The Lie at the Birth of the Environmental Movement

 

The environmental movement is frequently charged by those on the political right as being a front for advancing an agenda unknown to the eco-movement’s rank-and-file membership. That the true goals of the leadership of the movement are separate and distinct from those of the grassroots members. A new documentary film accidentally shows that it has been like that from its inception in the late 1950s and early 1960s and exposes the lie at the birth of environmentalism.

Saving The Great Swamp: Battle to Defeat the Jetport is a new one-hour documentary about the events, people and politics behind the struggle to preserve a rural area of New Jersey between 1959 and 1968. The fight began when the powerful Port of New York Authority announced plans to construct a huge 10,000-acre “jetport” 26 miles west of New York City in a little-known place called the Great Swamp. In the name of progress, entire towns would be obliterated, the aquifer and wildlife destroyed, and a way-of-life threatened for thousands of people.

That is from the film’s website. I had the opportunity to watch it last night. They portray it as a David vs. Goliath tale but they gloss over the real story. One of the towns threatened by the Port Authority’s proposed Jetport was Harding Township, NJ, home to very old, very white-shoe money and multi-million dollar estates. Forget about Meyersville, Green Village, Long Hill, and the rest. The middle-class residents of those small towns counted for little. Harding Township mattered. The film shows how the monied elite in gated estates created the environmental movement for their own ends. To quote one of them — Chairman of the Board of Remington Arms Marcellus Hartley Dodge Sr. — “They want to put an airport in my backyard. We have to find a way to stop them.”

At the dawn of the jet age, it was anticipated that the existing airports in the NYC area — Newark, LaGuardia, and Idlewild (now JFK) would be unable to handle the new larger, faster, and heavier jets. The powerful Port Authority of NY and NJ wanted to build a fourth major airport in the region with four 12,000-foot runways and state-of-the-art facilities to cope with the new technology and increased traffic. The “Jetport.” They chose an area 26 miles west of the city in rural NJ. An area with the unappealing name of The Great Swamp.

The proposed site sat cheek by jowl with Harding Township. The Port Authority had ample powers and, under eminent domain, could take the land they wanted. Even the phalanx of lawyers deployed by the Harding estates were powerless to stop it. The attorneys did discover that the only group the Port Authority couldn’t take land and property from under eminent domain was the Federal Government.

If only there was a way to get the Federal Government to preempt the Port Authority by claiming the land. But why on earth would the Feds want The Great Swamp? Thus was born the wetland, the pristine aquifer, and the “grassroots” movement to protect them. The fight to keep the “Jetport” out of Hartley-Dodge’s backyard morphed itself into a fight to “save The Great Swamp.”

The residents of Meyersville and Green Village were early adopters of the new environmentalism. Whatever. They didn’t want the Jetport either. And if it looked like environmentalism could stop it … they were on board. Under this emblem, groups were formed. Rallies were held. Money was raised. Congress was lobbied. All in the name of securing wildlife habitat. Along with a bankroll provided by Hartley-Dodge and other Harding residents, land in the Great Swamp was acquired. And when 1,000 acres were in hand, they were quietly donated to the Department of the Interior.

In November 1960, by an act of Congress, the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge was established on that land. Because this result was still challenged by the Port Authority, the eco-push continued, culminating in The Great Swamp Wilderness Act of 1968 which established the first “wilderness area” designated within the Department of the Interior.

Wilderness. 26 miles outside of NYC. An area with roads and houses and farms. Not what you’d think of as “Wilderness.” But there it is.

Don’t get me wrong. I live not far away. I’m a beneficiary too. But it’s interesting and illuminating to see how it was done. And why. And to discover the most important environments being protected were the manicured estates of the monied elite.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 7 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Ekosj: But it’s interesting and illuminating to see how it was done. And why. And to discover the most important environments being protected were the manicured estates of the monied elite.

    Yep.

    • #1
  2. Ralphie Inactive
    Ralphie
    @Ralphie

    I think it still goes on today.  NIMBY. The Kennedy’s didn’t want to look at windmills either.

    • #2
  3. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

     

    The OP is right–it’s not the environment generally that these groups and government agencies are trying to protect. It’s my environment against yours, and whoever has the most money wins the game.

    • #3
  4. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    I’d make a big and I think important distinction between the pre seventies conservation movement and the post 70s environmental movement.  Of course the people who can influence government the most are always big money, big business and organized interests.  But something quite different took place after the major conservation battles had already been won.  The clean water, clean air, the wilderness bill and the land conservation fund were products of the fifties and early sixties.  Those battles were won by fishermen, hunters, wilderness buffs, outdoorsmen who were fighting against the Army Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation of interior and big regulated energy.  They were Democrats but everyone was then, but they were also “democrats” people who defended the rivers and forests against big government because they were good for people, enriched life. But coming out of their efforts were the  Bureau of Outdoor recreation, the EPA and a modern environmental movement not of outdoor buffs, but of urban organized true believers who  discovered the power of the issue to raise money but the important battles, like the civil rights leaders who had to dig down to find new victims, had been won by people who weren’t powerful or wealthy.  These new self serving environmental groups were eventually captured by the far left and became a tool to weaken the market system and promote centralization.   Eventually the successful movement against big government  whose purpose was to enrich human life, became an anti human movement were men were not the object of the enterprise but the problem.  That’s very different than influential people protecting their property values and playgrounds.

    • #4
  5. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    The Silent Springboard?

    • #5
  6. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    “Hell hath no fury like a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle.” – Unknown 

    • #6
  7. Ekosj Member
    Ekosj
    @Ekosj

    I Walton (View Comment):

    I’d make a big and I think important distinction between the pre seventies conservation movement and the post 70s environmental movement. Of course the people who can influence government the most are always big money, big business and organized interests. But something quite different took place after the major conservation battles had already been won. The clean water, clean air, the wilderness bill and the land conservation fund were products of the fifties and early sixties. Those battles were won by fishermen, hunters, wilderness buffs, outdoorsmen who were fighting against the Army Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation of interior and big regulated energy. They were Democrats but everyone was then, but they were also “democrats” people who defended the rivers and forests against big government because they were good for people, enriched life. But coming out of their efforts were the Bureau of Outdoor recreation, the EPA and a modern environmental movement not of outdoor buffs, but of urban organized true believers who discovered the power of the issue to raise money but the important battles, like the civil rights leaders who had to dig down to find new victims, had been won by people who weren’t powerful or wealthy. These new self serving environmental groups were eventually captured by the far left and became a tool to weaken the market system and promote centralization. Eventually the successful movement against big government whose purpose was to enrich human life, became an anti human movement were men were not the object of the enterprise but the problem. That’s very different than influential people protecting their property values and playgrounds.

    I had thought that too …  That things changed in the environmental movement in the 70’s.    What became clear in this documentary was that as far back as the late 1950’s the movement had already been dragooned into the service of others’ interests.     The lovers of open spaces and wildlife who strove together to ‘save the Great Swamp’ did so because they loved wildlife and open spaces.    But their forces had been marshalled and bankrolled  by Richie Rich, not to save the Great Swamp but rather to save Richie’s croquet court.

    • #7
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.