environmental issues in the House of Representatives. He has championed efforts to codify the National Landscape Conservation System, protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, wilderness areas and endangered species, advance the National Park Service Centennial Initiative, protect the Grand Canyon from the threat of expanded uranium mining, advance ecological restoration on Federal lands, address the need for a budget fix for wildland fire suppression funding, and expand the role of young adults and youth in working in our public lands. He served as Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands on the House Committee on Natural Resources in the 110th and 111th Congress, and is the ranking member of the Subcommittee for the 112th Congress.

    Climate and Energy

    Climate change threatens the entire planet. Although some members of Congress deny the challenges presented by climate change and are pushing for legislation that ignores the scientific data, Rep. Grijalva continues to believe in the need for comprehensive energy legislation that will meet the nation’s energy needs and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. It is vital that we continue to invest in clean energy and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in order to prevent the potentially catastrophic effects global warming could have on our farms, coasts, and oceans.

    Reform the 1872 Mining Law and Protect Southern Arizona from Open Pit Copper Mining

    The General Mining Law of 1872 is one of the main pieces of legislation that guides the management of all public lands. One of its several outdated provisions is the claim-patent system that allows private individuals and corporations free access to public land without equitable compensation for the value extracted from the land. We need to reform this outdated law to ensure that the American public is getting a fair deal for its public lands, and that mining activity does not undermine the environmental protections established through years of hard work

    In May, Rep. Grijalva introduced H.R. 1989, the Southern Arizona Public Lands Protection Act of 2011, a bill that would withdraw federal lands in Pima and Santa Cruz Counties from all new mining claims. As just one example of the projects the bill would affect, the Rosemont mine proposed in the Santa Rita Mountains has generated widespread local opposition. This project would have detrimental effects on local public health and environmental quality. The company constructing the mine has proposed dumping the mine tailings into the Coronado National Forest. Such mining in the scenic Santa Rita Mountains would be devastating for the tourism industry and degrade the landscape for visitors and inhabitants of the area. Rep. Grijalva’s legislation to stop this and other mining activity in Southern Arizona’s national forests is supported by the Pima County Board of Supervisors and the Tohono O’odham Nation.

    Protect the Grand Canyon

    Uranium mining in land adjacent to the Grand Canyon has the potential to impact the entire Colorado River watershed, which would have wide-ranging effects on the National Park, human health, environmental quality, and the livelihood of neighboring Native communities.

    By sponsoring the Grand Canyon Watersheds Protection Act, Rep. Grijalva initiated sucessful efforts to withdraw approximately 1 million acres of federal lands surrounding Grand Canyon National Park from future mining claims. He first introduced this bill in 2008, and is proud that it helped lead to a decision by Secetary of the Interior Ken Salazar to recommend a 20-year moratorium on new uranium mining claims in the million acres adjacent to Grand Canyon National Park. Rep. Grijalva sent a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar earlier this year urging him to adopt this option. On top of Salazar’s announcement, Rep. Grijalva has refiled his permanent land protection bill. The Grand Canyon Watershed Protection Act would preserve the integrity of this national and international treasure and help protect the entire Colorado River watershed in perpetuity.

    National Landscape Conservation System

    The National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS), made permanent by Congress in 2009, is a collection of 27 million acres of public land throughout the Western United States. Made up of National Monuments, National Conservation Areas and Wilderness Areas, the NLCS is the second largest collection of public lands set aside for conservation.

    Rep. Grijalva is the founding co-chair of the National Landscape Conservation System Caucus. He was the lead House sponsor of legislation signed by the president permanently to establish the National Landscape Conservation System and has advocated increasing the system’s funding.

    National Parks

    Rep. Grijalva has long advocated full funding of the National Park Service and park operations and the expansion of the system since coming to Congress. We need to address the chronic work backlog on federal land, which will create jobs both through the work itself and increasing the tourism potential at public spaces around the country. At the same time, bringing National Park status to land around Southern Arizona is one of his highest priorities. As sponsor of H.R.1990 – the Saguaro National Park Boundary Expansion and Study Act of 2011 – he continues to advocate for the protection of the unique Sonoran Desert ecosystem. Through his work on the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forest and Public Lands, he is proud to have received the support of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees and the National Parks Conservation Association.


    Rep. Grijalva understands the importance of a strong working relationship between the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture and other stakeholders to address our nation’s federal forest lands. He helped bring groups together to negotiate the creation of the Four Forest Restoration Initiative, which will restore 1.5 million acres of forest in Northern Arizona. As evidenced by the devastating fires across Arizona this year, projects like this that aim to conserve and manage our nation’s forests in order to improver forest ecosystem health and minimize damage of firest firest are extremely important.


