-
-
America's Endangered Species Under Attack
The Bush administration is proposing new rules that would weaken species protections and eliminate independent scientific review of development projects that could threaten species habit.
The changes ("tweaks") that the President Bush and the Bush Administration are proposing would weaken Section 7 of the landmark Endangered Species Act.
For more than three decades, this key provision of the ESA has safeguarded imperiled species from the impacts of potentially harmful federal projects.
Key to the success of this provision has been the requirement for interagency consultation between "action agencies" that build dams or highways, issue oil and gas leases or timber cutting contracts, etc., and the "conservation agencies" that have the primary responsibility for protecting endangered species (the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service).
The conservation agencies have always had the opportunity and responsibility to take a second look at the projects proposed by the action agencies. As a result of taking that independent look, the conservation agencies have often been able to suggest project modifications that avoid harmful impacts to rare species.
The proposed regulatory changes would eliminate the requirement for an independent review by the conservation agencies. The result will almost certainly mean that both harmful impacts on rare wildlife, and opportunities to avoid those impacts, will be overlooked.
Conservation is not the mission of federal action agencies like the Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Highway Administration, and others. To make sure that their projects (and the projects of many other federal agencies as well) do not cause needless harm to rare species, the existing requirement for independent review by federal conservation agencies should not be abandoned.
Please follow the link for the petition to President Bush. If these regulatory changes are made, it will be as if the Endangered Species Act does not exist... not to mention the horrific impact on the environment.
PLEASE TAKE ACTION!
http://action.edf.org/campaign/esa_action
I will be posting more news release on this issue. The Bush administration is proposing new rules that would weaken species protections and eliminate independent scientific review of de... more -
Hundreds of Species Endangered by Bush Administration Proposal
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: We partner with businesses, governments and communities to find practical environmental solutions.
Hundreds of Species Endangered by Bush Administration Proposal
Conservation Group Assails Broad Consequences of So-Called "Narrow Changes" to Endangered Species Act
(Washington, DC; August 12, 2008) A proposal by the Bush Administration that would allow federal agencies to decide for themselves whether highways, dams, mines and other construction projects would harm endangered animals and plants would seriously weaken protection for rare wildlife, according to a leading conservation group. According to a draft of the proposed new regulations obtained by the Associated Press, the regulations would allow many federal projects to bypass the mandatory, independent reviews that independent scientists have been performing for 35 years. The proposed changes do not require approval by Congress.
This disastrous proposal makes about as much sense as eliminating homeland security at airports; said Michael J. Bean, an attorney who is chairman of the wildlife program at Environmental Defense Fund and the lead author of The Evolution of National Wildlife Law; (Praeger, 1997), a comprehensive analysis of federal wildlife conservation law. Sure, it would make air travel more convenient, but it would put passengers at greater risk, just as this proposal would put wildlife at greater risk.
The very agencies that have often resisted efforts to adjust their projects to accommodate the needs of rare wildlife would now be put in charge of deciding whether any adjustment is needed concluded Bean. Although the Bush administration claims its proposal would make only narrow changes to existing regulations, these unprecedented changes would have broad consequences, imperiling hundreds of endangered species nationwide
Contact:
Sean Crowley, (202) 572-3331-w, scrowley@edf.org
Michael Bean, (202) 572-3312-w, mbean@edf.org
http://www.edf.org/pressrelease.cfm?contentID=8214 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: We partner with businesses, governments and communities to find practical environmental solutions. ... more -
Dead Baby Penguins Wash Ashore by the Hundreds
July 18, 2008 -- Hundreds of baby penguins swept from the icy shores of Antarctica and Patagonia are washing up dead on Rio de Janeiro's tropical beaches, rescuers and penguin experts said Friday.
More than 400 penguins, most of them young, have been found dead on the beaches of Rio de Janeiro state over the past two months, according to Eduardo Pimenta, superintendent for the state coastal protection and environment agency in the resort city of Cabo Frio.
While it is common here to find some penguins -- both dead and alive -- swept by strong ocean currents from the Strait of Magellan, Pimenta said there have been more this year than at any time in recent memory.
Rescuers and those who treat penguins are divided over the possible causes.
Thiago Muniz, a veterinarian at the Niteroi Zoo, said he believed overfishing has forced the penguins to swim further from shore to find fish to eat "and that leaves them more vulnerable to getting caught up in the strong ocean currents."
Niteroi, the state's biggest zoo, already has already received about 100 penguins for treatment this year and many are drenched in petroleum, Muniz said. The Campos oil field that supplies most of Brazil's oil lies offshore.
