Nature Is Nonpartisan
Chairman of the American Conservative Coalition and author of The Conservative Environmentalist, Benji Backer is launching a new venture, Nature is Nonpartisan. The goal is to remove any political association from earth conservation, and Benji believes people deserve an organization that wants to preserve the earth without serving other causes, so he created a unique program.
Benji and Janice discuss conserving the earth in a way that is good for people's livelihoods and America.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
5 days ago
- Vox
Hurricane season is here. NOAA is in shambles. What could go wrong?
is an environmental correspondent at Vox, covering biodiversity loss and climate change. Before joining Vox, he was a senior energy reporter at Business Insider. Benji previously worked as a wildlife researcher. Hurricane season in the Atlantic has officially begun. And while this year will likely be less extreme than in 2024 — one of the most destructive seasons ever, with the earliest Category 5 hurricane on record — it's still shaping up to be a doozy. Forecasters at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predict 'above-average' activity this season, with six to 10 hurricanes. The season runs from June 1 to November 30. NOAA's 2025 hurricane forecast, by the numbers 60 percent: Chance of an above-normal hurricane season. 6 to 10: Hurricanes expected this season, meaning tropical storms with wind speeds reaching at least 74 mph. 3 to 5: Major hurricanes, or storms with wind speeds reaching 111 mph or higher. 13 to 19: Named storms, referring to tropical systems with wind speeds of at least 39 mph. NOAA says it will update its forecast in early August. At least three of those storms will be category 3 or higher, the forecasters project, meaning they will have gusts reaching at least 111 miles per hour. Other reputable forecasts predict a similarly active 2025 season with around nine hurricanes. Last year, there were 11 Atlantic hurricanes, whereas the average for 1991 to 2020 was just over 7, according to hurricane researchers at Colorado State University. A highly active hurricane season is obviously never a good thing, especially for people living in places like Florida, Louisiana, and, apparently, North Carolina (see: Hurricane Helene, the deadliest inland hurricane on record). Even when government agencies that forecast and respond to severe storms — namely, NOAA and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA — are fully staffed and funded, big hurricanes inflict billions of dollars of damage, and they cost lives. Under the Trump administration, however, these agencies are not well staffed and face steep budget cuts. Hundreds of government employees across these agencies have been fired or left, including those involved in hurricane forecasting. What could go wrong? Why forecasters expect more hurricanes than average this year The primary reason is that Caribbean waters are unusually warm right now, Brian McNoldy, a hurricane expert at the University of Miami, told Vox. Warm water provides fuel for hurricanes, and waters in and around the Caribbean tend to be where hurricanes form early in the season. If this sounds familiar, that's because the Caribbean has been unusually warm for a while now. That was a key reason why the 2024 and 2023 hurricane seasons were so active. Warm ocean water, and its ability to help form and then intensify hurricanes, is one of the clearest signals — and consequences — of climate change. Data indicates that climate change has made current temperatures in parts of the Caribbean and near Florida several (and in some cases 30 to 60) times more likely. The Atlantic has cooled some since hitting extremely high temperatures over the last two summers, yet 'the overall long-term trend is to warm,' said McNoldy, a senior research associate at the Rosenstiel School of Marine, Atmospheric, and Earth Science. The Caribbean is currently far hotter than average. Courtesy of Brian McNoldy The other key reason why forecasters expect an ample number of hurricanes this year has to do with a complicated climate phenomenon known as the ENSO cycle. ENSO has three phases — El Niño, La Niña, and neutral — that are determined by ocean temperatures and wind patterns. And each phase means something slightly different for hurricane season. Put simply, El Niño tends to suppress hurricanes because it causes an increase in wind shear — the abrupt changes in wind speed and direction. And wind shear can disrupt hurricanes. In La Niña years, meanwhile, there's little wind shear, allowing hurricanes to form, and they're often accompanied by higher sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic. Right now the ENSO phase is, rather unexcitedly, neutral. That means there won't be the high, hurricane-blocking wind shear of El Niño, but the conditions won't be as favorable as they are in La Niña. This all leads to more unpredictability, according to climate scientists. The government says it's prepared. Is it? When publishing the NOAA hurricane forecast last month, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who oversees NOAA, said 'we have never been more prepared for hurricane season.' Climate scientists have challenged that claim. They point out that, under the Trump administration, hundreds of workers at NOAA have been fired or otherwise pushed out, which threatens the accuracy of weather forecasts that can help save lives. FEMA has also lost employees, denied requests for hurricane relief, and is reportedly ending door-to-door canvassing in disaster regions designed to help survivors access government aid. 'Secretary Lutnick's claim is the sort of lie that endangers the lives of people living along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts, and even those further inland unable to escape the extensive reach of associated torrential rains and flooding,' Marc Alessi, an atmospheric scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental advocacy group, told Vox. 