Gabriella Hoffman joins the podcast to discuss this month’s policy focus: The Future Of Environmentalism: True Conservation. We talk about how the U.S. is a global leader in environmental stewardship and why conservation-driven solutions and not preservation environmentalism is the way forward.

Gabriella Hoffman is a visiting fellow at Independent Women’s Forum. She is a freelance media consultant, columnist, podcaster, and award-winning outdoor writer. Her columns and commentary have been featured in dozens of national publications including Washington Post, Forbes, Marie Claire, and Time Magazine. Gabriella was recently elected to the Professional Outdoor Media Association’s Board of Directors. She hosts the District of Conservation podcast and CFACT original video series “Conservation Nation.”


TRANSCRIPT

Beverly Hallberg:

And welcome to She Thinks, a podcast where you’re allowed to think for yourself. I’m your host, Beverly Hallberg, and thank you for joining us for the IWF April Policy Focus: The Future of Environmentalism: True Conservation. We’ll delve into how the U.S. is a global leader in environmental stewardship and why conservation-driven solutions and not preservation environmentalism is the way forward. And joining us to talk all about this is the author of the Policy Focus, Gabriella Hoffman.

Gabriella Hoffman is a visiting fellow at Independent Women’s Forum. She is a freelance media consultant, columnist, podcaster, and award-winning outdoor writer. Her columns and commentary have been featured in dozens of national publications, including The Washington Post, Forbes, Marie Claire, and Time Magazine. Gabriella was recently elected to the Professional Outdoor Media Association’s Board of Directors. She hosts the District of Conservation podcast and CFACT original video series, Conservation Nation. Gabriella, it is a pleasure to have you on She Thinks today.

Gabriella Hoffman:

Good to be back, Beverly. Thank you for having me.

Beverly Hallberg:

Well, this is a great policy focus. First of all, because I know you were so passionate about this issue, before we even jump into the Policy Focus, would just love to hear your story on how you got into the issue of conservation.

Gabriella Hoffman:

I think I naturally fell into it. I think that’s what most people who have an interest in any public policy area do; you fall into the subject, and you have a personal connection to it. And for me, I’ve always had a personal connection to nature, having gone fishing in Southern California, where I was born and raised, and I always had a reverence for nature, always remembering to leave a place better than I found it, to not leave any waste while we were fishing or camping or hiking in the various different national parks and surrounding areas in and around California, too. So, this is always something that’s been ingrained in me personally, and to work on it in the public policy space is a huge honor to do that. So, I like to incorporate what I know and constantly learning.

Beverly Hallberg:

And you and I both have something in common. Well, many things, but one of the things is we are both native Californians, and I grew up going to the Sierras and camping. And I think it’s always interesting being of the conservative ideology and being in a state that’s very liberal and caring about the environment. And people think that if you’re conservative, you automatically must not care about the environment. So, are people usually surprised to hear that you are conservative and you do care about the environment, and how do those conversations go?

Gabriella Hoffman:

When I speak to different campuses across the country like I’ve been doing the last few months, I’m not really getting any blowback for my opinion, claiming that conservation is conservative because there is a lot of overlap between the philosophy of conservation and also political conservatism. It’s usually on Twitter where people are like, well, you can’t be Republican or you can’t be conservative and support conservation, but that’s a complete inaccurate statement to make because it’s inherently within our nature as conservatives, whether you look at it biblically, or you look at it practically with people owning land, recreating outdoors. On those two spheres, it’s true that conservatives inherently, without so much bragging about partaking in these different activities, they support it. They just don’t talk about it so much. So I think we can respond to the left and say, yes, we are conservation-minded; we don’t believe in the same solutions. Maybe we have the same end goal, but we have different ways of trying to achieve those changes or those policy moves.

Beverly Hallberg:

Well, I think as we talk about the differences in how to solve the problem that we see before us, it’s important to define the term. So when we say the word conservation, what is your definition of that word?

Gabriella Hoffman:

A simple definition: it usually means the wise use of natural resources, in contrast with preservation, which doesn’t call for much of human interaction on the natural landscape.

Beverly Hallberg:

And so, as you wrote this Policy Focus, when you talk about conservation, how well do you think the United States is doing in comparison to other countries around the globe?

