Protecting Mother Nature … and more homework

August 12th, 2008

I went fishing on Saturday — Missouri was once a land of rivers and streams, but is now a patchwork of lakes and dams and the ever-present Corp of Engineers. It’s an outdoorsman’s paradise. Gratefully, we don’t boast the kinds of natural resources that draw exploitation.

I do most of my “fishing” with a camera, leaving the dinner items to others. Sadly, the one I have isn’t adequate to actually mine the lushness of this country. The moments of grace on my fishing trip will have to remain recorded in memory.

On Saturday we saw a pair of river otters with four babies scrambling out of a stack of branches that was obviously an abandoned beaver lodge — they ran in that peculiar inch-worm gate of theirs to waters edge and slipped in to create little brown bumps in the water, flashing their rumps when they dove for a noon meal.

A fisherman in the boat said we should move along, that the critters would have picked the area clean — fishing machines, he called them. But for me, that was the best part of the day … or almost; I saw an eagle too, the span of his wings throwing shadows across the water and his white head gleaming in the sun.

Our short-timer in the White House continues to try to stomp out any environmental protections; literally, to kill off those things that connect us to our hearts and align us with the Mother. Despite an enormous public outcry, they’ve ignored the polar bear — their “drill, drill, drill” mantra endangers wildlife everywhere, on land and sea. And now they’re interested in abandoning the Endangered Species Act, citing its inconvenience. This is what disaster capitalism looks like … and what we’ve come to.

I know protecting wildlife is a thorn in the side of capitalism, a machine designed to produce as quickly as possible, knocking anything that gets in the way of their progress in the dirt. My son-in-law in Southern CA had to deal with a checkered butterfly and now some kind of sparrow in the last couple of years, overseeing building sites and interrupting time tables. And I’m glad — birds and butterflies are a grace. The more we lose, the more we’ll regret that we didn’t pay attention!

Here’s the newest Bushie proposition for the Department of the Interior — last item is an activist/op.

And here’s your homework: another Youtube that needs to make its way around the nation … please do your part to make sure it gets seen.

There are Republicans out there who think McCain will be a tough leader in tough times — they need to know he’s more than that … he’s rash and belligerent and a bit of a madman. His whole life has been based on militarism: his history as [yet another!] bad boy, fly boy, his personal legend of heroism and now his candidacy. Those who think there are Islamofascist’s hiding behind the trash cans in their yard, anxious to grab their daughters and make us all bow down on a prayer blanket will applaud this clip — but there are many other Pubs tired of warring and looking for change who will have to pause and think when they see it.

McCain isn’t about change for the better — he will, as says Pat Buchanan, “… make Cheney look like Gandhi.” FOX News is cherry picking facts on Obama 24/7, creating doubt of Obama’s ability — with the press giving Mac a pass on both his temperament and his policies, it’s up to us to create the doubt that swings votes Left.

Jude

Please pass along:

Republicans and military men on John McCain

The Bush Administration’s Plan To Make The Endangered Species Act Extinct
Think Progress
8/11/08

Today, the AP reports on new draft rules being proposed by the Bush administration to gut the Endangered Species Act. This would be the biggest change to the groundbreaking legislation since 1988, and would not require the approval of Congress.

Currently, federal agencies are required to consult with an independent agency — the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service — to determine whether a project would harm an endangered species. The AP reports that under the new rules, agencies would simply be able to “decide for themselves”:

The Bush administration wants federal agencies to decide for themselves whether highways, dams, mines and other construction projects might harm endangered animals and plants. New regulations, which don’t require the approval of Congress, would reduce the mandatory, independent reviews government scientists have been performing for 35 years, according to a draft obtained by The Associated Press.

The draft rules also would bar federal agencies from assessing the emissions from projects that contribute to global warming and its effect on species and habitats.

This measure mirrors legislation proposed in 2005, by then-Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA), a close ally of Jack Abramoff. Pombo proposed weakening the Endangered Species Act. Among other measures, Pombo’s bill would have eliminated review by the FWS or the Fisheries Service, allowing agencies to pursue unspecified “alternative procedures.” Pombo’s GOP-majority House cleared his bill, but it failed to go anywhere in the Senate. Bush is now bypassing Congress to push the legislation forward before he leaves office.

The Bush administration has been attempting to bypass or kill the Endangered Species Act for years. Recently, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff used his power to waive federal laws, including the Endangered Species Act, in order to expedite building the U.S.-Mexico border fence. Unclear if the new rules are the doing of Vice President Cheney, who has been maneuvering increased control over environmental policies. ++

Endangered Species Act Changes Give Agencies More Say
Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post
Tuesday, August 12, 2008; Page A01

The Bush administration yesterday proposed a regulatory overhaul of the Endangered Species Act to allow federal agencies to decide whether protected species would be imperiled by agency projects, eliminating the independent scientific reviews that have been required for more than three decades.

