Author: petewsh61

The rethuglican’s are at it yet again.  Disregarding long established Senate Traditions, Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) has introduced a bill to overturn endangered species protections in the Senate Finance Committee intead of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee where it would have had a difficult time making it to the full Senate.

Last September, Pombo’s Anti-Endangered Spieces Bill was passed in the House.  Pombo’s Billed coupled with Crapo’s would mean that species protections as we have known them since the early ’70’s would effectively come to an end.

For more background on republican’s efforts to weaken the Endangered Species Act read the following diaries:

Pelosi Satement in Support of ESA

Repubs ramming Anti-Endangered Species Bill through House

House Committee attacks Endangered Species Protection
The Center for Biological Diversity has provided an overview of the most damaging provisions of Carpo’s Bill.

Center for Biological Diversity Overview of S.2110, the “Collaboration and Recovery of Endangered Species Act”

Introduced by Senator Crapo (R-ID) Thursday, December 15, 2005

Makes Habitat Protection Completely Discretionary (pages 18-19)

The Crapo bill would eliminate mandatory timelines to designate critical habitat for endangered species, instead giving the Secretary of Interior complete discretion to prioritize designations based in part on “minimizing conflicts” with “construction, development…or other economic activities.” Even then the Secretary would not be required to implement the schedule, and citizen groups would be banned from seeking court orders to implement any critical habitat schedules or deadlines. All existing court orders to designate critical habitat would be overruled by the bill.

Makes Species Listing Completely Discretionary (pages 18-19)

As with habitat protections, the Crapo bill would eliminate mandatory timelines to place species on the endangered list, instead giving the Secretary of Interior complete discretion to prioritize listings. Even then the Secretary is not required to implement her schedule and citizen groups are banned from seeking court orders to implement any listing schedules or deadlines. All existing court orders to list species would be overruled by the bill.

Killing One Species in Exchange for Another (pages 36-41)

The Crapo bill would create a system allowing developers to buy and sell credits for destroying endangered species habitat. This senseless system would allow developers to destroy the habitat for one species (e.g. Coho salmon) because they have purchased credits to protect another (e.g. Mount Hermon june beetle). It would result in the destruction of tens of thousands of acres of essential habitat areas.

Undermines Recovery Plans (pages 21-28)

The Crapo bill would create a new convoluted recovery planning process that allows industry to rewrite and overrule the decisions of wildlife experts. A newly created “executive committee” made up of industry interests would make final edits and revisions to the recovery plan developed by scientists and agency biologists. Furthermore, the Crapo bill explicitly makes recovery plans “non-binding and advisory.”

Creates Roadblocks to Listing Endangered Species (pages 16-18)

The Crapo bill would create an ambiguous priority system for listing endangered species that includes industry interests. Current law requires endangered species listings to be based solely on the biological needs of the species.

Eliminates Federal Oversight of Endangered Species (page 15)

The Crapo bill would require Fish and Wildlife Service to provide a “provisional permit” for any project on private property (except for “ground clearing”) if there is no recovery plan in place. The permit would remain in effect until a habitat conservation plan (HCP) is approved. This would allow activities like mining and logging in endangered species habitat to proceed indefinitely with no federal oversight.

Restricts Wildlife Agencies from Improving Conservation Agreements (pages 50-53)

The Crapo bill would take “No Surprises”–a highly controversial administrative regulation–and make it law. The Fish and Wildlife Service would be unable to update or revoke a permit (HCP) that authorizes harm to an endangered species, even if new information indicates that the original plan was inadequate and even if it is causing the extinction of the species.

Pays Off Developers to Not Violate the Law (page 56)

The Crapo bill would create tax breaks to compensate privat/be landowners for conservation work done on private property. However, the Crapo bill fails to limit these tax breaks to landowners who engage in active conservation–the creation or enhancement of endangered species habitat. Therefore, land developers who are required to set aside some portion of their land from development would also be eligible for these tax breaks. That is, instead of paying private landowners to create new habitat, the Crapo bill would primarily be paying developers to comply with the law, creating no new habitat.