'Notwithstanding the valiant efforts of dedicated career staff, this administration has taken to actively thwarting the vital scientific work at agencies including NOAA that communities rely on to stay safe throughout hurricane season.' According to Alessi, a handful of National Weather Service offices along the Gulf Coast — which is often hit by hurricanes — currently lack lead meteorologists. 'Missing this sort of expertise in the face of a projected above-average hurricane season could lead to a breakdown in proper warning and evacuation in vulnerable communities should a storm strike, potentially leading to more deaths that could have otherwise been avoided,' Alessi said. As my colleague Umair Irfan has reported, the National Weather Service is also launching weather balloons less frequently, due to staffing cuts. Those balloons measure temperature, humidity, and windspeed, providing data that feeds into forecasts. 'They've been short-staffed for a long time, but the recent spate of people retiring or being let go have led some stations now to the point where they do not have enough folks to go out and launch those balloons,' Pamela Knox, an agricultural climatologist at the University of Georgia extension and director of the UGA weather network, told Irfan in May. 'We're becoming more blind because we are not having access to that data anymore. A bigger issue is when you have extreme events, because extreme events have a tendency to happen very quickly. You have to have real-time data.' The White House is also trying to dramatically shrink NOAA's funding, proposing a budget cut of roughly $2 billion. In response to the proposed cuts, five former directors of the National Weather Service signed an open letter that raises alarm about what funding and staffing losses mean for all Americans. 'Our worst nightmare is that weather forecast offices will be so understaffed that there will be needless loss of life,' the former directors wrote in the letter. 'We know that's a nightmare shared by those on the forecasting front lines — and by the people who depend on their efforts.'
Vox
15-05-2025
- Vox
Trump officials are trying to yank this animal's last shot at survival
is an environmental correspondent at Vox, covering biodiversity loss and climate change. Before joining Vox, he was a senior energy reporter at Business Insider. Benji previously worked as a wildlife researcher. The bird above is not your typical charismatic species. It's no bald eagle, no peregrine falcon. It's a groundbird known as the lesser prairie-chicken that lives in the southern Great Plains. It's not even the greater prairie-chicken, another, related avian species, that's a bit larger. Today, however, this bird is very much worth paying attention to. In 2023, lesser prairie-chickens — which are actually fascinating birds, not least for their ridiculous mating rituals — were granted protection under the Endangered Species Act, the country's strongest wildlife law. Scientists say this protection is justified: The population of lesser prairie-chickens has crashed since the last century from hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of birds to roughly 30,000 today. Now the Trump administration is trying to axe those extinction-thwarting protections. In a motion filed earlier this month in a Texas court, the administration argued that federal officials made an error when listing prairie-chickens under the Endangered Species Act. The listing — which makes it illegal to kill or harm the birds, with a number of exceptions — should be tossed out, the administration said. The move isn't totally unexpected. Prairie-chickens overlap in some areas with oil and gas drilling. And President Donald Trump has signaled that he will prioritize drilling over environmental safeguards. Yet it reveals that his administration will take extreme steps to undo wildlife protections if they stand in the way of his agenda. If his administration is successful in delisting the bird, it will signal that no endangered species is safe — especially those, like these chickens, that happen to live where fossil fuels are buried. The dance of the prairie-chicken Male lesser prairie-chickens are extremely extra. Each spring, they come together in breeding grounds called leks to dance for females, hoping to attract them as mates. They inflate large sacs on their neck, flare yellow combs above their eyes, and raise wing-like feathers behind their heads. Then they stomp their feet and start booming, producing a noise that sounds like sped-up yodeling. (These are not to be confused with the greater sage-grouse, a bird in the same family that has a similarly spectacular display.) The Great Plains were once filled with these unusual dancing birds, which play important roles in grassland ecosystems: They provide food for raptors, spread seeds, and control insects. But in the last few centuries, prairie-chickens lost most of their habitat — largely to the expansion of oil and gas, commercial farming, housing developments, and, more recently, wind energy. Scientists estimate that the range of lesser prairie-chickens has shrunk by 83 percent to 90 percent since European settlement. 