The new rules, which will be subject to a 30-day per comment period, would use administrative powers to make broad changes in the law that Congress has resisted for years. Under current law, agencies must subject any plans that potentially affect endangered animals and plants to an independent review by the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service. Under the proposed new rules, dam and highway construction and other federal projects could proceed without delay if the agency in charge decides they would not harm vulnerable species.

In a telephone call with reporters yesterday, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne described the new rules as a “narrow regulatory change” that “will provide clarity and certainty to the consultation process under the Endangered Species Act.”

But environmentalists and congressional Democrats blasted the proposal as a last-minute attempt by the administration to bring about dramatic changes in the law. For more than a decade, congressional Republicans have been trying unsuccessfully to rewrite the act, which property owners and developers say imposes unreasonable economic costs.

“I am deeply troubled by this proposed rule, which gives federal agencies an unacceptable degree of discretion to decide whether or not to comply with the Endangered Species Act,” said Rep. Nick J. Rahall II (D-W.Va.), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, who asked for a staff briefing before the proposal was announced but did not receive one.

“Eleventh-hour rulemakings rarely, if ever, lead to good government — this is not the type of legacy this Interior Department should be leaving for future generations.”

Bob Irvin, senior vice president of conservation programs at the advocacy group Defenders of Wildlife, questioned how some federal agencies could make the assessments, since most do not have wildlife biologists on staff.

“Clearly, that’s a case of asking the fox to guard the chicken coop,” Irvin said, adding that the original law created “a giant caution light that made federal agencies stop and think about the impacts of their actions.” He said, “What the Bush administration is telling those agencies is they don’t have to think about those impacts anymore.”

But Dale Hall, who directs the Fish and Wildlife Service, said the move would not apply to major federal projects and would give his agency more time to focus on the most critically endangered species rather than conducting reviews of projects that pose little threat.

“We have to have the ability to put our efforts where they’re needed,” Hall said, adding that individual agencies will have to take responsibility if their projects do harm a protected species. “This really says to the agencies, ‘This law belongs to all of us. You’re responsible to defend it.’ ”

The new rules would also limit the impact of the administration’s decision in May to list the polar bear as threatened with extinction because of shrinking sea ice.

At the time of that decision, Kempthorne said he would seek changes to the Endangered Species Act on the grounds that it was inflexible, adding that it had not been significantly modified since 1986. In a statement yesterday, the Interior Department declared that even if a federal action such as the permitting of a power plant would lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions, the decision would not trigger a federal review “because it is not possible to link the emissions to impacts on specific listed species such as polar bears.”

Kempthorne said the new regulations included that language “so we don’t inadvertently have the Endangered Species Act seen as a back door to climate-change policy that was never, ever intended.”

Tim Coyle, senior vice president for governmental affairs at the California Building Industry Association, said in an interview that while his association would have to read the rules before making a judgment, he welcomes Kempthorne’s statement on the polar bear because it offered “clarity on an issue that if it was left broad and ambiguous, could be a serious problem for the home-building industry here in California.” He added: “For home builders, clarity in the rules is always, always helpful.”

Although Kempthorne said he had received “encouragement from both sides of the aisle to see if we couldn’t bring about steps that would make the Endangered Species Act more effective,” his proposal opened a new front in the ongoing battle between the administration and Congress on the environment.

An aide to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee, said she, like Rahal, had requested but not received a briefing.

The panel is drafting a letter to Interior and will hold an oversight hearing, the aide said.

In a statement, Boxer called the rules change “another in a continuing stream of proposals to repeal our landmark environmental laws through the back door” and added: “I believe it is illegal, and if this proposed regulation had been in place, it would have undermined our ability to protect the bald eagle, the grizzly bear, and the gray whale.” ++

Bush “Antagonizing Environmentalists” With New Endangered Species Proposals
AP
August 12, 2008

Parts of the Endangered Species Act may soon be extinct. The Bush administration wants federal agencies to decide for themselves whether construction projects such as highways, dams and mines might harm endangered animals and plants. The new regulations, which don’t require the approval of Congress, would reduce the mandatory, independent reviews government scientists have been performing for 35 years, according to a draft obtained by The Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Just months before President Bush leaves office, his administration is antagonizing environmentalists by proposing changes that would allow federal agencies to decide for themselves whether subdivisions, dams, highways and other projects have the potential to harm endangered animals and plants.