As our attention is riveted on the important disclosures of Bush’s Domestic Spying Program, please let’s not lose sight of the other destructive actions being taken by the GOP.

Please contact your Senators and urge them to block consideration of this ill concieved bill.

The US, Australia, China, India, South Korea, and Japan have negotiated a climate pact in secret that policy experts believe is a diversion from some members rejection of the Kyoto Protocol.   Instead of establishing emissions reduction targets, the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate calls for developing new technologies to reduce the production of greenhouse gases.  The call for new technologies is nothing new.

Nature News Experts caution that there isn’t really anything new within the pact itself. Both the United States and Australia have long promoted technological solutions as the best way to tackle climate change. “The United States already has bilateral technology cooperation agreements with all the countries involved,” points out Fiedler.

Energy experts say that new technologies, such as renewable energy systems and more efficient vehicles, are a vital part of climate-change measures. But they add that emission targets are the best way to act now.

The creation of this pact is thought to be a means of deflecting attention form the US’s and Australia’s rejection of the Kyoto protocol.

Climate-policy experts say that although the aims of the pact are worthwhile, it contains no new financial commitments or targets. Australia and the United States are the only two developed nations not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and experts say the pact is likely to be used by them to deflect pressure to accept future versions of the protocol.

“They want to say ‘Leave us alone, we’re already doing something’,” says Jeff Fiedler, a climate-policy specialist with the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington. Talks about what to do when the protocol expires will begin in earnest in November.

The problem here is that the partners in the pact are taking the easy route instead making the hard choices needed to deal with this problem today not sometime in the future.

“I don’t see this announcement as a threat, but it reflects a way of thinking that could threaten effective action,” says Michael Grubb, an energy economist at Imperial College in London.

“Technology cooperation is being presented as an alternative to the hard issues of building incentives for energy efficiency and low-carbon technology investment by the private sector, which has to include regulating carbon emissions,” says Grubb.

Bush has argued that trying to meet the Kyoto Protocol emissions targets would harm the US economy.  Bush seems to have little faith in our nation’s can-do technological know-how.  A recent study by the Union of Concerned Scientists finds that not only do we have the know-how, in addition the US economy would benefit from steps that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

UCS UCS recently examined the economic impact of  gradually increasing our nation’s use of renewable electricity from about 2.5 percent today to 20 percent by 2020. The end result: more than 355,000 new jobs in domestic manufacturing, construction, operations, maintenance, shipping, sales, finance, and other industries. This is nearly double the number of jobs that would be created by producing an equivalent amount of electricity from fossil fuels during the same amount of time. These 157,480 additional jobs would generate an additional $8.2 billion in income and $10.2 billion in gross domestic product. Increased renewable energy development would also reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 434 million metric tons per year.

We don’t need to wait for research to develop new technologies to start doing something about global warming.  Those technologies are available and their adoption would help our weak economy.  It’s really a pity Bush has so little faith in our Nation’s ability to solve problems.

The Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2005, introduced in the house on Thursday, would protect 58.5 million acres of National Forest lands from commercial logging and road building.  This Act would reinstate one of the most popular rules put in place by Clinton and then overturned by Bush.

ENS Conservationists announced their strong support for a bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives Thursday that would permanently protect much of the nation’s last pristine National Forest land.

The bill codifies the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, promulgated by President Bill Clinton, which was overturned by the Bush administration in May.

The Forest Service defines roadless areas based on the duration they have been roadless and the length of roads per acre.

Source Roadless Areas (RA’s) are those places in our national forests that have remained relatively free of roads, and therefore also relatively free of logging in the past 50 years or more.  

