Endangering the endangered
His White House tenure may be ebbing, but President Bush couldn't resist taking one final jab at environmental protections he has long bristled against.
Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne wants to tweak the Endangered Species Act, the federal law that stands between many animals and total annhilation. The White House proposed "common-sense modifications" would basically free federal agencies of longstanding oversight procedures when they take actions that might harm endangered species.
Under existing ESA regulations, agencies must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to provide scientific review and oversight of wildlife protection measures. The Interior Department argues that eliminating this layer of review would "reduce the number of unnecessary consultations" and would result in "a process that is less time-consuming and a more effective use of our resources.”
From an ecological standpoint, when it comes to protecting species on the verge of being wiped off the face of the planet, you might wonder what would be a more effective use of public resources besides ensuring that the soundest technology and science are employed in the effort. Well, one thing the administration seems to spend a lot of time and resources on these days is preventing government from taking decisive action to stem climate change.
Conveniently, the proposed changes extinguish two birds with one stone, as they would "help avoid misuse of the ESA to regulate climate change." The administration says the government has no business trying to stem climate change to protect endangered species, "because it is not possible to link the emissions to impacts on specific listed species such as polar bears."
Some wildlife closer to home could also be impacted by the proposed revisions. The Long Island and New York field offices of the Fish and Wildlife Service are responsible for aiding recovery and conservation efforts for critical local species.
Environmentalists are disgusted but hardly surprised to hear that the White House is using the ESA in a proxy war over climate change regulation.
Just last year, environmentalists unearthed a White House scheme to limit the scope of the ESA by stripping down the Fish and Wildlife Service's powers to guard crucial species and habitats.
And the idea of trusting government agencies to police themselves has become a defining hallmark of the administration's management style.
Andrew Wetzler of the Natural Resources Defense Counsel writes on the organiztion's blog, Switchboard:
"The insidiousness of self-consultation is especially plain once you consider that many federal agencies are deeply committed to either certain kinds of projects (the Bureau of Reclamation likes to build dams; the Department of Transportation likes highways) or are entirely sympathetic to particular industries (the Office of Surface Mining, for example). It’s a cliche, but today’s proposal is as clear a case of letting the fox guard the henhouse as you’re ever likely to see."
Jeremy Jacquot of Treehugger says the proposal is a cleverly timed parting shot :
"The administration plans on rushing these regulations through by leaving open only a 30-day public comment period, after which it would finalize the changes and implement them -- right before the November election. Stopping or reversing the changes would take several months, or even longer, giving developers precious time to work around current restrictions."
The legacy of Bush's environmental agenda will drag far into the next administration. Unfortunately for polar bears, the brink of extinction isn't timed to correspond to the election cycle.
E-mail
Facebook
Digg
Delicious
Comments (3)
Have you lost your mind? What does your mention of a "proxy war" have to do with the Christian Science Monitor story? Your heart seems to be in the right place, but it's hard to tell from your writing.
Isnt the world a better place without saber tooth cats? Are you going to blame Bush for the extinction of the mammoth too?
Forcing the designation of the polar bear as an endangered species, based upon a possibilty that they might possibly, maybe, perhaps, be harmed by future warming, if it happens, makes these changes necessary.
Abusing the purpose of the act to force through a specific policy agenda has rendered the act useless.
This administration does not have a lot to be proud of, but on this one, they are doing what is necessary to keep the act from being hijacked by polictial correctness.