The Bush Administration's Plan To Make The Endangered Species Act Extinct

The Bush Administration's Plan To Make The Endangered Species Act Extinct

thinkprogress.org

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...

(visit the link for the full news article)

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.

Undoubtedly as the Bush administration winds to a close it will be doing all it can to give away the wealth of this nation to the corporations. This sort of damaging actions will likely only increase as the end draws nearer for Bush Co.

This is a rather nasty action that does damage to controls put in place to protect our nation from many forms of environmental degradation.

thinkprogress.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

Originally posted by Animal

Undoubtedly as the Bush administration winds to a close it will be doing all it can to give away the wealth of this nation to the corporations. This sort of damaging actions will likely only increase as the end draws nearer for Bush Co.

I decry that statement. The regulations don't cut into the wealth of corporations, they cut into the prosperity of individuals. The corporations still make the products, they still build the plants, and they still pump the oil... they simply pass the added costs on to each consumer. Personally, I'd much rather be able to keep more money in my wallet while enjoying purchasing goods and live in a world without the Appalachan green breasted triple tufted nuthatched sparrow (which amazingly enough looks identical to the extremely common North AMerican green breasted truple tufted nuthatched sparrow... except that it resides in the Appalachans) than spend a lifetime paying an arm and a leg for everything thanks to inane anti-progress laws and regulations that ruin families' livelihood.

Ask anyone from a logging family in the Pacific Northwest if they believe saving a damn owl was worth their family losing their jobs and long standing way of life over.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


Your limiting the conversation by ignoring the entire range of the issue at hand.

You are absolutely right the corporation pass the cost off to the consumer. The EXTERNALITIES of doing business are paid for by you and me and not the corporations. All the damage done to the environment is paid for by us via the government. Deregulating the checks that keep corporations for raping our planet is going to cost you and me a LOT of money in the long run mate.

Also just because you do not value the diversity of species on this planet doe snot mean they are worthless. Limiting things like clear cutting does not mean the end of a business just changes to it.

Regardless one way or another those in the logging industry in any region are going to see a decline in work bei it through a lack of trees or through the protection of trees.

I am amazed that so many seem tho think allowing rampant environmental destruction will not cost us anything. That the prospect of living in a wasteland would be fine...A lack of foresight is what I call it.

and I am amazed that someone believing current environmental regulations are redundant and often too restrictive automatically means clear cutting and turning the planet into a wasteland. I simply don't believe that progress should be brought to a screeching halt based on psuedo science and bullquackery. Genetic diversity is fine, but when you have identical species who's only difference is in geography and range, especially when the species in one range are thriving naturally and the others are struggling naturally, then that isn't genetic diversity and progress should continue.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


Screeching halt? Really environmental protections have caused progress to END? I had not realized.

We could split hairs all day birdman. We simply do not agree on this (or many other issues). At the very least I give you credit for being consistent. Cheers.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


All these other species have every to be on the planet as you do. If it costs you extra for them to be here, then suck it up princess. If it is costing you too much for these goods and services, then either do without or get a second job.

Originally posted by Rook1545
reply to post by burdman30ott6

 

All these other species have every to be on the planet as you do. If it costs you extra for them to be here, then suck it up princess. If it is costing you too much for these goods and services, then either do without or get a second job.

OR how about voting for a party that is not out to destroy the middle class! There's a novel idea!

reply to post by Animal

Now THAT is an endagered species. I thought they died out long ago.

Originally posted by Rook1545
All these other species have every to be on the planet as you do.

WHAT?

Dude, I don't like the idea of my money being used to feed starving children in Africa, yet you think I care about seeing it used to "save" something that's merely following Darwin's Survival of the Fittest theory? Please. Princess? Tee-hee! That makes me as giddy as a little girl.

reply to post by Animal


OK, there's something we can agree on. The Dems & Republicans have both done a damn fine job of crushing the middle class. Good point.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

Originally posted by Rook1545
All these other species have every to be on the planet as you do.

WHAT?

Dude, I don't like the idea of my money being used to feed starving children in Africa, yet you think I care about seeing it used to "save" something that's merely following Darwin's Survival of the Fittest theory? Please. Princess? Tee-hee! That makes me as giddy as a little girl.

No, I know you don't care about the animals, you were quite clear about it. The hell of it is, the world does not revolve around you, or America, or humans as a species. If you want to talk Darwinism, go live on an island were true Darwinism will prevail. Glad I could make you giddy though, possible highlight of my day .

Sounds perfectly fine with me. While they are at it maybe get rid of the damned EPA also. Neither one has realy done anything to benefit anyone but the damned bureaucrats that work for them.

Zindo

Bush's move would be temporary anyway. He will open the door to various and sundry habitats for unhindered exploitation quickly, bypassing years of red tape.

But the next administration or the one after that will close it right up again, and there will be howls of protest. This is a give and take thing. Either compromise and move forward, or lock everything up and watch the money men grab their toys and leave. We lose either way.

And don't forget to throw the Fed into the mix.

By the way, the middle-class isn't dead yet; some of us are still writhing in pain on the floor.

reply to post by burdman30ott6

Ask anyone from a logging family in the Pacific Northwest if they believe saving a damn owl was worth their family losing their jobs and long standing way of life over.

Uh... burdman I grew up in the pacific northwest in a small logging community. My ex-girlfriends parents had a bumper sticker that said "wipe your @ss with a spotted owl." While I understand how people get upset (with liberal govt) by a perceived preference of owls over humans, it's not really that black and white.

People are adaptive. Our evolutionary advantage is our brain. Becoming a logger simply because "my daddy did and so did my granddaddy" isn't a good enough reason. Times change. New tools make the work easier and more efficient- which ultimately means the industry requires less manpower. So I don't buy the whole "the government is screwing my family and our way of life deal." When I got out of college I got into the information technology arena right before the tech/computer fallout. I was a contractor at the time and was let go. With the dotcom bust in 2000 there was a flood of tech savy people I suddenly had to compete with for a job. It was difficult and I had to go on unemployment for a few months. Did I blame venture capitalists for overvaluing the web? No. I hung in there and eventually found another job.

Also, we must be careful about indiscriminantly obliterating species for profit. We live in a balanced ecosystem. If we throw off that balance too far there could be consequences (besides not seeing a spotted owl at the zoo). Is disrupting the ecosystem to degree "x" really worth the price of a few families existing for a few decades who are unable to adapt?