Gabriella Hoffman:

I believe we probably are the top standard to look up to. I think we are the envy of the world, although many in media, education, and even science don’t say that; they always talk about how awful we are, how we’re exporting our evil capitalist ideals to other countries. But I think countries look to us, developing countries, and they say, wow, the United States is upholding economic flourishing, and also clean environmental standards without sacrificing either-or. And I think that’s why we need to talk more about it, about the different accomplishments, the different gains we’ve made in the last decades. It probably was a lot dirtier before you and I were around in the sixties and seventies. And now you look, in 2022, we have better air, better water, better land stewardship. People are becoming more prosperous, and also they’re maintaining their environmental surroundings.

So, I think as society advances, as people become less impoverished, you can still uphold environmental standards. So I think we’re doing a pretty good job. We don’t get things covered often. However, I’m worried on the public policy front, like I talk about in the Policy Focus, about us backtracking from the gains we’ve made. I think people are realizing the government doesn’t need to be the top, I would say, executor of conservation policy. It plays a role in guaranteeing, obviously, the public spaces, clean air, clean water standards, but it has a limited role actually in what it can do. And I think more and more people, even on the political left, are realizing that government can sometimes actually substantiate problems rather than fix problems. So, people are looking to voluntary action, state solutions, private industry, and less top-down approaches to fix different problems.

Beverly Hallberg:

So, let’s get into some of the specifics; you say that we’re doing far better than what we did in the sixties and the seventies. What are some of the specific steps that we took to ensure that the water, air, environment is cleaner today than it was then?

Gabriella Hoffman:

Certainly. We have obviously put in policies into effect. They’re not always perfect, but when they’re properly implemented, they can reduce pollution — let’s say, the Clean Air Act — and there are different forms or caveats of the Clean Air Act that should be reformed. Clean Water Act, similarly, is the same. One law that actually should be propped up a bit more — I talk about it in the Policy Focus — is the Endangered Species Act. I think that’s even worked more effectively than some of the other laws that we have in the books. We’ve prevented the extinction of different species. We haven’t done a good job of delisting and recovering species. A hundred percent of the time, anything like a wolf or a bear that has been potentially threatened and extinct, or endangered on the verge of extinction, the law has done a great, great job of sounding the alarm, putting protections on those species and working to recover. Just recently, the American eagle, bald eagle, has been recovered or announced that it’s successfully been delisted and recovered.

It’s at healthy numbers, and in some parts of the country, it’s actually becoming a problem with being a predatory for different fish and things of that sort. So we’ve done a great job of putting into place laws, but those laws can, unfortunately, be abused when certain administrations come to power because they don’t think they harness it enough. They think that private industry folks or landowners maybe are too meddlesome, and the government needs to up the ante with doing certain things and then defeating the purpose of the different laws. But I think a lot of the laws that we have in the books, especially those, are working. They just need to be properly implemented and not abused by people in federal power.

Beverly Hallberg:

And I think you bring up this important distinction and as the distinction between government and what is the role of government, and there is a role. Your argument is that it’s a smaller role than what many people think it should be. And also, what is the private role, the private sector? Why do you think the private sector does a good job? Because, playing devil’s advocate, often what people say is that, well, a private industry cares about profit, so they’re not going to actually care about the environment, they’re just going to care about the bottom line.

Gabriella Hoffman:

That’s a common rhetoric, of course, and they talk about the negative externalities that come with involvement from private industry and individuals. But if you look at the last 40 years with free-market environmentalism and voluntary action starting to come to the forefront, many people have started to see changes in the positive, sometimes changes that supersede action from the federal government or even state governments. And for the longest time, environmentalists looked at stakeholders, such as those outside government, as the enemy. And that is a terrible, terrible strategy for them on their part. Because now we see a lot of environmental organizations saying, okay, we’re going to borrow a lot of the tactics that free-market environmentalists had put into place or had discussed in different papers and discussions. And I think it is superseding policy. It’s starting to creep into various facets of environmentalism and challenge the norm that has been accepted, but people want to voluntarily change things.

And I think different polling suggests that when people are involved personally, when they relate to an issue better, they’re more compelled to change or to, let’s say, rework an environmental law, or maybe see to it, to clean up a local stream, or to help recover a species. And because there’s different roadblocks and red tape in government, oftentimes people get frustrated and want to find private solutions to those problems. And I mention in this Policy Focus, Blue Forest Conservation, and they have these resiliency bonds to, let’s say, compensate for some of the shortcomings and funding from the forest service as it relates to high-intensity fires. A subject you’re very familiar with, of course, being a fellow Californian. And they’re trying to find nonprofits, even like Blue Forest Conservation, are trying to find different solutions to help cooperate with the federal government. Public-private partnerships are acceptable in this case to ameliorate different problems. So I think different avenues and different ventures are starting to be successful, and they’re making their case to environmentalists, and even disproving their arguments that you always have to default to government solutions.

