Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Government United States Science

US Significantly Weakens Endangered Species Act (nytimes.com) 146

Posted by msmash from the breaking-news dept.
The Trump administration on Monday announced that it would change the way the Endangered Species Act is applied, significantly weakening the nation's bedrock conservation law credited with rescuing the bald eagle [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source], the grizzly bear and the American alligator from extinction. From a report: The changes will make it harder to consider the effects of climate change on wildlife when deciding whether a given species warrants protection. They would most likely shrink critical habitats and, for the first time, would allow economic assessments to be conducted when making determinations. The rules also make it easier to remove a species from the endangered species list and weaken protections for threatened species, a designation that means they are at risk of becoming endangered. Overall, the new rules would very likely clear the way for new mining, oil and gas drilling, and development in areas where protected species live.

Interior Secretary David Bernhardt said the changes would modernize the Endangered Species Act and increase transparency in its application. "The act's effectiveness rests on clear, consistent and efficient implementation," he said in a statement Monday. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said in a statement the revisions "fit squarely within the president's mandate of easing the regulatory burden on the American public, without sacrificing our species' protection and recovery goals." The new rules are expected to appear in the Federal Register this week and will go into effect 30 days after that.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Significantly Weakens Endangered Species Act More

US Significantly Weakens Endangered Species Act

Comments Filter:

  • This is what people voted for (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Monday August 12, 2019 @04:12PM (#59080182)
    if you wanted less regulation then, well, you got it.

    • Re: This is what people voted for (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BytePusher ( 209961 ) on Monday August 12, 2019 @04:30PM (#59080236) Homepage
      No, what they want is to turn the entire country into a parking lot and strip malls... The world does not have enough Chiliâ(TM)s and Outback Steakhouses.
      • Oh, I get it!
        They read Asimov's Foundation series and thought Trantor was a good idea......

        (I don't need to post a link do I? We still read the classics here don't we?)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by geekoid ( 135745 )

      Almost a majority of voters voted for that . . .

    • Re:This is what people voted for (Score:5, Insightful)

      by OzPeter ( 195038 ) on Monday August 12, 2019 @05:37PM (#59080502)

      if you wanted less regulation then, well, you got it.

      I've always tried to argue that when people say they want less regulation, what they really mean that they want to get rid of some particular, specific regulation that they have a grievance with. Because they're not happy when you ask them "So, can we get rid the regulation that keeps lead lead out of paint? Or how about those protections that keep nasty chemicals out of your food. etc etc"

    • Not all "small gov't conservatives" aren't conservationists but fuck it; let's keep generalizing.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by blindseer ( 891256 )

      if you wanted less regulation then, well, you got it.

      Yes, I do want less regulation. This is different than no regulation.

      Let's consider regulation outside of any context of law, the regulation of temperature in a home. I might set my thermostat to 74F but that doesn't mean I need it at exactly 74F. Too much regulation means my thermostat is set to run the furnace in the early morning because it was a cool summer night and the house got below 71F. Less regulation means allowing for these temperature drops knowing that the sun will only warm it up again a

      • Re:This is what people voted for (Score:5, Insightful)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2019 @05:49AM (#59081910) Homepage Journal

        It does mean taking a look at how we are spending our funds

        That's how politicians sell this bullshit to you. "We are just being fiscally responsible with YOUR tax money!" while gutting the environmental agencies who make these determinations, and banning them from using actual science.

        It says so right in the summary. They are making it harder to consider the effects of climate change. They don't believe in climate change because it eats into their profits and won't really affect them. All they needed was a way to sell it to you, the guy who will be underwater, and you swallowed it.

  • The dog whistle here ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CaptainDork ( 3678879 ) on Monday August 12, 2019 @04:13PM (#59080186)

    ... is not lost on the value of endangered humans as well.

    As goes the bald eagle, so do we.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by bluefoxlucid ( 723572 )

      Trump hates eagles, anyway. One attacked him.

