When it Comes to Global Warming; 
the American Recreation Coalition is a 
Red Hot Player .

While the rest of the world is beginning to accept Global Warming as an issue that must be faced head on, there are many who, for one reason or another, disagree. In fact, there are an increasing number of industry financed organizations who are very actively campaigning to preserve the status quo; organizations whose only interest is to make certain that their profits or special interests are not adversely impacted by any measures that might be taken in order to avert a possible major crisis.

It might be surprising to learn that the corporate-sponsored, pro-wise use, group currently orchestrating efforts to privatize, commercialize and motorize America's public lands, is also the force behind several of these Global Warming detractors.

In the following Muckraker Special, Wild Wilderness shall provide quotes from several industrial sources and organizations. With the exception of one short statement by Energy Secretary Pena, every direct quote can be attributed to either the American Recreation Coalition (ARC), to an ARC member organization, or to a anti-environmental organization upon which ARC President Derrick Crandall is a Member of the Board, or in the which ARC is otherwise intimately involved.

In addition to these sources, the reader is also invited to check out another ARC backed organization, the Foundation For Clean Air Progress. FCAP is conducting a campaign designed to convince the public that we can now relax the standards set by the Clean Air Act, because America has already solved its air pollution problems. FCAP is operated from the offices of the public relations firm, Burson-Marsteller, and is a much more subtle effort than any of the the others referenced in this article. Because it is the most subtle of these efforts, it is very possibly the most dangerous.

Let's start with some quotes taken from the webpage of the Global Climate Information Project. Credits are given to the organizations offering these comments.

American Recreation Coalition
Recreation often requires durable vehicles with rugged frames, strong suspension, ample cargo space, higher ground clearance, engines with ample torque, good towing capabilities and off-road capabilities. If the trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles so vital to America's recreation community today lose these unique features, as could be the case if mandatory greenhouse gas emissions controls resulted in markedly higher vehicle fuel economy standards, the opportunities and quality of experience for American recreationists would be sorely degraded.

National Marine Manufacturers Association   (an ARC sustaining member)
Mandatory emissions controls on carbon dioxide emissions would mean higher motor vehicle fuel economy standards for U.S. vehicles. Higher Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards would mean smaller, lighter cars and trucks that would be unable to pull most boats and trailers. This would produce disastrous and unintended consequences for boat builders, trailer manufacturers and thousands of small boat dealers.

Recreation Vehicle Industries Association   (An ARC sustaining member)
Our members are concerned about mandatory greenhouse gas emissions controls that would raise the price of gasoline and force Americans into smaller lighter vehicles and restrict their ability to enjoy the great outdoors. U.S. negotiators should refuse to sign onto a treaty that requires compulsory reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.

National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds   (An ARC sustaining member)
The National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds, representing 3,300 facilities in the United States, believes that there is not enough evidence, at this time, that global climate change is occurring to the extent that it would have catastrophic consequences. We oppose any international treaty that would force the U.S. to act prematurely in regards to global climate change.

Now, let's look at quotes from an entirely different source: The Coalition For Vehicle Choice. ARC is an active supporter of this group and Derrick Crandall just happens to be a Board Member.

The fact that the following set of quotes is from the very same individual member organizations quoted above, is not co-incidence. Only the name of the umbrella coalition, and the flavor of its message, has been changed. The players are always drawn from the same limited pool of organizations. By repeating the same message using different styles and in different venues, ARC hopes to multiply its chances of finding at least one appeal that each citizen can accept.

The supposed benefits of a drastic CAFE increase clearly don't weigh evenly with the burdens the measure would place on consumers, especially those who, like outdoor enthusiasts, rely on full-size vehicles.

David Gorin, Exec. V.P. -- National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds

Recreation Vehicle Industry Association is very concerned that if fuel economy standards for light trucks are increased, consumers will not be able to purchase or afford to purchase tow vehicles capable of safely towing travel and camping trailers. This would be a problem of enormous magnitude for the RV industry because it would substantially reduce the sales of new RVs...

