Bush Interior secretary discusses transformation to enthusiastic environmentalist

In 2000, Lynn Scarlett left the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank, to serve eight years in the Bush administration as assistant secretary of the Interior, steward for 500 million acres in public land. She later led the department after the resignation of Secretary Gale Norton, amid tumult over land policy and science’s role.

Scarlett, 60, recently sat down in a Santa Barbara office to discuss her transformation from conservative conservationist to enthusiastic environmentalist.

On President George W. Bush’s interest in environmental issues. . . .

All my interaction with the president was seeing a person who really cared about conservation. The public image is very different from my personal perception. Now, having said that, I don’t want to be making the comment -- because I think it would be . . . foolish -- to say that conservation was a priority for the administration. There certainly were many players for whom environmental matters and conservation were somewhere lower along the totem pole. Or not just low on the totem pole, but even antithetical to their interests.

This gets to an observation I have about modern conservatives and Republicans. Conservatives -- with four decades of relentless critique of environmental laws, what they call “command and control” -- have come to conflate a critique of the tools for a critique of the value set. And so I had people on the Hill say to me, “I don’t do environment.”

I think it’s something that conservatives have not grappled with and must grapple with to be relevant in the 21st century. . . . Environment is about human health as much as it’s about ecological health, it’s about spiritual well-being, it’s about physical well-being. And right now very few -- not all -- but very few conservatives have much constructive to say on that topic.

On the Bush administration’s attitude toward science and the scandal involving bending science to achieve a political agenda. . . .

There were actions taken on matters of science that were troubling to me. For example, stem-cell research, [being told] you can’t research this. It’s a huge issue. I am a devotee of science. To close it off, that’s troubling to me. I have a visceral reaction against any attempt to rewrite history or science. To my mind, science is a discovery process, always new layers of information; and open inquiry is critical, as is transparency. . . .

Scientists ask: How does the world work? A policymaker asks: What are our priorities? They’re not the same things. So science never dictates policy choices. Science gives you information that can inform your policy choices.

On tensions between her and the department and White House. . . .

I do not count myself among those on the Hill or in the administration who perceive environmental values either to be unimportant, a luxury or at odds with community and economic well-being. I put myself squarely among those who view environmental values as essential to both community well- being, long-term economic well-being, and indeed have intrinsic value. That certainly set me apart from some. Did it cause me difficulties? Yes.

On staying on, despite her differences with the administration. . . .

It is an honor to serve an administration, a deep and profound honor. I never viewed it as appropriate to speak up when I didn’t agree with things. If you quit over everything you disagreed with, you’d be gone on Day One. You’ve got hundreds of people making decisions in the administration. If you speak out on everything you disagreed with, you wouldn’t be there a day. So you decide those areas where you really are going to engage, and you decide what your line in the sand is.

On the precedent-setting listing of the polar bear as endangered based on global warming. . . .

It was the correct decision. I had no doubts, based on the science, that that was the correct decision. No doubt. . . . That was my line in the sand.

On the push to open public lands to oil and gas development. . . .

We are going about our energy agenda with virtually no consideration of water. With climate change, the patterns of precipitation have changed. Water would be stretched even if you didn’t have those changes. You would have a West with chronic supply challenges.

Final words. . . .

I’ve been a birder since I was 5 years old. I’ve been a hiker and canoer since I was a little kid. It’s what I do for pleasure, go out into these great places. I love them. I think they’re important. They’re important not just for the recreational moneys they generate, but intrinsically important for the life they sustain on Earth. So I was in an administration where that’s clearly not their priority. I had higher hopes.

I thought perhaps the cooperative conservation vision could transcend those concerned about the economy and those concerned about environment and could build a bridge, and that was harder than I thought. . . . But I told myself, OK, as long as the decision process was fair and open, that everybody had their place at the table, their opportunity to voice their opinion.

-- Julie Cart