Beverly Hallberg:

And depending on who is the president, administrations may handle working with the private sector in different ways. What have you seen with the current administration? You vocalized earlier just some concerns that you have, but what are some of those specifics as you just see that maybe this is a step backward versus a step forward in how the public-private partnership can work together?

Gabriella Hoffman:

Certainly. Well, we see this administration working with, let’s say, notorious environmental special interest groups, groups that often don’t like to allow for different stakeholders, let’s say individuals; a lot of anti-hunting organizations who also are very, very staunchly preservationists in their environmental thinking, and they are largely occupying. I didn’t include this in the Policy Focus, but a development that came after I published it is some interference from these groups, let’s say Sierra Club types and Center for Biological Diversity that are trying to influence the administration to subtract public lands access on over 2.2 million acres of public lands over the contention that lead tackle and bullets will be used. Although the toxicity level of those objects is highly debatable, and it’s actually a lot more cheaper for people to use lead options when they’re recreating outdoors versus alternatives. Another topic of discussion, but they’re trying to impede on a very, very bipartisan issue of opening public lands to more fishing and hunting opportunities, and it’s seen as an elitist, let’s say, one-sided kind of thinking. That’s one example of just them trying to limit what stakeholders can be involved. They’re also shrugging advice from the oil and gas industry because a component to Department of Interior is to allow for federal leases on oil and gas to proceed. And for people, once they obtain the permits, to streamline access to pursue those leases and not obfuscate or not, let’s say, obstruct them from being able to develop oil and gas safely. And we see that with limitations obviously to stockpiling now and with the conflict in Ukraine and inflation, and there’s a demand, but they’re still admonishing those in oil and gas or the energy industry writ large, from wanting to be a partner. They only want to work with clean energy companies, and they want to give them a boost through subsidies, and they don’t want to work with them, and they don’t want to work with a lot of hunters and angler organizations. They say in different gestures that they want to, but by their actions, it seems like they’re ignoring the will of a lot of different critical stakeholders. So, contrasted with the Trump administration, I heard from different people, and I talk about it in the Policy Focus, that a lot of people felt more heard. Regular people who often would never hear from government, from different echelons of the federal government. And they feel like if they communicate a concern, it’s going to be dismissed and disregarded. So, I think they’re very selective in which stakeholders they talk to, selective industries, not really representing all the voices. So people, like I said, are looking for private solutions and alternatives to overcome the challenges from the federal government, but there could be some butting of heads, I think, going forward.

Beverly Hallberg:

And I was hoping you could give some context for what we’ve heard during this Russia-Ukrainian conflict, obviously, as awful as it is. The Biden administration, the White House, has talked about rising gas prices has been because of Putin. They’ve even said that well, people can drill in the states, but they haven’t filled out the necessary paperwork. What is the truth behind this seeming permit issue that the Biden administration brings up, saying that is partially the reason why, in addition to Putin, that’s partially the reason why gas prices are so high?

Gabriella Hoffman:

I think it’s a reluctance largely on their part to welcome the continued use of drilling on federal public lands for oil and gas. The Biden administration said on day one that they wanted to abandon that. They wanted to move away from it and just allow for clean energy sources to be developed, solar and wind, in particular, on public lands. While still claiming that they want to adhere to multiple-use management. Inflation was going up, as you know, well before Putin’s invasion in Ukraine. And I think using that as a talking point cheapens concern about what is happening in Ukraine. I could, obviously, anyone can talk more about that separate from energy, but it’s a cheap talking point on their end to say, and lessen the severity that the fact that their problems have perpetuated this. They said in various executive orders, obviously day one, they also put out a report assessing the federal oil and gas leasing program, and they said that a recommendation for them would be to raise the royalty rates, and they’re doing that even though they’ve allowed for some of these leases to proceed. They said they will open up maybe 20% of federal oil and gas locations, but they’re not going to be streamlining it even more. But with opening some different reserves, they’re only going to allow it on a basis where you’re going to have to pay more in royalty fees if you’re a producer. So, it doesn’t really help anyone. It’s going to be, again, more expensive, and it’s going to decentivize producers in oil and gas from wanting to develop on federal public lands in this safe and clean fashion.

