1995- John Denver - Alaska: A Challenge For Democracy Statement

[Introductory statement:  John Denver worked hard for conservation efforts, followed what happens in Congress to stay informed, and made an effort to inform his fans and colleagues when he noticed matters of concern.  This is such a statement from 1995.  If you follow politics at all these days, you will see correlations that are relevant still today and reasons that we should all stay vigilant so we can sustain our Democracy.]

"Alaska.  Like most people in the lower 48, the mere mention of our 50th state conjures up a myriad of images and contradictions for me.   

• Vast areas of wilderness undisturbed by humans.  
• Grizzly bear, eagle, caribou.  
• The majesty of Denali and the glory of the Yukon.  
• The technological marvel of Prudhoe Bay, Valdez, and the pipeline that connects them.  
• The questions raised by Prince William Sound.  
• The challenge of progress for the Aleut and the Eskimo. 
•  The challenge of restraint for oil companies, the developers, and seemingly, the 104th Congress. 

In the 1970's, I was among those who worked hard and long in support of legislation that would reflect a rising voice of restraint, being heard all across America.  In my television documentary, "Alaska: America's Child," ** (see links below) I expressed my feeling that much of the history of the lower 48 over the preceding 200 years was about to be repeated in Alaska in a much smaller time frame and with disastrous results.  A vast majority of the American people, and a bipartisan majority of both the House and the Senate, seemed to feel a similar concern.  

I experienced one of the most fulfilling days of my life when I stood with President Jimmy Carter, Secretary of the Interior, Cecil Andrus, and conservationist Margaret Murie, as the President signed The Alaska Land Conservation Act into law.  With that signature, 85% of the land that showed the most promise for exploration and development, including all but 125 miles of Alaska shoreline, (which became part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) was made accessible to the oil and gas companies.  the remaining 15% was part of a land so unique, so beautiful, that whatever wealth might lie within it, was deemed somewhat less precious than that which was upon it.  The voice of the American people found harmony with that of the President and the Congress.  The chorus that was raised said we will  put aside this very special part of our heritage, hopefully forever, but at the very least until a greater need, even a national emergency, requires us to extract what is hidden beneath its surface.

As I write these words, Congress has passed budget resolutions in both the U.S. House and the Senate that would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development.  Are we now in the midst of a national emergency based on oil shortage?  Of course not.  Have we drained Prudhoe Bay of its reserves?  No.  In fact, recent improvements in extraction technology have increased the lifetime availability of Prudhoe Bay's reserves to the year 2030.  Have we explored and developed all the other areas that were made accessible by the Alaska Lands Act of 1980?  Again, the answer is no.  

Why then, are the members of the 104th Congress, who call themselves "conservatives", so eager to desecrate these fragile and irreplaceable lands?  Lands that were set aside with such conviction by the American people?  Why are they unwilling to even raise the issue for public debate, hiding these intentions behind the banner of balancing the budget?  These questions and others they raise make me wonder what it means to be "conservative". 

Who does the government represent?  The American people or the special interest groups like the oil companies, the tobacco companies, the National Rifle Association and others who can buy the legislators they want with political action committees and lobbying dollars?  Is this what we created democracy for?  Is this how we want our government to work?  Is this how we want people who work in government to serve us?  I think not.  How then, in a democratic society, can we justify any action to contradict the intent of The Alaska Lands Conservation Act without the knowledge and active participation of the American people?  Are we going to allow ourselves to be victimized by blind convenience and political experience?  Again, I think not, at least, I hope not.

There is still time to make a difference.  Final language to enable Congress to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to development would likely take place either through appropriations bills, such as for the U.S. Department of Interior, or in the 1996 Budget Reconciliation Act.  Strongly encourage your legislators to protect The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and other wilderness areas in the lower 48, like the Red Rocks Wilderness in Utah, from oil and gas development.  Urge President Clinton to continue to oppose any legislation that would open any wilderness - it is not needed and it is not wanted. 

In recent years it has been proven that greater efficiency and conservation can create more energy resources than does development.  This Congress simply doesn't get it.  Yes, we the American people want to balance the budget and get rid of the debt and burden we are leaving to those who will follow.  Yes, we want to act responsibly for the present and for the future.  Yes, we want to create a realistic, exciting and sustainable future, but not at the expense of the environment that sustains us.  Violating one more wild area to put a few more dollars in a few people's pockets is not the way.  Opening one more wild area to unnecessary development is yet another act that perpetuates the waste the American people decry, and it to is not the way.

