Climate Protection Just a Game to the U.S. Interior Department

Despite major climate progress here in the U.S., including a historic moratorium on leasing publicly owned coal, the Obama Administration is still frighteningly out of step when it comes to confronting the global warming impacts of fossil fuel production on our public lands.

In fact, despite mounting calls for an end to public lands oil, gas, and coal leasing, Sally Jewell, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior, remarked that it’s “naive” to believe we should keep fossil fuels in the ground.

Perhaps the Secretary missed it when the President last year rejected the Keystone tar sands pipeline, saying “we’re going to have to keep some fossil fuels in the ground rather than burn them and release more dangerous pollution into the sky.

It goes way beyond reckless rhetoric, though.

By all measures, the Obama Administration’s Department of the Interior seems to be doing everything possible to deny, dismiss, and disregard taking any action to rein in fossil fuels. It’s as if the Interior Department believes climate protection is just a game. How else to explain the agency’s response to concerns over massive carbon increases tied to some of its recent coal mining and oil and gas fracking approvals.

Take the Continental Divide-Creston Natural Gas Project, so named because it would let BP (yes, BP) smother a 1.1 million acre stretch of the Continental Divide southwest of Creston, Wyoming with nearly 9,000 new oil and gas wells, unlocking more than 12 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (and also 167.3 million barrels of oil condensate).

An analysis prepared by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management discloses that this single oil and gas project stands to unleash more than 8.6 million metric tons of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, every year by 2022. Astoundingly, these annual emissions are projected to continue for up to 55 years.


Greenhouse gas emissions projected from Continental Divide-Creston project. You can see the analysis for yourself here on page 4-53 >>

8.6 million metric tons of carbon every year for 55 years is a lot. According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s handy greenhouse gas equivalencies calculator, that’s the same as 2.5 coal-fired power plants. Yes, that’s right, this one oil and gas project will emit the same amount of carbon as the smokestacks of two and a half coal-fired power plants.

So what was the Interior Department’s response to what is admittedly a s**t ton of carbon pollution?  The agency had the audacity to assert that because it couldn’t model what specific climate impacts would result from the the release of the specific greenhouse gases, that it was “not possible” to even analyze climate impacts (see the “analysis” on p. 4-68).

In other words, while acknowledging the project would release as much carbon as two and a half coal-fired power plants, according to the Interior Department, there’s simply no way to tell how bad these emissions might be.

Never mind that scientists are sounding the alarms, saying that we need to keep more than 3/4 of all our fossil fuels in the ground and reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions by 66% below 2010 levels just to keep global temperature rises below 2 degrees Celsius.  And never mind that even a 2 degrees Celsius rise in temperature still portends disaster for many corners of the world.

It’s no different than a thunderstorm trying claim it didn’t cause a flood because there’s no way to prove that each of its rain drops was actually a part of the rising waters.  And just like those thunderstorms got a lot of nerve, so, too, does the Interior Department.

The Interior Department’s unplausible deniability gets worse, though. That 8.6 million metric tons of carbon? That’s just from the construction and production of the wells, it doesn’t even take into account the downstream burning of oil and gas that will inevitably occur.


BP has already drilled and fracked more than 4,000 oil and gas wells in the 1.1 million acre Continental Divide-Creston area. Apparently unhappy with this, the company now wants to drill and frack nearly 9,000 more.

Once again using EPA’s handy calculator, the 12 trillion cubic feet of natural gas expected to be produced can be expected to unleash more than 656 million metric tons of carbon emissions. And like a cherry on top, the 167.3 million barrels of oil condensate can be expected to yield another 72 million metric tons.

When all is said and done, we’re talking more than 728 million metric tons of greenhouse gases from the ultimate consumption and combustion of oil and gas.

Taking into account the Interior Department’s own numbers, the Continental Divide-Creston project stands to unleash an estimated 21.8 million metric tons of carbon every year for 55 years. That’s more than 1.1 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases.

To put that into perspective, the Keystone tar sands pipeline would have unleashed 1.2 billion metric tons of carbon over its lifetime.  Remember what happened to Keystone?


Much of the Continental Divide-Creston project area is, appropriately, located in Carbon County, Wyoming. 