The Forest Service has a definition of “Roadless” which does not count “undriveable” roads like those impassable even to a 4-wheel drive vehicle.  All-terrain vehicle roads do not count as roads.  There is some fuzziness about roads that are 4-wheel drive passable but not ordinary passenger vehicle passable.  The definition of “Roadless Area” permits the existence of .5 miles of defined “road” per 1000 acres.

Areas over 5000 acres in size (or smaller areas connecting to existing Wilderness Areas) meeting the Forest Service definition are “Inventoried Roadless Areas”.  These areas have special status under Forest Service Rules, and these are also the areas that the Clinton Administration sought to protect from future logging and roading with its Roadless Area Rules, the Rules that the Bush folks are  gutting.

You can view maps of roadless areas in your state.

The Act would still allow construction of temporary roads when human safety or forest health would benefit.

Protection of roadless areas has strong public support and scientific backing.

“This legislation listens to the will of the American people,” said Robert Vandermark of the National Environmental Trust. “Before the Bush Administration officially repealed the Roadless Rule over four million public comments were submitted in support of protecting all our roadless areas.”

The Roadless Rule was approved following years of scientific study and more than 600 public meetings across the country. During its consideration, 2.5 million Americans wrote the Federal government in support of the rule, making it the most popular in American history. Since then, another 1.8 million comments were received by the Bush administration opposing their plan and urging reinstatement of the original protection policy.

That’s right 2.5 million in support of roadless protection and 1.8 million opposed to Bush’s plan.  The voice of the people stated loud and clear.  Please encourage your Rep. to support the Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2005.

Juan Cole flagged an article in Open Democracy today that reports on the escalating oppression of women in Iraq.

Women in Saddam’s Iraq lived under a system that promised them freedom from gender-based oppression.

Even under Saddam’s regime, women were free to choose whether to wear western-style dress and make-up or the black abaya. Many wore western dress in their jobs for government departments and in schools and universities.

…Snip…

Women were given the right to vote, receive an education, and work outside the home. Education was mandatory for both girls and boys up to the age of 16. Women were strongly encouraged to attend universities and acquire professional skills.

This was the starting point when the US invaded Iraq.  I’m not suggesting Iraq was a beacon of democracy.  It was far from it and women in Saddam’s Iraq were not free from danger.

AI Under Saddam Hussein’s regime, Iraqi women faced arrest; torture, including rape; and even execution because they were suspected of political opposition activities or simply because their husbands or male relatives were sought by the authorities.

The impetuous for abuse under Saddam was usually based on politics, not on gender.  Have things gotten any better?

While politically based intimidation and murder of women continues, today we see increasing threats to women based solely on their gender.

Insurgents and religious extremists use rape, acid and assassination to force Iraqi women to wear the veil – the symbol of submission, first signal of further repression to come. Many Iraqi women have never worn the scarf. Now, dead bodies of girls and women are found in rivers and on waste ground with a veil tied around the head, as a message.

…snip…

Similar attacks and threats have forced a number of women in the northern city of Mosul to give up paid work or to make sure they are accompanied to work by a brother, a male driver or a guard.

While these types of attacks and oppression were reported in some cities in Iraq over a year ago.  The oppression of women is now widespread.

Attacks have now expanded from certain geographic locations to the whole country. They have also spread to non-Muslim women.

Has Bush spoken out about the increasing oppression of women in Iraq?  Of course not.  To do so would be to admit his stated goal of bringing democracy to Iraq is failing.  To do so would require him to take responsibility for the mess he’s created.

The Anti-Endangered Species Bill sponsored by Pombo is going to be expedited through the House Resources Committee next week and immediately thereafter presented to the House for a vote.  This is a disastrous bill.  It will eviscerate species protection in favor of development interests.  This bill is the Property Rights and Developers wish list for disassembling the Endangered Species Act.

