ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL BLOGS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES' REVISIONS TO ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT--TWO COMPETING VIEWS

     On a vote of 229-193 today, the House passed an overhaul of the Endangered Species Act.  Reading the AP report of the vote, one gets the impression that such passage is a major victory for the property-rights movement:

The House on Thursday passed legislation that could greatly expand private property rights under the environmental law that is credited with helping keep the bald eagle from extinction but also has provoked bitter fighting.

***

The bill would require the government to compensate property owners if steps to protect species thwarted development plans. It also would make political appointees responsible for some scientific determinations and would stop the government from designating "critical habitat," which limits development.

     However, blogger James Buchal disagrees:

Nothing is all good or all bad, and H.R. 3824, the latest attempt to reform the Endangered Species Act introduced this week by Representatives Pombo (R-CA), Greg Walden (R-OR) and others has positive features.  But it makes the one provision in the Endangered Species Act that looms above all others in the carnage it has caused throughout the West worse:  Section 7.

***

Section 7 of the Act declares that federal agencies must avoid taking action that would "jeopardize the continued existence of listed species".  Lawsuits filed under section 7 are responsible for exterminating small timber operators (owls), Klamath Basin farmers (suckers), doubling electricity rates in the Pacific Northwest (salmon), and creating countless other poster children for Endangered Species Act reform....

***

Pombo's bill changes section 7 by adding a definition of "jeopardize the continued existence of" to the Act:  "The action reasonably would be expected to significantly impede, directly or indirectly, the conservation in the long-term of the species in the wild".  This is a radical departure from the simple concept of not wiping species off the face of the earth.  Now any and all federal agency actions must cease if they would "significantly impede" "conservation", even "indirectly". 

***

If the Pombo bill passes, the question will no longer be whether federal agencies threaten to exterminate an entire species; the question will be whether or not what they do is would "directly or indirectly" impede the conservation programs of the fish and wildlife agencies.  In a context where those agencies are infested with biologists eager to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to save a single fish or rodent, nearly any use of public resources (other than paying biologists) can and will be characterized as "significantly impeding" conservation. 

The inevitable result of Pombo's bill is that environmentalists will have a much more powerful tool for shutting down any federal agency action with which they disagree.

(emphasis in original)

    It's like 2 witnesses to the scene of an accident who tell two different stories of what they have seen.  In any event, these varying accounts of the effect of the overhaul may not in the end matter; while President Bush has indicated he would sign the legislation if it reaches his desk, the Senate appears more evenly divided over whether that body will join the House in enacting the legislation.

GLOBAL WARMING-- ON MARS AND PLUTO

BBC News reports today that the Arctic ice cap continues to shrink:

The area covered by sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk for a fourth consecutive year, according to new data released by US scientists.

They say that this month sees the lowest extent of ice cover for more than a century.

The Arctic climate varies naturally, but the researchers conclude that human-induced global warming is at least partially responsible.

They warn the shrinkage could lead to even faster melting in coming years.

     But, hold on--JPL reported on September 20 that:   

For three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress....The camera has recorded seasonal patterns of clouds and dust within the atmosphere over the entire planet. In addition, other instruments on Mars Global Surveyor have provided information about atmospheric changes and year-to-year patterns on Mars as the mission has persisted.

And Space.com (on October 2, 2002) reported:

In what is largely a reversal of an August announcement, astronomers today said Pluto is undergoing global warming in its thin atmosphere even as it moves farther from the Sun on its long, odd-shaped orbit.

Pluto's atmospheric pressure has tripled over the past 14 years, indicating a stark temperature rise, the researchers said. The change is likely a seasonal event, much as seasons on Earth change as the hemispheres alter their inclination to the Sun during the planet's annual orbit.

They suspect the average surface temperature increased about 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit, or slightly less than 2 degrees Celsius.

     Even the most passionate environmental activist is (I think) not going to argue that human activity has caused global warming on Mars or Pluto.  Yet the activists are convinced that the same type of climate change on Earth is caused in whole or in part by humans.