Think the Interior Department’s baseless dismissal of the climate consequences of this massive oil and gas project is just an anomaly?

It’s not. In fact, we’re seeing the same thing come up again and again and again and and again (and even again).

Take the Trapper coal mine in western Colorado. Last month, Interior approved an expansion of the mine, which fuels the nearby Craig power plant. According to an analysis prepared by Interior’s Office of Surface Mining, the mining approval will lead the release of more than 5.8 million metric tons of carbon annually, both from the mining and the inevitable coal combustion (see the analysis on p. 5-6).

Once again, that’s a lot of carbon. To be precise, 5.8 million metric tons equals the amount of greenhouse gases released annually by more than 1,221,053 cars.

What was Interior’s response? Any climate impacts would be “negligible” (see the analysis on pp. 4-18 and 4-19). As if to snidely underscore its seemingly contradictory claim, the agency pointed out that 5. 8 million metric tons of carbon would be only “0.07%” of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

colorado-craig-coal-power-plant (2)

The Craig coal-fired power plant. According to the Department of the Interior, this power plant, the largest single source of carbon emissions in Colorado, poses only “negligible” climate impacts. Photo by EcoFlight.

This response pushes absurdity to the extreme on many levels. For one thing, when it comes to climate change, there is no such thing as a single significant source of greenhouse gas emissions.

The largest single source of carbon in the U.S., the Scherer coal-fired power plant in Georgia, releases only 0.24% of all U.S. greenhouse gases. That’s how it goes with climate change. It’s not a small group of massive sources of carbon pollution that matter, it’s a massive amount of small sources that matter. Interior’s logic effectively denies this fact.

More importantly, Interior’s argument misses (by miles) the bigger context here. Because we’re not just talking the Trapper coal mine. We’re talking about numerous coal approvals being made by Interior that cumulatively add up to a major climate disaster.

Currently, the agency is weighing approval of seven new coal mine expansions in the western United States. Take together, these approvals stand to unleash more than 135 million metric tons of carbon, contributing to nearly 2% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

Estimated carbon emissions associated with pending Interior Department coal mining approvals. Estimates utilized average production rates and EPA emission factor of 0.000931 metric tons of carbon for every pound of coal burned.

Mine Location Tons of Coal Produced Per Year (Estimated) Pounds of Coal Metric Tons of CO2 % Contribution to U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Belle Ayr Wyoming 22,500,000 45,000,000,000 41,895,000.00 0.59%
Colowyo Colorado 5,000,000 10,000,000,000 9,310,000.00 0.13%
Dry Fork Wyoming 6,000,000 12,000,000,000 11,172,000.00 0.16%
Freedom North Dakota 13,500,000 27,000,000,000 25,137,000.00 0.35%
Rosebud Montana 4,000,000 8,000,000,000 7,448,000.00 0.10%
Skyline Utah 4,000,000 8,000,000,000 7,448,000.00 0.10%
Spring Creek Montana 18,000,000 36,000,000,000 33,516,000.00 0.47%
TOTAL 1.90%

Add that to the fact that the Interior Department’s coal approvals are already linked to more than 11% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and you can see this pending mining really threatens to add up.

Add to that the total carbon emissions linked to the agency’s oil and gas approvals and you find that a little more than 20% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions can be traced back to Interior Department fossil fuel decisions.

That sure doesn’t seem “negligible.” One could argue this actually puts the Interior Department at the top of the list of our nation’s largest climate polluters. Negligent, maybe, but definitely not negligible.

While the Interior Department seems to be moving beyond outright, blatant climate denial, which is a positive sign. But playing games with numbers and reason in an attempt to avoid taking any responsibility for reducing greenhouse gases seems no different.

Sally Jewell may find it naive to believe we need to start keeping fossil fuels in the ground to protect our climate. For the rest of us who believe in and adhere to the laws of physics, however, that’s not naiveté, it’s common sense.

It’s time for President Obama to start enforcing some climate common sense. He truly needs to rein in Sally Jewell and his U.S. Department of the Interior.

Interior Truly Denies Climate Change

Although the U.S. Interior Department’s ongoing approval of fossil fuel development on our public lands speaks volumes to the agency’s refusal to combating climate change, it sure helps to have words convey how the Department really feels.