    “Wilderness” status is the strongest protection afforded to any public land. These pristine natural environments are unique habitats for flora and fauna, refuges from the modern world that demonstrate our nation’s dedication to conservation and environmental stewardship. Rep. Grijalva has promoted twelve wilderness designation bills – totaling over 2 million acres – into law.


    Protecting wildlife from possible extinction and promoting animal rights in general are important aspects of Rep. Grijalva’s work in Congress. He has worked hard to ensure the proper management and respect of iconic wild horses the roam the plains of the West, and wrote (it ended here on the website, sorry, SF).

    That doesn’t sound all that different from Secretary Salazar’s position when he was in the Senate.

    Perhaps he is more attractive because his background is more urban than Secretary Salazar’s?

    With regards to this quote:

    Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth, said: “Representative Grijalva has long been an environmental leader on the Natural Resources Committee, and his expertise is just what is needed at the Department of the Interior. For too long the oil, mining and coal interests have been at the helm of the Department of the Interior, but Rep. Grijalva would remake the agency to put the American people before polluters.”

    I’m not so sure that one person, even a Secretary can do that. You know Congress voted on the Energy Policy Act, and I don’t know how much the administration can really do on its own. The quotation kind of implies that Salazar was just another person to be run over by the oil and gas and coal industry, and yet in my experience, he’s no dim bulb, policy-wise nor politically. The only other explanation of this quotation would be to imply that the Secretary himself put the interests of the industry over that of the people. I find neither of these arguments (run over by more than anyone else would be/coopted by) plausible.

    To me it sounds like “we want our buddy because he thinks like us and we would have access to him.” Which is fine, but it’s possible the large NGO’s didn’t have one particular buddy so it didn’t make any difference to them. Also, maybe these “grassroots” aren’t as knowledgeable about what one person can do as Secretary as the Beltway ones are (just a hypothesis).

    • The difference between Grijalva and Salazar is vast. Look at their records on oil drilling and endangered species, for example. However, it’s not really relevant because Grijalva will not be in competition with Salazar. The nomination battle is about what happens when Salazar leaves.

      The Secretary of Interior has tremendous power to determine how public lands, water, and endangered species are managed. The choice of who the next Secretary is, is very important.

      • OK, I don’t know much about endangered species issues here, but I know something about oil and gas. I remember one thing Salazar did was establish a review team and relook at some leases in Utah and make recommendations for changing the program going forward. I know at least one wise, experienced, conservation-minded person on that team.

        Since Grijalva was a Congressperson and Salazar a member of the Administration, it seems like their spans of control for whatever they tried to do vis a vis oil and gas would be different. So are you comparing apples to apples? Like votes on legislation when they were both in Congress?

        I am having trouble understanding without concrete examples..

        • As a Senator, Salazar criticized the MMS for not issuing enough offshore oil and gas leases. He sponsored successful legislation to open up new areas in the Gulf of Mexico to drilling. He voted against legislation to close tax loopholes for BP and other international oil companies introduced by Barbara Boxer. As Secretary of the Interior, he successfully pushed to open up new areas to off shore oil drilling in Arctic and the Atlantic Coast. He oversaw MMS’ approval of the BP drilling permit–with no environmental review–that resulted in the Deep Water Horizon disaster. Prior to that, he led DOI in successfully appealing a court injunction issued against the Bush Administration barring new oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic. The appeal called on the court to rule that the economic value of area BP had leased was important than the environmental value. And all of this happened under a DOI undersecretary he appointed to oversee the MMS who came to the position from BP.

          And on land, the BLM is producing more oil per year than during the Bush Administration. And none of the greenhouse gas pollution produced by all this oil and gas drilling and burning are subject to the Endangered Species Act though they are driving the polar bear extinct because Salazar reissued a Bush era policy banning analysis of greenhouse gas impacts on polar bears.

          On grazing, he allowed the BLM to conduct a huge study of the primary impacts to its land while expressly excluding any mention of cattle grazing although federal scientists had concluded that livestock grazing was the number cause of environmental degradation.

    • Mr/Ms Wolf:

      I’m hoping you judge people on more than whom they’ve kissed in the past. I, for one, probably wouldn’t stand up to much of that kind of scrutiny. However, since marijuana has been legalized in Colorado, if you are going to judge me, I will be able to tolerate it after a few deep breaths..ah…..;)

      I guess I find it hard to blame Salazar for the existence of oil and gas leases..leases were let and formations fracked long before he came on the scene. You can’t just decide to stop people who have legal leases, whether you’re a Congressperson or a Secretary.

