Tracing America's green roots

John Muir and Gifford Pinchot represent the two strains of environmentalism in the United States -- and most of us think like both of them. We want nature pristine and undisturbed, but we also rely on its resources and understand the need to use care in extracting them.

Ann Hermes/Staff
Sunrise over the J Bar L ranch and Red Rock Creek in Centennial Valley, Montana.

The two rival strands of American environmentalism – nature untouched versus nature managed – can be traced back to John Muir and Gifford Pinchot. 

Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, was a purist. Brought up in a strict religious household, he found spiritual uplift in wilderness, especially in the American West. The mountains and streams of the Sierra Nevada were his church; the forest was sacred. He wanted nature reserves left alone and believed the only resource humans should harvest from them was the restoration of the soul.

Pinchot, the first head of the US Forest Service, was pragmatic. The son of a wealthy developer of land and lumber, he saw forests and wild lands as assets to be exploited – albeit carefully and with consideration of the needs of future generations. Conservation, to him, was not about sequestration and prohibition. It was husbandry on a grand scale.

Let’s be honest. It is impossible to choose either philosophy exclusively. A cathedral of pines is at least as magnificent as Notre Dame. No skyscraper can compare to a mountainside bathed in sunrise. An alpine lake happened upon after a long hike; a sea of undulating prairie grasses; a waterfall – almost any waterfall – these are psalms for the human heart.

And how do humans get to experience them? Probably by burning nature’s hydrocarbons, drinking its water, and somewhere along the way employing its minerals and timber in support of life and livelihood. We may drive a hybrid, choose organic vegetables, and scrupulously recycle, but even the greenest of us has to admit that natural resources feed the superstructure of the civilization in which we live. 

We are John Muir when we take a weekend walk and are awestruck by an encounter with a fawn. We are Gifford Pinchot when the alarm goes off on Monday morning. Every one of us balances purist aspirations with practical needs.

In a Monitor cover story, Todd Wilkinson explores that balance, focusing on ranching in the West. He introduces us to a new generation of ranchers who are concentrating on sustainable practices. Cattle lands that once would have been trampled and depleted are being managed in smart new ways that decrease the environmental impact and allow the region’s native flora and fauna to thrive.

Unlike the “sagebrush rebels” of a generation ago who saw environmentalism as silly and intrusive, these green ranchers consider healthy land and water crucial to current and future generations. As one rancher tells Todd: “Lots of different people talk about ways that agriculture needs to be sustainable, but we are living it.”

Todd knows the West. In a cover story last summer, he examined the complexities and tensions that have accompanied the return of wolf populations in the region. Attacks on cattle or sheep have been of particular concern. His green-ranching report is, in a sense, a follow-up. Sustainable ranching, it turns out, may offer a solution: When wildlife such as deer can find clean water, rich forage, and adequate cover on ranches, they flourish – and wolves have a shot at traditional prey rather than going after livestock.

Green ranching is where Muir and Pinchot blend. Humanity and nature can’t be separated. But nature can be handled with care.

John Yemma is editor of the Monitor.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.