In response to concerns raised by WildEarth Guardians over the climate impacts of open public lands for fracking in Utah, the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management made clear, in no uncertain terms, its denial over climate change.  In spite of virtually unanimous scientific consensus, years of study and confirmation by climate scientists throughout the world, and despite even the President’s own acknowledgement that no challenge poses a greater threat to our future than climate change, the Bureau of Land Management says there is “substantial” disagreement and uncertainty over climate change.

Actions speak louder than words, but words certainly add clarity.  At the Interior Department, climate denial is clearly in full force and effect.

climate denial at Interior

Read for yourself the agency’s response in their own purported “environmental assessment” on pages 62-63 (they also say the same thing on page 68 of this “environmental assessment“).

And think this is just an anomaly?  As reported here before, the Interior Department’s track record on acknowledging and taking responsibility for the climate impacts of fossil fuel development is about as ugly as it gets and includes dismissing carbon costs, extolling the climate benefits of renewable energy while completely ignoring the massive amount of greenhouse gas emissions released by oil, gas, and coal development on public lands, and Sally Jewell herself implicitly denying the climate implications of more fossil fuel development.

It’s been bad, but clearly it’s getting worse at Interior.  With the agency’s now explicit denial of climate change, it’s clear that the Department of the Interior may be the biggest single impediment to climate progress in the Obama Administration.

UPDATE:  Earlier this week, WildEarth Guardians directly challenged the Interior Department’s climate denial, filing protests to overturn the agency’s latest oil and gas leasing plans.  With Sally Jewell also this week now saying that “cutting carbon pollution” should inform Interior Department decisions, there’s no way these latest oil and gas leasing plans can be justified.

Interior Department Killing Climate Progress

The climate hypocrisy of the U.S. Department of the Interior reached new and absolutely bizarre lows this past week.

On Monday, Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior Department, helped unveil the largest solar farm on our public lands, commending the project for taking “action on climate change” and helping “move our nation toward a renewable energy future.”

The plaudits were well founded.  After all, an estimated 300,000 tons of carbon stand to be displaced annually by the 550 megawatt solar farm, not an insignificant amount.

Two days later, however, Sally Jewell completely obliterated this climate progress.

In an oil and gas lease sale in Colorado, the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management auctioned off 15,424 acres of public lands for drilling and fracking in the Little Snake Field Office in northwest Colorado.

Touted as an economic success, what the Bureau of Land Management failed to acknowledge is that development of these leases would fuel an increase in carbon dioxide (i.e., CO2) emissions to more than 800,000 tons annually just in the Little Snake Field Office.  The chart below, taken from the agency’s own environmental analysis, plainly shows the projected increase.

CO2 increase in Little Snake Field Office

Air emission increases projected in the Bureau of Land Management’s Little Snake Field Office of western Colorado (taken from p. 23 of the agency’s analysis).

That’s not the worst of it.  The chart above also shows that methane emissions (i.e., CH4) from oil and gas development would increase to 19,247 tons annually.  Given that methane is 86 times more potent than carbon dioxide, that amounts to more than 1.6 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

When everything is said and done, we’re looking at a decision by the Interior Department that will increase carbon emissions by more than 2 million tons annually.

carbon differences

The net carbon increase is actually 2,184,229 tons annually.  No climate benefits will be remotely reaped by the Interior Department’s solar project. 

And as if this wasn’t bad enough, this increase doesn’t even take into account the carbon emissions that will result from the burning of the produced oil and gas.  All told, we’re taking about a major carbon setback.

So much for the benefits of solar, so much for climate progress at the Interior Department, and so much for moving our nation toward renewable energy.

Oh, and as for the claimed economic success of the Bureau of Land Management’s oil and gas lease sale?  Taking into account the value of carbon, which could be as high as $220 per ton, we’re looking upwards of $480 million in costs.  That’s a far cry from the $319,113 in revenue reported by the agency.

The worst of it is, more oil and gas leasing and even more carbon pollution is on the horizon.

Just this past week, the Bureau of Land Management announced plans to lease 35,000 more acres of public lands in Colorado, including 25,000 acres of the Pawnee National Grassland.  And next week, the agency intends to auction off 12,000 acres of public lands for fracking in southern Utah.