    • The bald eagle was rescued without any "climate change" justification needed, or even the Endangered Species Act - it was two other, purpose-built acts [fws.gov] that saved it. In fact, there's really no evidence that ANY consideration of climate change, in conjunction with the ESA, has saved any animals.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Layzej ( 1976930 )

        there's really no evidence that ANY consideration of climate change, in conjunction with the ESA, has saved any animals.

        Clearly no one has used science as a cudgel to save a species. Then why block officials from considering all available evidence?

  • Doublespeak (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cpurdy ( 4838085 ) on Monday August 12, 2019 @04:34PM (#59080246)

    "easing the regulatory burden on the American public"

    ... because the "American public" is all named Koch now.

    • I used to worry about the cold war ending in a nuclear war. Now I worry that billionaires will destroy humanity and the planet. How times change.

  • law not policy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bhcompy ( 1877290 ) on Monday August 12, 2019 @04:40PM (#59080266)
    The Endangered Species Act is a law, not policy. They can't unilaterally change things defined in the law. That said, they can work around certain things that are vague or undefined. Either way, it's likely this will end up in court with an injunction right quick

    • The Endangered Species Act is a law, not policy. They can't unilaterally change things defined in the law.

      Pretty sure our last couple presidents would disagree with you there.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by asylumx ( 881307 )
      Well, being the head of the executive branch, he can simply choose not to enforce it. There is certainly precedent for that looking at previous presidents. Obama, in particular, played the same game with immigration law.
    • The Affordable Care Act is also a law. You'll note that it's mandate that everyone have medical insurance, or pay a penalty to the IRS at tax time, is not being enforced; that's one way around a law. Another way around a law is to de-fund it outright. Those are just examples. I'd have to do quite a bit of reading of the ESA and the Executive Order to determine the validity, but regardless someone will probably challenge this in court. Whether challenging it has public support, or weakening it has more, is y
    • The actual act [govinfo.gov] says nothing about climate change, but gives the authority to determine regulations related to listing to the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce. Meaning, the addition of climate change as a reason for a listing was by regulatory authority - and thus, can be eliminated by regulatory authority.

  • Terrible (Score:5, Informative)

    by omfglearntoplay ( 1163771 ) on Monday August 12, 2019 @04:48PM (#59080292)

    In the midst of the biggest mass extinction in the last, what, 65 million years, we are going to weaken the protection of organisms? How bloody fucking stupid greedy do you have to be.

    https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]

    "...the current crisis is worldwide...One quarter of all mammals are endangered or extinct, as are 15 percent of birds. In both groups the larger species are in the most trouble. "

    • Re:Terrible (Score:4, Insightful)

      by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportland&yahoo,com> on Monday August 12, 2019 @04:55PM (#59080330) Homepage Journal

      stupid enough to wear a MAGA cap.

    • Re:Terrible (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jrumney ( 197329 ) on Monday August 12, 2019 @05:49PM (#59080554)

      I'm surprised it hasn't also been renamed to the "Trophies for Sons Act"

    • "...the current crisis is worldwide...One quarter of all mammals are endangered or extinct, as are 15 percent of birds. In both groups the larger species are in the most trouble. "

      The current crisis is worldwide. 99.999...% of all organisms that have ever lived have died.

    • When someone doesn't give a damn what happens after they're dead, so long as they live the good life now, they can get pretty goddamned greedy.
      Add to that religious zealot types who believe the End Of The World is inevitable, and you get a don't-give-a-fuck attitude towards whether the Earth can sustain life over the long term or not.
      All I can say is, if I'm alive to see everything go completely to shit, I'm going to point and laugh as these fat, rich, stupid bastards are shot in the face with a shotgun l

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by blindseer ( 891256 )

      In the midst of the biggest mass extinction in the last, what, 65 million years, we are going to weaken the protection of organisms? How bloody fucking stupid greedy do you have to be.

      The problem with the law as it was written is that once a species gets on the list as endangered it is virtually impossible to remove them once they've recovered. If this list just keeps growing to where it includes everything then the list of endangered species becomes meaningless.