'Grasslands are the most threatened ecosystem on the continent and in the world, and nowhere more so than in the southwestern Great Plains,' said Ted Koch, executive director of the North American Grouse Partnership, a bird conservation group. Facing extinction as a result of powerful industries, the prairie-chicken has been caught up in a game of political ping pong. The government first granted them federal protection in 2014. Then, in response to a lawsuit filed by an oil-industry trade group and several counties in New Mexico, the Texas court tossed out the listing in 2015. They were officially delisted in 2016. The suit argued that in granting federal protections the government didn't adequately consider existing voluntary efforts, such as habitat conservation, to conserve the birds. Shortly after, the Interior Department — the government agency that oversees endangered species listings — reevaluated the bird and once again determined, under the Biden administration, that it is at risk of extinction, even with those voluntary efforts in place. In 2023, Interior added the chickens back on the endangered species list. That brings us to the present day, when these forsaken birds could once again lose protection. Trump moves to strip endangered species protections on a technicality The Trump administration is arguing that the Interior Department made a mistake when it recently listed the birds again. It comes down to a somewhat wonky technicality. Briefly, the Endangered Species Act allows the government to grant formal protection to a species or to a population of a species — if those populations are important on their own, and at risk. That's what the Biden administration did: It determined that there were two distinct populations of lesser-prairie chickens and it granted each of them slightly different protections. One of the populations is in the northern end of the birds' range, including Oklahoma and Kansas, and the other is in the southern reaches of its range, in Texas and New Mexico. Under the Trump administration, Interior claims that it didn't provide enough information to show that the two bird populations are distinct. That's reason enough to delist the birds, the administration argues, while it reviews their status over the next year. If the species is delisted — even temporarily — the government would be able to permit activities, such as energy projects, even if they might harm the bird and the endangered grasslands it's found in. Male lesser prairie-chickens fight for territory at a lek in Edwards County, Kansas. Michael Pearce/Wichita Eagle/Tribune News Service via Getty Images Avian experts, meanwhile, say the reasoning behind the original listing — which was the result of months of work and more than 30,000 public comments — is sound, and these birds are very clearly in trouble. 'The North American Grouse Partnership agrees completely that listing of chickens is warranted,' Koch said. The move to delist prairie-chickens appears to be an effort by the Trump administration to skirt wildlife regulations that some perceive to stand in the way of the oil industry, said Jonathan Hayes, executive director of Audubon Southwest, a regional office of the National Audubon Society, a large environmental nonprofit. 'Whether it's true or not, this chicken symbolizes a challenge, or an impediment, to oil and gas development for industry,' Hayes told Vox. 'We would expect this administration to push back on regulations that may or may not impact oil and gas. That's what it feels like is happening here.' In a statement to Vox, the Interior Department said it has an 'unwavering commitment to conserving and managing the nation's natural and cultural resources…and overseeing public lands and waters for the benefit of all Americans, while prioritizing fiscal responsibility for the American people.' The new administration can quibble with the technical points of the listing, Koch said, but that will do nothing to change the reality: The bird is at risk of extinction and needs to be protected. 'Whether somebody wants to engage in debate on technicalities is up to them, but simply and fundamentally lesser prairie-chickens are threatened with extinction,' Koch said. 'Delisting lesser prairie chickens on a technicality is going to do nothing to address the underlying threat to these ecosystems.' The future for threatened species in the US There's no guarantee that prairie-chickens will lose protection. The Trump administration's motion to delist the birds came in response to a pair of lawsuits filed by both the state of Texas and groups representing the oil and livestock industries. The suits allege that the Interior Department made a mistake in splitting the birds into two distinct populations and failed to follow the best available information. (Interior's spokesperson told Vox they will not comment on ongoing litigation.) Before Trump took office, the government was planning to defend its decision to protect the birds — and to split them up — in court, in response to those lawsuits. Now it's reversing course and agreeing with Texas and the oil industry to toss out the listing. It's possible that the judge overseeing this case could agree to remove protections, said Jason Rylander, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. In that case, groups like his would try to appeal to block the delisting. The court could also tell the government to review the bird's status while keeping existing protections in place, Rylander says. What's key here is that the decision to list lesser prairie-chickens involved a formal rulemaking process with public input. It's not clear that the government can simply reverse its decision and yank federal protections without going through that process again. 'The government can't act in a capricious way,' Hayes of Audubon said. 