Muniz said he hadn't seen penguins suffering from the effects of other pollutants, but he pointed out that already dead penguins aren't brought in for treatment.
Pimenta suggested pollution is to blame.
For the rest of this story:
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/07/18/dead-baby-peng... July 18, 2008 -- Hundreds of baby penguins swept from the icy shores of Antarctica and Patagonia are washing up dead on Rio de Janeiro... more -
EPA knocks $900,000 off value of a life
WASHINGTON - It's not just the American dollar that's losing value. A government agency has decided that an American life isn't worth what it used to be.
Each American is now valued at $6.9 million by the EPA in figuring out the costs/benefits of certain rulemaking — that's nearly $1 million less than five years ago.
The "value of a statistical life" is $6.9 million in today's dollars, the Environmental Protection Agency reckoned in May — a drop of nearly $1 million from just five years ago.
The Associated Press discovered the change after a review of cost-benefit analyses over more than a dozen years.
Though it may seem like a harmless bureaucratic recalculation, the devaluation has real consequences.
When drawing up regulations, government agencies put a value on human life and then weigh the costs versus the lifesaving benefits of a proposed rule. The less a life is worth to the government, the less the need for a regulation, such as tighter restrictions on pollution.
Consider, for example, a hypothetical regulation that costs $18 billion to enforce but will prevent 2,500 deaths. At $7.8 million per person (the old figure), the lifesaving benefits outweigh the costs. But at $6.9 million per person, the rule costs more than the lives it saves, so it may not be adopted.
Some environmentalists accuse the Bush administration of changing the value to avoid tougher rules — a charge the EPA denies.
"It appears that they're cooking the books in regards to the value of life," said S. William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which represents state and local air pollution regulators. "Those decisions are literally a matter of life and death." WASHINGTON - It's not just the American dollar that's losing value. A government agency has decided that an American life is... more -
Climate Change Testimony Cover-up
Cheney’s Office Sought to Change Climate Testimony
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Seeking to play down the effects of global warming, Vice President Dick Cheney's office pushed to delete from congressional testimony references about the consequences of climate change on public health, a former senior EPA official claimed Tuesday.
The official, Jason K. Burnett, said the White House was concerned that the proposed testimony last October by the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention might make it tougher to avoid regulating greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere.
Burnett's assertion, which he made in a July 6 letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, conflicts with the White House explanation at the time that the deletions reflected concerns by the White House Office of Science and Technology over the accuracy of the science.
Boxer, in a news conference on Tuesday, went so far as to say White House press secretary Dana Perino had lied about why the White House had pushed for the deletions. That, in turn, prompted Perino to demand an apology from Boxer.
''I have never said such a thing about a fellow public servant, and I wouldn't if I didn't have all the facts,'' Perino said from Japan, where President Bush is attending a meeting of world economic leaders. ''I think I deserve an apology.''
Burnett, until last month a senior adviser on climate change at the Environmental Protection Agency, wrote that Cheney's office was deeply involved in getting nearly half of the CDC's original draft testimony removed.
''The Council on Environmental Quality and the office of the vice president were seeking deletions to the CDC testimony (concerning) ... any discussions of the human health consequences of climate change,''... Cheney’s Office Sought to Change Climate Testimony ... more -
Irreplaceable Wildlife
Don't Let Global Warming Take Out Our Irreplaceable Wildlife
The Petition Site
Target: U.S. Congress
Sponsored by: Earthjustice
The polar bear - an icon of a rapidly disappearing Arctic - has just been listed as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act. While this is a symbolic step, we need to do much more to protect the polar bear from global warming, which is threatening wildlife not just in the Arctic, but across the world.
The polar bear currently faces great challenges, such as oil and gas development in its rapidly melting habitat. The recent listing, for example, includes a loophole that enables energy exploration to continue in the Arctic despite its obvious threat to the bear's survival.
The action is part of Irreplaceable - a unique campaign that brings together groups from the worlds of art, justice, science and faith. These groups show that people from all walks of life are uniting to protect wildlife such as gray whales, grizzly bears and whooping cranes from global warming.
You can help by telling Congress to save the polar bear and other wildlife threatened by global warming. Please sign the Call to Care today! Don't Let Global Warming Take Out Our Irreplaceable Wildlife The Petition Site Target: U.S. Congress ... more -
Reid: Coal & oil are making us sick
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Reid: Coal & Oil are Making Us Sick
Senate majority leader points out that solar energy is only considered three times as expensive as coal because no one factors in all the hidden costs of coal & other hydrocarbons.
"And imagine, they are fighting major wars and planning more wars in order to get more of the poison out of the ground!