      Or, as put in the words of Dash Parr in the movie The Incredibles, if every species is "special" then none of them are.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

      We don't have to be "greedy" to remove species from the endangered species l

      • FWIW, look at Mexican Grey wolves [azpbs.org]

        They are far from a recovered species, but ranchers are pushing to have them taken off of the list, since other grey wolf populations in the US North are recovering.

        These ranchers (who already receive cheap public land grazing) are actively hunting and killing the protected animals and have the sole intent of eliminating them entirely, because money.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Uberbah ( 647458 )

        The problem with the law as it was written is that once a species gets on the list as endangered it is virtually impossible to remove them once they've recovered.

        Great, you'll have no problems naming some examples, and not just rely on a tautology that smells like libertarian derp.

      • Re:Terrible (Score:5, Insightful)

        by SethJohnson ( 112166 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2019 @03:14AM (#59081682) Homepage Journal
        This is the straw man foundation of this whole argument:

        We need to keep this list meaningful as we have only so many resources to protect these species and therefore we need to put them on this list only if they are in fact in need of protection.

        We can only assume that the 'resource' referenced here is the tolerance of capitalists to suffer limitations on their ability to exploit natural resources. The comment here successfully captures the change in sentiment by the EPA- in the original drafting of the department by President Richard Nixon, species were appraised as being irreplaceable should they become extinct and their value was estimated at priceless. As voiced here by 'blindseer', President Trump's Republican Party has shifted to the business of assigning price tags to components of biodiversity. See here: [npr.org]

        One of the changes will allow economic costs to be taken into account while determining whether a species warrants protection.

        Our future is doomed per Trump's Republican Party. This change to how the EPA will police the Endangered Species Act is granting the GOP's donors the opportunity to cash in on the road to our demise.

    • I think they believe that being the last species on the planet means we win, highlander-style.

    • “Earth Is Not in the Midst of a Sixth Mass Extinction - As scientists we have a responsibility to be accurate about such comparisons.”
      "People who claim we’re in the sixth mass extinction don’t understand enough about mass extinctions to understand the logical flaw in their argument ...”
      "It’s junk science. ... Many of those making facile comparisons between the current situation and past mass extinctions don’t have a clue about the difference in the nature of the dat

  • Save their DNA (Score:4, Insightful)

    by GameboyRMH ( 1153867 ) <gameboyrmh&gmail,com> on Monday August 12, 2019 @05:55PM (#59080584) Journal

    If we have their DNA then future humans or evolved raccons can bring them back once the Trumpocene Mass Extinction blows over.

  • This is a blow to anti-wind farming ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CaptainDork ( 3678879 ) on Monday August 12, 2019 @07:34PM (#59080968)

    ... where, in another forum (and I'm all forum), I'm using this story to counter the super-patriotic (and straw man) position that, "If a wind turbine kills ONE American-born and bred bald eagle, all wind turbines should die in a fire!"

    Apparently, their fucking leader doesn't agree.

    Note: Feral cats are responsible for over a billion bird deaths a year.

    Wind turbines only kill a few hundreds.

  • ... it devolved into a habitat control act. If some mole rat in this valley was threatened, it was a crisis. Never mind that one valley over, the same species had reached the level of an infestation. Species were actually named by habitat, so if you wanted to halt the construction of a Walmart, you could uniquely identity some frog on that lot as being distinct from the ones in the swamp across the street.

    The Chinese saved pandas from extinction by careful management. But when that management didn't inclu

  • Suppose you are part of a group which has infiltrated another planet, a planet full of resources, needed for that planet's lifeforms to survive and prosper.

    You'd like to have those resources yourself, and you'd like to keep those resources as concentrated as possible. Since there aren't many of you, battle isn't possible. You must play a long and clever game, instead, while assuring your own survival and invisibility.

    Now. Consider the current situation. What would the aliens do differently than what's been

Slashdot Top Deals

1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.

Close