'It can't just blow with the wind, and that's exactly what it did here. They just changed their minds when the administration changed. I'm not sure how they will legally defend their complete 180.' But no matter how this plays out, this effort to delist lesser prairie-chickens puts other threatened species in an even more precarious spot, especially those that live in regions with oil and gas. One example is the endangered dunes sagebrush lizard. It's a small, scaly reptile that lives in the Permian Basin of Texas, the largest oil-producing region in the country, and nowhere else on Earth. The state of Texas similarly sued the government after it listed the dunes sagebrush lizard as endangered last year. The suit — which asks the court to vacate the endangered listing — alleges, among other things, that the government didn't rely on the best available data to evaluate the lizard's extinction risk. That case is still pending, though environmental advocates fear that the Trump administration could side with Texas and claim it made a mistake when listing the lizard. Then there's the beloved monarch butterfly. Following decades of population decline, the government proposed federal protections for the iconic insect late last year. Monarch habitat similarly overlaps with the oil and gas industry, as well as commercial farmland. Fossil-fuel groups have already asked the Trump administration to reconsider the listing. 'As the Trump administration is in power, we can expect that endangered species protections are going to be under attack,' Rylander said. 'I think there's a chance we can stop this in court,' he said of efforts to delist the prairie-chicken, 'but I think if we don't, we will see more efforts to remand and vacate listings that they [the Trump administration] don't want to have in place anymore.' It's important to remember that wildlife protections benefit people, Koch said. And prairie-chickens are a good example. Most of the remaining birds live on sustainably managed, private ranchlands in the Great Plains, he said. Those lands — those working grassland ecosystems — are under threat from energy development and other industries that are more profitable. Saving prairie chickens means saving those lands. And saving those lands benefits the ranchers that live on them, he said.
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Yahoo
Q&A: Meet the conservative working to make environmentalism nonpartisan
Nature is Nonpartisan founder Benji Backer, center, with Director of Communications Amelia Joy, left, and Chief Policy Officer Ben Cassidy, right, pose for a photo on March 18, 2025, in Belle Fourche. (Courtesy of Nature is Nonpartisan) A national nonprofit working to promote a middle ground on environmentalism launched with an event Thursday in the South Dakota city of Belle Fourche, which advertises itself as the geographic center of the United States. Benji Backer, 27, of Seattle, is the founder of Nature is Nonpartisan. The self-described conservative environmentalist founded the American Conservation Coalition in 2017 while in college. That conservative group promotes policies like free-market approaches to climate change and environmental policy. In 2024, Backer wrote a book, 'The Conservative Environmentalist,' outlining his vision for right-of-center environmentalism. With his new group, Backer is bringing people together from across the political spectrum. Nature Is Nonpartisan's board ranges from people like David Bernhardt, who was secretary of the Department of Interior during the first Trump administration, to Michael Brune, former executive director of the Sierra Club. Partners include the National Wildlife Federation, American Forests, Ducks Unlimited and more. South Dakota Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden attended the Belle Fourche event and signed an executive proclamation establishing 'Nature Is Nonpartisan Week' in the state. Backer said he is critical of Green New Deal-style environmentalism, referring to a swath of proposals to help address climate change and income inequality introduced by progressive lawmakers. He said the movement has become an ineffective political football. The new nonprofit focuses on bipartisan policies like funding wildlife migration corridors, wetland and forest conservation, and farm practices that pull more heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions out of the atmosphere. Backer took questions from South Dakota Searchlight ahead of Thursday's event. The following conversation has been edited for length and clarity. I grew up in the Midwest — I grew up in Wisconsin — and grew up loving the outdoors just like almost every person in this country. I also grew up a conservative, and I felt very frustrated with the fact that there wasn't really a home for dialogue on the environment that was being done in a nonpartisan way. It was either you subscribe to the Green New Deal-type ideology or you just didn't have a home at all. And the majority of Americans care a lot about the environment, but they don't want radical solutions. So, our mission is to rebuild the environmental movement, to a movement that represents all Americans, of all political backgrounds — not just the left side of the aisle — and also forges solutions that benefit and work for every American, not just Americans on one side of the aisle. We want to recreate the legacy that Americans have around the environment. This used to be seen as a nonpartisan issue in America. There used to be many environmental organizations that resembled the breadth of political beliefs in America. That does not exist anymore. So, we're here in Belle Fourche — because it is the center of the country — to launch from the heart of America an environmental movement that speaks for the heart of America. Yeah, look, it has been a partisan issue, but that doesn't mean it has to be. If you look back at history, previous iterations of the environmental movement resembled both sides of the aisle. It had hunters and anglers, it had conservatives, and it also had liberals. It had both sorts of populations represented, and so the solutions represented those communities, too. My philosophy is that when you're not at the table, you're on the table. When you're not at the table, you're automatically losing. And the majority of Americans are losing with the current environmental movement as we see it. Hunters and anglers, conservatives, used to self-identify as environmentalists. Polling