For background on this bill follow these links:

Pombo’s Bill

Science and the Endangered Species Act

Endangered Species Act under fire from two directions

Pombo’s Endangered Species Bill Revealed

Bill Would Reduce Government’s Role in Protecting Species (NYTimes Article Archive, pay to view)

An Endangered Act  (NYTimes Editorial Archive, pay to view)

I previously posted several dairies at DKos on ESA. Among these dairies is one that describes Pombo’s Enti-ESA talking points and a rebuttal by the Center for Biological Diversity: Pombo Endangered Species Report Flawed: Latest Anti-Endangered Species Act Report by Pombo is Erroneous, Misleading.

The report’s main contention is that the Endangered Species Act has a 99% failure rate because only 13 species have fully recovered and been delisted. This recycled soundbite is also the primary media message of a national network of anti-Endangered Species Act forces. As shown below, however, it is nonsensical.

1) Scientists Say Recovery Will Take 30-50 Years on Average; Often Over 100 Years

Over 3,000 scientists have reviewed that status of nearly every endangered species and concluded that recovery could not possibly be achieved within the 15.5 years they have averaged on the endangered list. 1,082 species have official federal recovery plan created by university, industry, and federal scientists. The plans establish recovery goals, implementation steps and estimated time to recovery. A systematic review of all those plans shows that the average length of time projected for recovery is 30-50 years. Many species will require over 100 years.

2) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Report Show Most Species Are Stable or Improving When Protected for at Least Six Years

Claiming to summarize a 2004 report by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Pombo report states that 60% of endangered species are uncertain or declining, 30% are stable, and only 6% are improving. This is voodoo statistics. It is statistical nonsense to lump known trends in with unknown trends. It is also nonsensical to lump together species which only been on the endangered list for six months and species which has been on the list for 15 years. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife report actually shows that 68% of species with a known trend which have been listed for at least six years are stable or improving. Just 32% are declining. Of those species with a known trend, 68% are stable or improving and just 32% are declining.

3) Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Show that the Endangered Species Act Works

In April 2005,

BioScience, a peer-review scientific journal published a study entitled “The Effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act: A Quantitative Analysis”. The study examined 1,095 species whose status was assessed multiple times by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service between 1989 and 2002. It found that:

Endangered Species Improve Over Time. The longer species were protected under the endangered species, the more likely they were to be improving and the less likely they were to be declining.

Critical Habitat Helps Recovery. Species with critical habitat for at least two years were twice as likely to be improving as species without critical habitat.

Recovery Plans Help Recovery. Species with dedicated recovery plan were more likely to be improving and less likely to be declining than species without recovery plans. Only 81% of species currently have recovery plans.

Pombo has been spreading misinformation about ESA for several months now.  Another example: Gao: Endangered Species Expenditures Match Biological Priorities Unhappy With Positive Review, Representative Pombo Tries To Mislead Media With False Press Release.

The NRDC is spearheading action against Pombo’s Bill.  Here’s the text of the National Resource Defense Councils Action Alert.

Early next week, the House Resources Committee is expected to consider legislation that would severely weaken, and even phase out, one of America’s most important and successful environmental laws, the Endangered Species Act. Ninety-eight percent of the species protected under the act are still alive today, and many are stable or improving. Without the Endangered Species Act, wildlife such as the bald eagle, American alligator, California condor, Florida panther and many other animals that are part of America’s natural heritage could have disappeared from the planet years ago.

The Endangered Species Act works because it safeguards the places where endangered animals and plants live. But the chair of the Resources Committee, Rep. Pombo (R-CA), is a long-time opponent of the act, and his proposed “reforms” would dilute these essential habitat protections, putting the interests of developers ahead of imperiled wildlife and plants. In fact, if the draft legislation proposed by Rep. Pombo were the law today, the bald eagle — America’s symbol of freedom – never would have been protected. The bill also seeks to phase out the Endangered Species Act entirely by 2015.

Rep. Pombo is expected to expedite consideration of his bill in the Resources Committee in the next few days and send it to the House floor for a final vote directly thereafter.