The climate hypocrisy of the Interior Department seemingly knows no bounds.  For our nation and our future, hopefully this will change and change soon.  We can’t save the climate by selling more oil and gas.


Public lands oil and gas development approved by the Department of the Interior is destroying climate progress.

U.S. Interior Department: Still All About Fossil Fuels

Even as scientists are confirming that it’s time to keep fossil fuels in the ground, the U.S. Department of the Interior continues to open the door for extensive coal, oil, and gas development on our public lands, fueling unchecked carbon pollution at belligerently reckless rates.

The latest step backward occurred earlier this week as Interior’s Bureau of Land Management just gave itself a big pat on the back for approving thousands of new drilling permits and offered to lease nearly 6 million acres of public lands to the oil and gas industry for fracking.

The Bureau was so zealous, they gloat that they offered drilling permits and leasing opportunities “in excess of industry demand.”  

Flaring on well in Lybrook badlands

Flaring, where the oil and gas industry purposefully burns off natural gas while producing oil, is the ultimate waste. Here, flaring at a fracking site on public lands in northwestern New Mexico was condoned by the Bureau of Land Management. Photo by Mike Eisenfeld.

In other words not only is the Bureau of Land Management meeting 100% of industry demands, they’re actually trying to give away even more.

It doesn’t end there.  Last month, Interior reaffirmed its belief that coal is an “important part of our domestic energy portfolio,” offering new guidance to make leasing and mining more “efficient” and “certain” for industry.

Certainly, the new guidance is meant to ensure the American public gets a fair return on coal, especially where it’s exported, and it is likely to spur higher prices for federal coal leases and higher royalties.  However, there’s an ominous omission.  Nowhere has Interior signaled its intent to ensure carbon costs are factored into the valuation of coal.

It’s a simple concept.  Carbon has a price.  If unleashed from the ground (in the form of oil, gas, or coal), that price becomes a cost borne by our economy in the form of the destruction wrought by climate change.  Those costs can add up, erasing any economic benefits otherwise reaped by the production and consumption of fossil fuels.

In the case of publicly owned coal, all signs indicate that carbon costs are, in fact, adding up and overriding any economic benefits.  As reported by our friends at Greenpeace, while a ton of federal coal is brining in $1.03 per ton in revenue, it’s yielding carbon costs of between $22 and $237.

Interior’s new guidance, while providing greater clarity and direction around the valuation of publicly owned coal, continues to turn a blind eye to carbon costs, filling industry’s coffers at our expense.

Ensuring a fair return from coal sales is certainly laudable, but the reality is, no return can ever be fair if it doesn’t fully compensate the American public for the climate damage caused by unleashing more carbon.

Now, more than ever, Interior should be exercising massive restraint when it comes to development of fossil fuels on our public lands.  Sadly, they’re not.  The list of new coal, oil, and gas projects slated for approval in the coming months continues to swell.  Here’s just a sampling of what’s in the queue:

And this is just a fraction of what’s planned for approval in the next year.  It’s like a tsunami of carbon threatening to be unleashed.


55,000 acres of public lands are slated to be auctioned off for fracking in southern Utah. The prospect of more fossil fuel development portends disaster both for our climate and our public lands.

Of course, with Sally Jewell, the Secretary of the Department of Interior, actively advocating for more fracking (and even dismissing the notion that fracking should be banned or otherwise curtailed), perhaps there’s little chance of a shift.

If that’s the case, the Obama Administration needs to fire Sally Jewell.  After all, she’s the one who said climate denial has no place at the Department of the Interior.


Interior Department: Carbon Costs “Misleading”

In July, the Obama Administration was called out over its utter hypocrisy in curtailing carbon pollution in the U.S.

On the one hand, the Administration says that delaying carbon clean up will cost us billions.  On the other, the U.S. Department of Interior, head by Secretary Sally Jewell, is selling millions of tons of coal in the American West and not only refusing to account for carbon costs, but defending their decisions in spite of the climate impacts.

Thankfully, we’re making some progress in reining in the Department’s unwillingness to share in the responsibility to combat climate change.