back in 1990 shows nearly 80% of Americans self-identified as environmentalists. We're here in Belle Fourche — because it is the center of the country — to launch from the heart of America an environmental movement that speaks for the heart of America. – Benji Backer, founder of Nature is Nonpartisan And so, it is currently partisan, but it doesn't need to be. The reality is that the political left owning this issue only allows half of the country to be represented. So, when the other half of the country, conservatives, are running the show, whether that be in the South Dakota Legislature or in D.C., all they're doing is focusing on opposing what the left has proposed because a lot of the times it's out of touch with conservative communities. It's this political back and forth of, like, either the Green New Deal, or trying to oppose everything about the Green New Deal philosophy. What if there was an approach, that we used to have, where you put landowners, ranchers, farmers, hunters, anglers at the same table with those who care about the environment for other reasons, and created a solution that works for all the people there. That has not happened for decades, but it can happen, and it will happen again. What we're trying to create is a grassroots movement of Americans from both sides of the aisle who believe the environment is more important, and conserving the environment is more important, than partisan politics. Now, how we get there is up for debate. But that's a debate we're not even having right now. 'Wild places are worth fighting for': Concern grows for receding South Dakota wetlands Some people might be more in favor of protecting the environment through private property rights because private property owners tend to take really good care of their environment. Some people might prefer a more public land approach. Then let's have a debate, issue by issue, so we can actually get to solutions. Right now, our forests are burning at record levels. Right now, biodiversity is decreasing here and around the world. Right now, extreme storms are damaging our country's economy and our communities. And the list goes on and on. I understand why immigration, guns or some of these other issues get caught up in culture wars and partisan politics: A lot of people have inherently different end goals on those issues. But on the environment, there's not really anybody in this country that doesn't want clean air, clean water, nature to be protected and biodiversity to be protected — as long as it's not at the expense of humanity and people's communities. Politicians aren't hearing that message from an environmental organization. They're only hearing a message of doom and gloom, alarmism, kind of extremism, or an opposition to that. So, we're trying to create a movement that incentivizes politicians to get to the table and find solutions to the environmental problems that are happening, that are real, that are impacting us, and that no one's trying to find solutions to because it's become such a culture warfare issue. I would say to conservatives, over the next few years, we will prove that we're a movement for all Americans. I think there's an automatic distrust of the environmental movement that is totally fair and totally to be expected based on how this has progressed as an issue in recent years. But, we have two options. We can sit on the sidelines and complain about how bad the left's ideas are, or we can sit at the table. We're either on the sidelines complaining and losing or at the table conversing and winning. I understand the skepticism, but if you look at our board, if you look at our staff, we have some of the most hardcore conservative bona fide leaders on our team and board that you could ever imagine, that validate the fact that conservatives need to have a voice at this discussion, that validate the fact that we are going to represent both sides, not just one — not just greenwashing for the left, but also representing both sides and the priorities they have. There's nothing more pro-conservative than caring about your local community, about your country and its amazing beauty, and the legacy of conservation that our country has. There's nothing more pro-conservative than engaging in conservation conversations. I've been building this organization for the last year. I don't even take a salary right now. We already have diverse funders from across the political spectrum. We have hundreds of donors already and we haven't even launched yet. We have conservative donors, liberal donors. There's not one donor or two donors or three donors that I can point to as people who are, you know, 'buying us out.' Climate change is one of the most polarizing issues in America right now, and one of the most partisan. I think Americans can and should stand united in our desire to reduce pollution in our atmosphere. I think we should be focusing on efficiency, and Americans appreciate opportunities to save money and be more efficient, to have more abundant energy choices, to have lower energy prices, which helps scale all different energy sources. People just don't want to be told what to do. As an organization, we're going to be dedicated to reducing pollution, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but not in a way that hurts people, and in a way that actually benefits communities. We are going to show politicians what Americans want to be for, rather than what they're against. So, on the topic of climate change, people are for efficient, abundant energy; people are for resilient ecosystems to create adaptation measures in extreme storms; they are for more efficient transportation methods and more fuel-efficient vehicles, as long as it's not more expensive and comes at the cost of their livelihoods. And so that's the sort of approach we're going to take. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