     Given what is occurring on Mars and Pluto, it is instead plausible that any climate change occurring on Earth is occurring independent of human activity-- for example, the Sun just getting hotter.  Thus, even the Arctic ice-melting report, when put in proper context, only serves to show just how much we do not know about climate change and how cautious we should be about government schemes to "fix" the problem.

POST-HURRICANE MOLD

     The AP reported yesterday ("Monster Mold Threatens Health in the South") that, in the aftermaths of Hurricane Katrina and Rita, flooded homes and hospitals are now contaminated by mold.

"STREISAND DECLARES 'GLOBAL WARMING EMERGENCY'"

     Per The Drudge Report:

"STREISAND DECLARES 'GLOBAL WARMING EMERGENCY'"

     Well, that sure makes it official.

"Air travel boosts climate change"

     Add to wetlands (Post of 9/11),  soil (Post of 9/7), China (Post of 9/02) and cleaner air/clearer sky (Post of 5/08) yet another cause of global warming-- air travel.  Per New Scientist Magazine (NewScientist.com, September 24, 2005):

Air travel boosts climate change

AIR travel is fast emerging as the biggest single obstacle to halting climate change. It is in danger of swamping all efforts to cut greenhouse emissions elsewhere, according to a study which shows that predicted growth in air travel is incompatible with government promises to cut emissions.

The UK, for instance, has set a target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. But it also predicts a quadrupling of air travel by the same date. If that happens, says Kevin Anderson, who led the research for the Tyndall Centre at the University of Manchester, UK, aviation would use up every last tonne of British emissions entitlements. "Households, motorists and business would have to reduce their CO2 pollution to zero," he says.

     Assuming this research is accurate, the research is another indication that measures to control alleged human-caused climate change cannot be done in a vacuum. Either reduction in air travel, on the one hand, or reduction in business, etcetera on the order of magnitude discussed above, would of course ruin nations' economies and produce economic regression, meaning increased poverty for those already poor and lower standards of living for everyone.

     Moreover, there is simply a lot we don't know about what is causing global warming (if such is actually occurring).  On the one hand, China's tremendous increase in air pollution is decried (see Post of 9/02); but, on the other hand, some scientists contend reduced air pollution is itself a cause of global warming (Post of 5/08).

     Which is it?  If scientists themselves remain uncertain, perhaps draconian climate change prevention measures should themselves be seen as having uncertain benefit--and maybe even as having detriment.

GOOD NEWS--RESCUED DOLPHINS FROM KATRINA

Photograph courtesy NOAA

Good news, post-Katrina- NationalGeographic.com carries the above photo and the inspiring news that the 8 dolphin residents at Marine Life Oceanarium in Gulfport, Mississippi, who were swept into the Gulf of Mexico, have been rescued.

"All eight dolphins survived and were spotted swimming in the Gulf by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists during an aerial survey of the hurricane damage. Oceanarium staff members are now working with NOAA and other organizations to tend to the marine mammals until they can be taken to nearby saltwater pools for medical care."

     These animals are amazingly resilient.  Hope this brightens everyone's day.  Thanks to National Geographic for the info.

DTSC PECHLORATE WORKSHOP SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 23, 2005

     DTSC is about to hold another "Perchlorate Best Management Practices" workshop (for background, see my previous Post of August 15, 2005 under Perchlorate" in "Categories" on the right-hand side of this Blog).  Here is a portion of the DTSC's announcement:

This is to announce a workshop for Development of Perchlorate Best Management Practices (BMP) regulations.  The workshop will be held at the Cal/EPA Building beginning at 9:00 am on September 23, 2005 in Sacramento, California.  The notice of the workshop as well as regulatory strawman text is available on the DTSC website at http://www.dtsc.ca.gov .  The perchlorate link in under "Hot Topics" at the DTSC website.

EPA, LOUISIANA ISSUE REPORT ON NEW ORLEANS FLOOD CONTAMINATION

      Go here for a joint report on Friday, 9/16/05 by federal EPA and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality.