      • It’s much less a matter of stopping existing leases than issuing vast numbers of new leases. That is what Salazar has done both on BLM lands and MMS offshore jurisdiction. In fact, he famously flew down to the Gulf Coast to personally award new leases just months before the Deep Water Horizon explosion.

  4. Jeremy.. I’m just thinking that you all will be disappointed in Grijalva as well if you don’t understand where the Secretary of the Interior fits.

    Now, the President spoke about energy policies during the campaign. He called it “all of the above”. There is also an Energy Secretary. Now it seems to me that stopping new leases on federal lands would not fit in with the “all of the above” strategy. So let’s picture the new Secretary sitting down with the President and Person X (don’t know who’s running for energy secretary) and saying “hey, I know that’s what you said, but I really think that we should stop oil and gas and coal leasing, and hell, let’s throw in mining, on all federal lands.”

    Seems to me like the President and Energy Secretary would be faced with a bit of a dilemma. Did they really mean “only some of the above, but we won’t tell you which until after the election?”

    Is that worth fighting Congress about when there are potentially more important things on their plate? LIke finding money. Which O&G and coal bring in.

    The problem with energy (including solar and wind) and minerals is that formations/conditions are where they are. You can’t necessarily just go to private land. because the conditions might not be there. So we have to get it from overseas, and export the jobs, and fall in with questionable national characters.

    Just because we’re too environmental to produce it, but not too environmental to use it.

    My point is, energy policy is bigger than the Secretary of the Interior.

    • Sharon, this conversation would be more productive if you wouldn’t ascribe secret motives to people (Grijalva supporters just want an urbanite!) and especially if you stopped painting your opponents with falsely extreme position. It’s easy to “win” arguments against such positions, but also pointless if your opponents don’t hold those positions. Even worse, it is polarizing and counter productive.

      The coalition letter does not suggest Grijalva can or should shut down existing–or cease to issue new–oil, gas or mining leases. Nor does Jeremy, Matt or I. You invented that position, not them.

      Grijalva supporters complain that Salazar increased public land oil and gas production to a historic high. They suggest that Grijalva would likely scale it back to protect clean water, wildlife habitat, recreation, and the natural character of our public land. Argue against that if you wish. Explain why the proponents are wrong and that it is not neither possible nor desirable to produce less than historically high levels. But don’t confuse the conversation by inventing and arguing against extreme straw man arguments. That doesn’t serve anyone. It just continues the dysfunctional dynamics we’ve seen so often in the past.

      • Kieran- It took me some time to respond to your comment because I had a memory of anti-rancher sentiment expressed during the time Salazar was appointed. So forgive me for not connecting the dots. It wasn’t that he was rural, it was that he had experience in ranching.

        So first of all I did not say anything definitive about you or the other groups. I said

        Perhaps he is more attractive because his background is more urban than Secretary Salazar’s?

        It was a hypothesis I was throwing out. Because I had a vague memory of the things that some folks said about Salazar at the time.

        I did find this on the internet here:

        But instead of Grijalva, Obama chose a Colorado cowboy. Every time I see soon to be Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar (D-CO) in his ten-gallon hat, I can’t help but cringe at how unprogressive it is to put a life long rancher in charge of our nation’s wildlife and the wild spaces that they inhabit.

        Ranchers have always had an adversarial relationship with wildlife. This relationship has shaped and controlled wildlife management as long as there has been wildlife management. Since predators such as wolves and coyotes do prey upon small numbers of livestock, farmers and ranchers view them as vermin to be exterminated. This ideology has had devastating effects on the western landscape, and is the reason why large predators have been nearly eradicated from the continental US.

        But if we’re not talking about “shutting down” oil and gas leasing what are we talking about? I think it would be more helpful to talk about exactly what policy options exist that you think Salazar had the authority to implement, and did not, to reduce oil and gas development in sensitive places.

        Like I said, I saw him relook at the Utah leases with knowledgeable folks. So I am thinking the specifics I saw were positive.

        That would be helpful to be more specific because then, if we knew exactly what it was, we could talk about how many of us agree with that if we all agreed we could ask the new Secretary, whoever he or she is, to implement it.

        Followers of this conversation: there is also more discussion on the HCN Goat Blog here.
        Matthew has a comment there.