I wouldn't sink a lot of money into that beach front home if I were you.
And news that seems as though it is out of science fiction flashes on our television screens. No ice in the arctic!" Tuesday, July 01, 2008 Reid: Coal & Oil are Making Us Sick ... more -
Companies begin quest for oil, gas off Florida
"Oil companies once viewed drilling in the deep waters off Florida as cost prohibitive. Politicians feared even the slightest sign of support would be career suicide.
No more. Record crude oil prices are fueling support for oil and natural gas exploration off the nation’s shores. In Florida, movement was underway even before President Bush called on Congress last month to lift a federal moratorium that’s barred new offshore drilling since 1981.
The early activity here stems from a 2006 Congressional compromise that allows drilling on 8.3 million acres more than 125 miles off the Panhandle - an area that had been covered by the moratorium, which was enacted out of environmental concerns. In exchange, the state got a no-drilling buffer along the rest of its beaches.
Florida may turn out to be a prelude for other coastal states. If oil or natural gas deposits are found in the newly opened region, experts say it could further the push to explore other once-protected areas everywhere. It also could be a rallying point for critics, who say the new exploration isn’t a license to expand exploration.
With gas topping $4 a gallon, recent polls show Americans, Floridians included, more supportive of drilling in protected areas. Some politicians - including Gov. Charlie Crist - have switched sides.
“We think the public is way out ahead of the politicians on these issues. People are more open to (offshore drilling) now,” said Tom Moskitis, spokesman for the American Gas Association, a trade group.
At the same time, oil companies, driven by the record energy price, are more willing to risk $100 million or more to begin exploring new regions. The Interior Department estimates there could be 18 billion barrels of oil and 77 trillion cubic feet of natural gas beneath the 574 million acres of federal coastal waters that are now off-limits.
In March, four companies - Australia-based BHP Billiton Petroleum Deepwater Inc., Houston-based Anadarko E&P Co., Shell Offshore Inc. and Italian oil and natural gas company Eni SpA - purchased leases on 36 Gulf of Mexico tracts under the 2006 compromise.
But finding and producing natural gas in the new site will be expensive. Three-dimensional mapping of the ocean floor, which must happen before any drilling, could take up to two years, Strive said. If a promising site is found, engineers must drill up to three miles below the ocean surface to extract the oil or natural gas.
And it will take years before the company begins producing anything at the site - and there is no guarantee of success. A company can have as much as $4 billion invested and a wait of up to five years before seeing any return on the investment, Strive said.
“We typically will have $100 to $200 million invested in a project before we know if it is an economic venture or not,” he said. “Then, if you know you have made an economic discovery, you spend a billion dollars or more on a facility.”
The 1981 moratorium - enacted out of environmental concerns in response to a massive oil spill off the Santa Barbara coast a decade earlier - has prevented the Interior Department from spending money on offshore oil or gas leases in virtually all coastal waters outside the western Gulf of Mexico and in some areas off Alaska.
U.S. Sen. John McCain supports lifting the ban and allowing states to decide whether to approve drilling of their shores. Crist, Florida’s Republican governor and a possible vice presidential candidate, reversed his long-standing opposition to lifting the ban last month.
U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, who has led opposition to offshore drilling among the state’s Congressional delegation, criticized the governor for reversing his position, accusing Crist and McCain of putting oil company profits before protecting the state’s $65 billion annual tourism industry." "Oil companies once viewed drilling in the deep waters off Florida as cost prohibitive. Politicians feared even the slightest sig... more -
Disappearing Forests of the Southeast
Housing Sprawl in the Southeast - Our Vanishing Wild Places
Our window of opportunity to preserve much of what is left of our great Eastern Forests closes more with each new housing development in our forests. The interactive graphics below demonstrate the land that has been lost to housing sprawl and how much more will be lost if current practices fail to change.
We have a chance to preserve for future generations much of what is left of our great Eastern Forests—and there is a lot worth saving. But the time to do so narrows with each new housing development in our forests, so we must all work together now to save our most important lands. TWS is working to establish more Wilderness areas in the east; to increase federal and state funding to purchase priority lands or development rights from willing sellers; to prevent road building & commercial logging in Forest Service roadless areas; and to create a broad understanding of how protecting forests helps to combat climate change.
* The data for these maps were produced by R.B. Hammer and V.C. Radeloff at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, with funding from the USDA Forest Service North Central Research Station.
{ http://www.wilderness.org/OurIssues/EasternForests/Spra... } Housing Sprawl in the Southeast - Our Vanishing Wild Places ... more
-
related topics
global-warming
Contributors (14)
global-warming