And here’s their link for sending a message to Congress – Action Center

When endangered species are properly managed, the Endangered Species Act works.  It needs strengthening, not evisceration.

A coalition of liberal and environmental organizations has organized a campaign focusing on Exxon’s dismal record on global warming.  

IHT Among the groups involved in the campaign against Exxon Mobil, which was scheduled to start on Tuesday with news conferences across the United States and a new Web site, www.exxposeexxon.com, are the U.S. Public Interest Group, Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists and MoveOn.org Political Action.

Carl Pope, the Sierra Club’s executive director, said the campaign aimed either to get Exxon Mobil to change or “to encourage other oil companies” to improve their environmental stewardship. “The other oil companies have aspirations” for environmental performance, he said.

Exxon has poured millions of dollars into groups that claim global warming is not a real issue and does not warrant action.  They have even gone as far as supporting K-12 teaching curriculums that dispute the science behind global warming.

Source Oil multinationals look to influence our youngest future voters by having a direct pipeline into classrooms around our country. Their goal is transparent: provide a torrent of anti-global warming propaganda. And in their eyes, being partners with the National Science Teachers Association gives them ultimate educational legitimacy.

This is a great opportunity to send a message to Exxon/Mobil.

The Bush Administration has failed to enforce violations of the Clean Act.  Not content to simply water down the Act with the Clear Skies Initiative, the Administration is now giving polluters a free pass.

These three plants have upgraded their capacity, yet failed to install best available technologies to control the emissions as required by the New Source Review provision in the Clean Air Act.  The EPA was well aware of these violations, but failed to act.

Part of the impetuous to file against the owner’s of the plants came from last week’s ruling by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals on a case brought against the Administration’s Clear Skies Initiative.  Oddly enough, both Industry and Environmentalists claimed victory in that case.

Apparently the differences in opinion stem from contrasting interpretations of the highly technical ruling.  This lawsuit against Allegheny Energy, the owner’s of the PA plants, should be a test case for the Appeals Court decision.

In an over the top Op-Ed piece posted on Catholic-Online, Senator Rick Santorum lays the blame for the sexual abuse of children by priests on cultural liberalism.

So, now liberals have been accused of promoting child rape as part of our social agenda?  We not only coddle terrorists, we infect priests with the desire for child porn.

Update: Please note this OpEd piece is from 2002. Though still relevant today.

Access to information is a key ingredient to a functioning democracy.  Something I was unaware of was that many reports (not just classified reports) produced by Congress are unavailable to the public.  The information in these reports is routinely used by politicians in speeches and congressional testimony.  How can we repond to politicians statements if we don’t have access to the same information they do?  Well, now we can.  The folks over at the Center for Democracy and Technology have just made it easier to get a hold of these reports by creating a website that provides access to thousands of congressional reports.

I’m sure that the information found at this site is going to provide plenty of inspiration for the members of the progressive blogosphere.  Enjoy.

The Bush Administration’s propensity for grand ideas paired with little planning and an inability to play with its neighbors in the international community has infected NASA.  A report released by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences highlights problems at NASA that mirror Bush’s problems in Iraq.

The authors, George Abbey and Dr. Neal Lane, made these statements in the report.

A lack of planning, an ill-defined future path, and a lack of commitment to science, this sounds familiar.
Post 9/11 changes in US policy are also hindering our ability to maintain an effective space program.  Because of restrictions on exports of space technology and tightening of visa requirements for foreign researchers and students, we are losing our international partners, whose cooperation is critical.

The militarization of space is also having a negative effect on our ability to form international partnerships.

The swelling budget deficit,  generated by Bush’s Tax Cuts and War in Iraq, leaves insufficient funds for getting us to the Moon and Mars.

And the culture of “we are never wrong” has also infiltrated NASA.

So thanks to Bush’s Midas touch we now have a NASA with an inability to plan, an inability to fund its projects, an inability to work with the rest of the world, and an inability to listen to criticism.