NEW ORLEANS: "Floods' Pollutants Within the Norm "

  On September 8, I Posted "Now, This is an Environmental Disaster", about the levels of hazardous wastes in the New Orleans flood waters.  I may have succumbed to the very environmentalist hyperbole against which I so often caution.  Today's Washington Post (free subscription required) headlines:

Floods' Pollutants Within the Norm 

     The article states:

Early tests on the floodwater that covered most of this city do not suggest it will leave a permanent toxic residue or render residential areas uninhabitable for more than a short time, officials of both state and federal environmental agencies said yesterday.

The pollution consists primarily of fecal matter and slightly elevated concentrations of metals such as lead and chromium that were in the city's soil before Hurricane Katrina. There are also trace amounts of many petroleum-based chemicals and some pesticides.

Despite descriptions of the floodwater as a "toxic soup" and a "witch's brew" of contaminants, the preliminary tests reveal it contains little that is different from what has been seen after past floods in other cities and here.

***

"The early results do not indicate specific toxic pollutants at any levels of concern," said Chris M. Piehler, a senior environmental scientist at the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. Asked if residue from floodwaters posed hazards that would keep residents from moving back, he answered: "No. The limiting factor is going to be what structures are going to be salvageable and which ones are not."

     These are still early results; and the same article also says that several specific areas will have greater problems because of oil spills.  Nonetheless, just as (thankfully) the order of magnitude of deaths caused by the hurricane now appears to have been dramataically overestimated, the order of magnitude of contamination caused by the hurricane is beginning to appear to have been overstated with equal drama.

     So, I hereby relearn my own basic truth:  we should know that there is a lot we don't know about the environment, how to keep it clean and how to repair it (or how it repairs itself) when it is dirty.  We should keep this basic truth in mind when making environmental laws and imposing new regulatory restrictions on the economy.

GLOBAL WARMING: I'M FLATTERED, BUT LIGHTEN UP

     You know you've hit a nerve when you get this type of reaction to a Post (my Post of 9/11/05 on the contribution of humans, wetlands, etcetera to "global warming")-

Here is a great example of the kind of foolish demagoguery that lawyers and politicians indulge in around the global warming debate.

This gentleman, an "environmental lawyer" (meaning he's trying to destroy the environment legally?) has used selective quotation and misinterpretation of the facts to arrive at a specious conclusion. He implies that the cited study indicates that "wetlands, termites and wildfires" contribute to global warming because of their methane emissions. He also implies that since the study indicates that human emissions go back longer than previously thought ("the problem is not really pollution from industry and automobiles-- we've apparently been screwing up the planet since Day One"), that the only way to stop this is to "get rid of humans." Hyperbolic, of course, but the underlying meaning is clear: Since humans have been doing it for thousands of years, why stop now?

"Climate Protection Campaign" blog http://climateprotectioncampaign.typepad.com/cpc/2005/09/environmental_l.html

     With all due respect, lighten up.  The Climate Protection Campaign blog post quoted from above is a classic example of environmentalist activists taking themselves way too seriously.

     With a humorous overtone, my Post of 9/11 is the latest in a line of Posts (9/7, 9/1, 8/5, 5/8--all 2005; see "Global Warming" under "CATEGORIES" on the right-hand side of this page) illustrating that real science (as opposed to ideology) admits there is a tremendous amount we don't know about climate change.  While admitting our knowledge limitation might not be good for those who wish to whip up hysteria, such limitation is a fact.

     Global warming is an issue that deserves fair debate:  Is global warming occurring (30 years ago, after all, we were being warned about a coming new Ice Age)?  If so, are humans causing the warming or is the phenomenon just part of a natural Earth cycle stretching back millions of years?  If humans are causing global warming, could certain cures be worse than the disease (e.g., draconian measures such as the Kyoto Protocols--rejected on a unanimous Senate vote in the 1990's--which could throw our economy into a deep depression)?

     Until environmentalist activists lighten up a bit and recognize that they do not have God's sole handle on the truth, they will continue in the midst of their hysteria to have a very hard time making progress among sensible people with their arguments .