The proposal, first reported by The Associated Press, would cut out the advice of government scientists who have been weighing in on such decisions for 35 years. Agencies also could not consider a project’s contribution to global warming in their analysis.

Reaction was swift from Democrats and environmental groups.

The chairman of the House committee that oversees the Interior Department, Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., said he was “deeply troubled.” Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., head of the Senate’s environment committee, said Bush’s plan was illegal.

Environmentalists complained the proposals would gut protections for endangered animals and plants.

“This proposed rule … gives federal agencies an unacceptable degree of discretion to decide whether or not to comply with the Endangered Species Act,” Rahall said.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne defended the revisions, saying they were needed to ensure that the Endangered Species Act would not be used as a “back door” to regulate the gases blamed for global warming.

If approved, the changes would represent the biggest overhaul of endangered species regulations since 1986 and accomplish through rules what conservative Republicans have been unable to achieve in Congress: ending some environmental reviews that developers and other federal agencies blame for delays and cost increases on many projects.

In May, the polar bear became the first species declared as threatened because of climate change. Warming temperatures are expected to melt the sea ice the bear depends on for survival.

“We need to focus our efforts where they will do the most good,” Kempthorne said in a news conference arranged hastily after the AP reported details of the proposal. “It is important to use our time and resources to protect the most vulnerable species. It is not possible to draw a link between greenhouse gas emissions and distant observations of impacts on species.”

The rule changes unveiled Monday would apply to any project a federal agency would fund, build or authorize that the agency itself determines is unlikely to harm endangered wildlife and their habitat. Government wildlife experts currently participate in tens of thousands of such reviews each year.

The revisions also would limit which effects can be considered harmful and set a 60-day deadline for wildlife experts to evaluate a project when they are asked to become involved. If no decision is made within 60 days, the project can move ahead.

“If adopted, these changes would seriously weaken the safety net of habitat protections that we have relied upon to protect and recover endangered fish, wildlife and plants for the past 35 years,” said John Kostyack, executive director of the National Wildlife Federation’s Wildlife Conservation and Global Warming initiative.

Under current law, federal agencies must consult with experts at the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service to determine whether a project is likely to jeopardize any endangered species or to damage habitat, even if no harm seems likely. This initial review usually results in accommodations that better protect the 1,353 animals and plants in the U.S. listed as threatened or endangered and determines whether a more formal analysis is warranted.

The new rules were expected to be formally proposed in the next couple of days, officials said. They would be subject to a 30-day public comment period before being finalized by the Interior and Commerce departments. That would give the administration enough time to impose the rules before November’s presidential election. A new administration could freeze any pending regulations or reverse them, a process that could take months. Congress could also overturn the rules through legislation, but that could take even longer.

Between 1998 and 2002, the Fish and Wildlife Service conducted 300,000 consultations. The National Marine Fisheries Service, which evaluates projects affecting marine species, conducts about 1,300 reviews each year.

Some federal agencies and private developers say that process has killed or delayed some worthwhile projects.

“Over the years, the Endangered Species Act has become a regulatory nightmare that kills or stalls even the most well-crafted land-use projects,” said Rob Rivett, president of the Pacific Legal Foundation, a group that supports property rights and limited government. “The economy suffers, people suffer, rational environmental planning suffers. Some careful streamlining is long overdue.” ++

Activist opportunity from the National Wildlife Federation:

Dear Friend of Wildlife,

According to leaked documents obtained by the National Wildlife Federation, the Bush Administration is planning to rollback protections for America’s imperiled wildlife by re-writing the regulations of the Endangered Species Act.

If adopted, these changes would seriously weaken the safety net of habitat protections that we have relied upon to protect and recover endangered fish, wildlife and plants for the past 35 years.

We need your help to make sure this attack on the Endangered Species Act is met with a huge public outcry!

“Do not be fooled when the Administration claims it is merely tweaking the law,” said NWF’s John Kostyack, Executive Director of Wildlife Conservation and Global Warming.

“The cumulative impact of these changes equals a full blown attack on America’s premier conservation law. We owe it to future generations to stop this attack and continue our legacy of protecting wildlife on the brink of extinction.”

Please email Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne and make sure he knows that the American people will not stand for any attempts to weaken the Endangered Species Act.

And please forward this email to any friend or family member who might speak up.

Thank you so much,

Kristin Johnson
Grassroots Mobilization Coordinator
National Wildlife Federation ++

“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Entry Filed under: Political Waves