To be human is to be nourished by the wild country.  To know that there is a place where the eagle flies in freedom, the grizzly walks in majesty, and the caribou runs with the wind across the open tundra, lifts the human spirit.  Let's not let a few people in Congress, out of sight and out of touch with the American people's commitment to keeping some wild places alive, - for ourselves, for all peoples and for the future- take actions that all of us will soon regret." 

-John Denver, 1995 statement

 

**Alaska: America's Child Documentary links to Part 1 and Part 2:

https://youtu.be/hlXs55uzY1s

https://youtu.be/0G7iFzDmP14

1993- On Living Liberty - Windstar Note

 

A few months ago, a wonderful program on public television discussed the Statue of Liberty.

Statue of Liberty

The whole notion of liberty awoke inside of me in new ways. I continue to think about it and want to share some of that exploration with you.

Liberty is more than freedom. It is typically interpreted to mean freedom from constraints, often political constraints. And yet it is much more.

Liberty begins within each of us. It starts with knowing ourselves. To express ourselves, which is a form of liberty, we have to know who we are. With the opportunity to be ourselves, self-expression is a conscious choice.

Most of us spend most of our lives trying to find out who we are, looking for the courage to be the person we imagine. Being who we are is something absolutely connected to Nature, the Earth and the Spirit. In fact, we are a part of Nature itself.

Relaxing in Nature

When I think of this in that way, I reflect on the notion that most of us would never consciously hurt or destroy a part of ourselves. In essence, to hurt or destroy any part of another, including the Earth itself, is to damage ourselves.

The cycle of seasons within the living world is an expression of natural liberty. Life diminishes in autumn and winter, yet that loss of vitality forms the basis for rebirth in spring and summer. It is the birthright of the planet to live in the liberty of natural transformation.

There is a deep longing to be connected with all the parts of ourselves so that we can keep whole and healthy. Yet all around us is frustration, anger, rage and negativity. It is a real part of the world that surrounds us.

Break from fishing in New Zealand

Strangely, it seems, we don’t know ourselves fully enough to remember that we are all one with each other and the earth. If we can begin to sense within ourselves suppression of liberty, perhaps we can be more sensitive and understanding to those we push aside. This includes, for instance, the homeless, unemployed, and in a broader sense, all the refugees of the world, human and otherwise.

I once asked the Dali Lama, “What is the purpose of life?” He said, “to be happy.”

John with the Dali Lama.

I believe that we each have to go through a lot in our lives in order to find the courage to be who we truly want to be. When we finally express that person, we can be truly happy. Being who we are can be the fullest expression of our liberty. To the degree that we deny our liberty, succumbing to constraints, we are neither free to be who we are, nor are we happy.

There is, however, another side to constraints. When they are self-imposed, and are based in our responsibility to the larger community of which we are a part, this is not denial of our liberty. This protects and helps ensure liberty. The difference has to do with conscious choice. 

When we make conscious choices, we are honoring our response ability. Whereas many constraints outside ourselves are theoretically a reflection of choices we each would make individually (laws and social norms), they tend to lose their inherent power when we defer responsibility for them. Too many people say, “We have to; it’s the law.” Or worse, some ignore the law. In fact, to the extent that we externalize responsibility for making conscious choices, we are again denying our liberty.

The incredible abuses of humanity and the Earth itself are reflections of hollowness. Because we allow these abuses, we are, in essence, abusing ourselves.

The first step toward liberty’s light is to recognize our responsibility. It goes back to finding out who we are. To express ourselves as loving, generous, valuable, knowledgeable and purposeful requires that we not only see abuse but respond to correct it. It is a willful act to not acknowledge an abuse.

I believe this ‘blindness’ is actually a conscious act borne out of the fear of what could happen if we do, in fact, see and react to the abuses all around us.

We are denying ourselves in the most grievous ways when we do see and do not respond. We are denying our response ability.

In contrast, when we do see and do act, we are acting for the whole world, for everyone, and for the future. In the words of a traditional song, “It’s in every one of us to be free.”

-John Denver

Windstar Vision, September-October 1993