Just yesterday, a federal judge overturned a coal leasing decision in Colorado over the agency’s failure to assess the social cost of carbon emissions associated with the leasing.  The order comes on the heels of a June ruling where the court held Interior illegally refused to use the “social cost of carbon” protocol, an interagency method of assessing the cost of carbon emissions, when analyzing the environmental and economic impacts of leasing more coal.  The judge was especially perturbed that the agency touted the supposed economic benefits of more mining while completely downplaying (actually, outright denying) the climate costs, which the court noted could be as high as $1 billion (as the court observed, “in effect the agency prepared half of a cost-benefit analysis”).

Cognitive dissonance doesn’t even begin to explain the disconnect here.  What the Interior Department is doing is completely (and literally) undermining our efforts to combat climate change.  Even as President Obama empowers the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to reduce greenhouse gases, Sally Jewell’s coal decisions are unleashing massive amounts of carbon.

Either President Obama isn’t really serious about curtailing carbon or the Department of Interior is completely out of line.  It doesn’t take a genius to know where the problem lies.

The federal coal leasing program has been called the “elephant in the room” that, unbelievably, has yet to be noticed.  Yet all indications are that Interior is well aware that coal leasing is detrimental to our climate.  What’s worse, everything indicates that they are deliberately turning their backs on the issue, going so far as to continue denying carbon costs.

Case in point, on August 15, the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management approved 15.75 million tons of new coal mining in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming.  Coal is mined for one reason, to be burned, and when burned, this coal stands to unleash 26 million metric tons of carbon pollution (in case there’s any question about the significance of this amount, it equals the annual carbon emissions of 5.4 million cars according to the Environmental Protection Agency’s handy carbon calculator).

So what did the agency have to say about the cost of these carbon emissions?  Complete denial.

In fact, in response to concerns over carbon costs, Interior not only argued that the social cost of carbon protocol is inappropriate for assessing the impacts of coal leasing (an assertion rejected by the federal court in Colorado), but argued that such an analysis would be “unbalanced” and “misleading” (see their decision at bottom of page 2 to page 3).

It gets worse.  For instance, while the Department argued that they are not required to do a cost-benefit analysis, and therefore not obligated to assess carbon costs, they actually did prepare a cost-benefit analysis that again, only touted the purported economic benefits of mining.  In the underlying Environmental Impact Statement for the lease, they estimated hundreds of millions increased revenue and dozens of new jobs (see Environmental Impact Statement at p. 3-160).  In other words, they put together the same “half of a cost benefit analysis” overturned by the federal court in Colorado.

Adding absurdity to the mix, they assert that the social cost of carbon impacts would be “negligible” when compared to the costs of carbon from coal nationwide or globally.  Of course, no actual analysis was completed to support this “negligible” claim and, not surprisingly, they didn’t take such a big picture view when assessing the supposed benefits of more coal mining (after all, using Interior’s logic, wouldn’t the addition of dozens of jobs be “negligible” when compared to all the jobs provided by other industries nationwide or globally?).

To underscore the absurdity, assuming the 26 million metric tons of carbon is produced in 2015, this would lead to costs as low as $260 million and as high as $2.8 billion (for 2015, estimated carbon costs range from $11 per metric ton to $109, depending on the discount rate).  Put another way, Interior is actually claiming that a cost of $2.8 billion is negligible.

Topping it all off, the agency continued to stand by its claim that, “The tools necessary to quantify climatic impacts from projects such as a lease modification are presently unavailable” (see Environmental Assessment at p. 27).  Yet the federal court in Colorado affirmed that there is a tool, the social cost of carbon protocol (see ruling at p. 17).

Why would Interior argue such deceit?  It’s unclear, but the only reason for the agency to describe a social cost of carbon analysis as “unbalanced” and “misleading” is because it would show that the cost of leasing coal isn’t worth it.

Ultimately, the Department of Interior is either one of America’s most dangerous climate deniers or the they’re truly of the mind that they must lease coal at any cost.  Either way, it’s clear that the agency has no intention of stepping up to address the carbon impacts of coal leasing.

To put it bluntly, the U.S. Interior Department isn’t ignoring the elephant in the room, they’re simply trying to hide it.

We’re making progress in cutting carbon, but so long as Sally Jewell and the Department of Interior keep flouting our nation’s commitment to safeguarding the climate, it’s clear we can never fully succeed.


Saving our climate is as easy as keeping carbon underground, something the U.S. Interior Department has yet to embrace.