David J. Humphreys, President -- Recreation Vehicle Industry Association

Millions of Americans who enjoy our outdoor recreation depend on the room, power, safety and durability of light trucks to tow boats, camping trailers, horses and more. And to transport families with their skis, fishing equipment or camping gear. You just can't have it both ways -- significantly higher fuel economy standards means smaller, less powerful, less useful vans and sport utility vehicles.

Derrick Crandall, President -- American Recreation Coalition

And let's turn to yet another source; this time the website of the American Petroleum Institute (API). Chervon and Exxon are both members of API, and all three organizations are (individually) members of the American Recreation Coalition. The quote is verbatim.

Potential global warming doesn't require reducing oil consumption. Government and industry are taking action to address concerns about global climate change. But current and future efforts need to consider the scientific uncertainties surrounding the issue. According to the prestigious Marshall Institute, "no scientific justification now exists for economically punishing policies aimed at global reductions in the emission of carbon dioxide."

Currently, no definitive scientific evidence exists that increased greenhouse emissions are significantly affecting sea levels, rainfall, surface temperatures or the intensity and frequency of storms. And predictions of future warming are highly unreliable because they're based on oversimplified computer modeling, which doesn't incorporate complex factors potentially affecting warming, such as clouds, water vapor, ocean currents and the transfer of heat from air to water.

And finally I'd like to quote from an article that recently appeared in the Washington Post (11/?/97; by Hamilton and Chandler).

Clinton administration officials are counting heavily on technologies to keep the economic costs of reducing emissions to a minimum. The president has proposed spending $5 billion on tax incentives and direct investment to encourage research and development of new technology.

'Our goal is to have it both ways,' said Energy Secretary Federico Pena, who said the government wants to save energy and control emissions without making consumers give up luxuries such as four-wheel-drive sport-utility vehicles.

So, Derrick Crandall apparently had it wrong when he said, "you can't have it both ways." In American politics today, with enough money and sufficient clout, it appears that one can do virtually anything. Anything, except develop a long range strategy that realistically addresses the most important issues facing our nation, and all of humanity.

Now that Global Warming has been officially declared the enemy, the United States government will unquestionably rally behind the goal of developing Technological Solutions with which to beat this new threat into submission. Through the miracle of technology you and I will be spared the need to try and live more lightly upon this planet or to curtail our compulsive consumptive behaviour.

We may, however, need to accept the fact that with all the tax monies being fed into the multinational corporations leading the battle again global warming, there just won't be as much money available for other programs: social programs, education, the environment and that sort of thing. But, in times of war, we must be willing to accept these deprivations. And Global Warming will be the new war banner behind which we all can rally.

As we enter the 21st Century it becomes increasingly difficult to find credible reasons to maintain the Industrial Military Complex upon which hundreds of American corporations have depended for their prosperity. So, in the waning days of this century we are witnessing the creation of the replacement for that venerable, WWII institution. With every passing month we will see new examples of federal subsidies being thrown at finding 'Technological Fixes' for our numerous environmental problems. Those problems of our own creation.

While technological fixes may slow down the escalation of Global Warming, or food shortages, or air pollution, or those other maladies that threaten the sustainability of the human race, technological fixes, on their own will never solve the problem.

One of these days, we will have no option except to learn to live and act responsibly in a world of finite resources. Unfortunately, with such powerful and totally selfish organizations as ARC leading our 'so called' leaders, it will be a long time before we even take the necessary first steps toward achieving a sustainable society.

On the other hand, maybe ARC is right. Maybe Crandall and his buddies have already figured out that we, the American people, will never make the adjustments necessary to exist sustainably in a world constrained by physical limits. Maybe, one day, there simply won't be a tomorrow. And if that day comes, might we not conceed that those with the most toys, truly won? 

This document was prepared by Wild Wilderness as a "Lead for Exploration". To learn more about ongoing industry-backed congressional efforts to motorize, commercialize, and privatize America's public lands, contact:

Scott Silver, Executive Director,
Wild Wilderness
248 NW Wilmington Avenue,  Bend  OR 97701
Phone (541) 385-5261    E-mail: ssilver@wildwilderness.org