But it cheapens the problem, obviously; people are recognizing that depending on foreign countries for oil and gas has really exposed us to a lot of vulnerabilities. The Biden administration has approved thousands upon thousands of leases. I think it’s over 9,000, but they failed…. There’s a lot of permits in waiting, too, that they are not approving. So, there’s a lot to be said of their policies causing the different spikes in oil and gas prices at the pump, what we’re feeling. Not so much this war in Ukraine. It had a little bit of an effect, as a lot of observers are noting, but the policies moreso have caused pain at the pump than this invasion of Ukraine.

Beverly Hallberg:

And one of the things I think is so ironic about this talking point, not just during this time where we have this Russian conflict in Ukraine, but we’ve seen it for quite a few years where you hear this idea that we need to go to energy-efficient means, we need to do alternative energies, not traditional fossil fuels, but at the same time, we are buying oil from other countries that don’t have the safe standards that we have here. This is a global issue. This is not just a United States issue. First of all, does that narrative fall flat? Not just on the American people, but people on the worldwide scale? It just seems so hypocritical in not actually addressing the issue that they say they’re trying to address.

Gabriella Hoffman:

Absolutely. And there’s been some conversation that perhaps the wholesale promotion of a clean energy agenda transitioning away from fossil fuels has enabled Russia to dominate the oil and gas markets. I think there was a study. There was a study conducted in 2017 that showed a connection between push for green policies, or certain clean energy policies, and a correlation, let’s say, or a connection more so to the Kremlin. And that may be explored a bit more, but there’s well-known documentation that Russia was interfering with a lot of oil and gas operations in Europe, and a little bit here, especially on social media, interfering in that manner to discourage the use and influence people negatively to make them, let’s say, dismissive of traditional fossil fuel uses.

And Europe is obviously paying a price for that. A lot of them were wholly reliant on Russia, and they simultaneously de-transitioned away from fossil fuel. Some of them still have natural gas, thankfully, and maybe, I think in the case of France, they’re looking to re-up their nuclear program. And other countries may be exploring similar avenues. But I think people saw how vulnerable you can be, especially your electricity grid, if you don’t have something stable. And these newer technologies, as your listeners very well know, are backed up by fossil fuel. So you can’t entirely get away from them. You’re still going to have them. And you may exhaust them even more than you would using them in their current status.

Beverly Hallberg:

And final question for you. One of the things that I find just really disheartening with the whole environmental message that we often hear is that children are being told that their world is not going to be there for them in, let’s say, 10, 12, 14 years. We hear different amount of years, but what do you say to children about our environment? Obviously, you see the progress we’ve made in conservation. What is the message we should be telling children?

Gabriella Hoffman:

I think we have to tell children that you’re living in one of the best times in American history, even in the midst of pandemic recovery, inflation. We’re a lot more prosperous. We’re a lot healthier. We live longer. There are many things at your disposal. You have technology, you can go to a national park, you can fish, you can hike, you can do so many different things. Luxuries that a lot of people don’t have at their fingertips in other countries. And I often tie in my family history. I say, well, my parents wanted me to grow up with these different luxuries. And I tried to do that. But I think telling kids that things are going to be okay, don’t take everything at face value. And I think getting them away from technology, I think they’re so clued into — I don’t have kids, obviously, right now, but when I do, I hope to raise them to be somewhat technologically free until they’re old enough to be able to do it.

But I think getting kids away from technology and taking them on the water to go boating or fishing, to take them hiking, maybe foraging for food; fruits and mushrooms are great to forage for. Exploring the national parks. Getting kids away from technology where they’re going to be exposed to this kind of alarmist rhetoric is a sure-fire way to get them to calm down, to renew their hope for society and to not damage them. I think they’re being psychologically damaged when they hear this rhetoric being pumped into media.

Beverly Hallberg:

There’s nothing that beats good old fresh air. Get out there. Hike. There’s so much to do out there all across the country. I think it’s really great advice. And we so appreciate all your insight that you bring to us. In this month’s Policy Focus, The Future of Environmentalism, which is true conservation, Gabriella Hoffman, thank you so much for joining us today.

Gabriella Hoffman:

Thank you, Beverly. Great to speak with you

Beverly Hallberg:

And thank you all for joining us. Before you go, Independent Women’s Forum does want you to know that we rely on the generosity of supporters like you. An investment in IWF fuels our efforts to enhance freedom, opportunity, and well-being for all Americans. So, please consider making a small donation to IWF by visiting iwf.org/donate. That’s iwf.org/donate. Last, if you enjoyed this episode of She Thinks, do leave us a rating or a review. It does help. And we’d love it if you shared this episode so your friends know where they can find more She Thinks. From all of us here at Independent Women’s Forum, thanks for watching.