UPDATE:  On October 6, 2014, WildEarth Guardians filed its statement of reasons challenging the Interior Department’s latest coal leasing plans in the Powder River Basin.  Among other things, the appeal challenges Interior’s completely arbitrary and unsupported assertion that disclosing carbon costs would be misleading.  The statement of reasons calls on the Interior Board of Land Appeals to overturn the decision and compel a rational and accurate analysis of climate impacts.

Recreating our way out of Global Warming?

Although bread and butter conservation groups like the National Wildlife Federation are lauding her outdoor credentials, the idea of Sally Jewell, the current CEO of REI, as the next Secretary of the Interior raises serious questions over whether the Obama Administration has any sense at all about how to confront our nation’s mounting energy and climate crisis.

Don’t get me wrong; the Interior Department manages more than 1/5 of the land in the United States, making the Agency the top provider of outdoor recreation opportunities.  In this regard, Sally Jewell is a stellar candidate when it comes to advancing appreciation and protection of the Interior Department’s outside world.  After all, as CEO of REI (that’s Recreational Equipment, Inc.), she’s shown that outdoor recreation is not only good for the environment, but good for business.

But recreation isn’t all that the Interior Department does.  It’s a sliver of what it does.

In fact, at its heart, the Interior Department is an energy agency.  Overseeing all federally owned coal, oil, and natural gas, Interior is an energy juggernaut, and most of that energy is fossil fuel-based.  Consider that nearly 60% of all coal burned in the U.S. and more than a third of all oil and gas produced in nation comes from federal reserves (and that’s not even taking into account the fact that Interior’s Office of Surface Mining oversees virtually 100% of all coal mining in the nation, and that Interior’s Bureau of Land Management authorizes scads of private and state oil and gas drilling on its lands).

Interior isn’t just a fossil fuel peddler, it’s a fossil fuel overlord, making it one of the most influential and important government agencies when it comes to energy policy in the U.S.

It also makes the Interior Department one of the most important agencies when it comes to confronting the effects of global warming, which is being fueled by greenhouse gas emissions from coal, oil, and gas.  After all, but for Interior’s approval, much of our fossil fuels would not be produced for consumption, making the Agency one of the largest contributors to our nation’s overwhelming greenhouse gas footprint.

Put another way, in the face of global warming and its disastrous effects on our environment and economy, including extreme weather, drought, deforestation, and rising air pollution, the Interior Department is on the most wanted list of those responsible.

Which is why Sally Jewell’s nomination for Interior Secretary is a shock.  Here is an agency that stands to play a critical role in transitioning our nation to clean energy, reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, and meaningfully addressing the threat of global warming.  And what does the President do?  He nominates an outdoor enthusiast who refused to take a stand on climate change for fear of upsetting customers with a “broad array of political views.”

To be fair, the President asserted she is an “expert” on energy and climate issues.  However, the only relevant “expertise” seems to be a stint as an oil company engineer.  Cutting through the rhetoric, it seems apparent that her appointment stems from her support for outdoor recreation initiatives, not any leadership on solving our nations’ climate and energy challenges.

Despite the hullabaloo over the President’s renewed commitment to confronting global warming, his appointment of Sally Jewell as Interior Secretary seems to send the signal that we should expect more business as usual.

That’s disturbing.  Although Interior has made much about its efforts to develop 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy on public lands, its most recent coal leasing decisions alone will fuel more than 300,000 megawatts of fossil fuel energy generation.

To say things are lopsided, as former Interior Secretary, Bruce Babbitt, commented, would be an understatement.

Fundamentally, we can’t continue on a path that is wholly dependent on coal, oil, and natural gas, and expect to have any chance of reversing, or at least stabilizing, the effects of global warming.  This means the Interior Department must make transitioning away from fossil fuels a number one priority.  Given her background and the rhetoric around her nomination, it seems extremely unlikely that priorities will shift at all at Interior if Sally Jewell is confirmed.

With the latest Secretary of Interior nomination, it seems we can expect great conservation initiatives, collaboration with recreational interests, and perhaps greater protection for lands and wildlife in the U.S.  It seems unlikely that with Sally Jewell, we can expect any change when it comes to leading our nation forward on clean energy and in truly confronting the climate crisis.