        • Sharon, your argument is still pointed at the wrong target. It is not relevant to criticize a letter written by 238 groups in 2012 by complaining about what Jessica Teel wrote in 2008. Teel, whoever that is, is not on and has no connection with the current coalition letter.

          If you have a problem with the coalition’s assertions, then cite them and explain their deficiencies instead of playing bait and switch with a random blogger from 2008.

          The Secretary of Interior sets development and conservation policy for the BLM and the former MMS. He or she can instruct where to offer leases, of what size, and under what conditions. Salazar chose to press the BLM and MMS to dramatically increase the number and size of oil and gas drilling permits. Another Secretary of Interior can choose to issue fewer permits, concentrate them in different areas and set different conditions on them.

          This is nothing extraordinary, it’s simply the Secretary’s job. They exist to make these decisions. Your suggestion that the next Secretary of Interior must institute the same policies of the last is incorrect.

          • OK, I’ll bite.

            Here’s a quote from the letter.

            While scientists have clearly established the enormity of the task before us to adapt to a changing climate, Interior has thus far taken only small steps and issued no significant policy
            decisions. Now is the time to establish a firm, science‐based action plan to manage lands, waters and wildlife under these new intensifying stresses. Such action requires a knowledgeable, visionary leader who grasps both the urgency of this crisis and the practical paths toward real‐world solutions.

            So when I was working, I worked with my climate change colleagues in DOI all the time. In fact, we briefly attempted to implement a crazy idea that the two agencies could do some assessments together and save taxpayers some bucks.

            I have sat in many climate meetings with State and Federal agencies and most practitioners (wildlife, vegetation, hydrologists) see climate change as just another potential stressor that they have added to their list for consideration and management.

            There was a humongo and well- integrated- across-agency report that was well done with FWS as a co-lead.

            There was the solar roadmap and siting FEIS.

            So I am interested in what you all think is missing from DOI’s activities.

            Oh, also I have to say that establishing “a firm, science‐based action plan to manage lands, waters and wildlife under these new intensifying stresses” couldn’t really be done by DOI unilaterally. There are other agencies, States, etc. who have all kinds of authority over different elements and pieces.

            • You went to meetings. There was s study. Agencies almost worked together. Solar development was promoted.

              This is your definition of sufficient global warming policy advances at DOI?

      • Both sides use it and both sides are victims of extreme positions. When it occurs, we must call them on it. That being said, there ARE real extremists out there, who DO advocate the extreme positions. We must also call out those people, as well. I am mainly here to bring those extremists back towards the middle, and if they are kicking and screaming, so be it!!

  5. Well said, Sharon. Your next to last 2 paragraphs capture the essence of the problem. Until folks like Andy and Kieran and Jeremy (and all the rest of us) stop driving cars, heating houses, and using electricity there will be leases on public land.

  6. Maybe there is a really wise person out there who can clarify our supposed goal (for a decade or two?) of becoming “energy independent”. What does that mean? What good does it do to ramp up U.S. oil/gas drilling, with substantial environmental risks, if we are still in the straight-jacket of a global market…where energy companies can/will sell their product to the highest bidder, China or Japan or Russia or….
    So as a result of this, some of “our” domestic oil is shipped to China to create a good profit to the global companies, and we continue to import crude from Arabia (or wherever) to the Gulf area because that is where the refineries are.
    Meanwhile we are fighting to build more pipelines across critical aquifers to take that same domestic crude to the Gulf.
    Does any of this make sense? Help me out please. Why should I want to risk the extinction of polar bears in the Arctic so we can drill more oil there and then ship the oil to Japan or China? Last I heard the vast majority of north slope oil production has been going to the East. Who is gaining in this fiasco of planning other than BIG OIL and the politicians who support them?
    Again, can you help me make sense of this in the context of the next DOI secretary.

    • Ed, thanks for these good questions. the thing about the energy industry is that I bet there are people out there paid to answer questions like this.. not just retirees with pressing holiday duties and internet access. I will ask around and see what I can find.

      These issues at first glance sound more like DOE’s world, though.

  7. Yes, these questions do fall in the domain of DOE, but also do cross over into Interior where decisions on drill/not drill are made. Many of our critical environmental issues overlap all venues of politics.

    But most pols don’t take these seriously if they are couched as “environmental”. Right now only jobs and economy seem to take the spotlight.

    I realize that I have strayed a bit from the focus of this site, but if we are going to debate the virtues (or lack thereof) of an Interior Secretary, I couldn’t resist asking these questions. These same questions should be asked (and hopefully answered) by any such candidates.


Leave a Comment