Late last year, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell gave the FWS a little hand in standing up for Great Lakes wolves in their struggle to survive. In a lawsuit filed by the The Humane Society of the United States, Born Free USA, Help Our Wolves Live, Friends of Animals and Their Environment, and a number of other wildlife protection groups, Judge Howell ruled against the FWS, the Department of the Interior, and the States of Michigan and Wisconsin. Howell ruled that wolves in those states and in Minnesota must be returned to the Endangered Species List and should never have been delisted at all. However it was Judge Howell's admonishment to the government that set the ruling apart:
"The D.C. Circuit has noted that, at times, a court 'must lean forward from the bench to let an agency know, in no uncertain terms, that enough is enough.' This case is one of those times."
Economics, the Environment, and Politics
The most common argument in favor of ignoring sound environmental policy is economics. In essence: "Too bad about the environment, economic growth trumps." It also happens to be a very easy argument to debunk.
If we are talking about the economic priorities of wealthy campaign donors, then yes, without a doubt, sound environmental policy would absolutely be costly. Tough to build an empire on good judgement. But if the economic well-being of the nation is considered, then good sound environmental policy is excellent economic policy.
In fact poor environmental policy is a massive economic burden on the American taxpayer. In terms of contamination cleanup, health-care costs, impact on local economies, you name it, America pays dearly for poor environmental policy. So why does it continue? The wealthy campaign donors and their lobbyists run the game in the nation's capitol, and we live with the consequences.
President Obama's Stunning Environmental Disconnect
On April Fool's Day 2010, the Washington Post ran a story titled "President Obama Opens New Areas to Offshore Drilling." Interior Secretary Ken Salazar called it "a new direction." The Washington Post called it "a high-stakes calculation by the White House."
Nineteen days later, on April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon, an offshore drilling rig operated by BP, exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, resulting in the greatest environmental disaster in human history.
While Obama's ruling did not directly affect or authorize the Deepwater Horizon operation, it ignored the enormous danger that such drilling operations represent.
By December of that year the administration had reversed itself. This time the headline read, Obama Bans Offshore Oil Drilling in Atlantic Waters, a now contrite Secretary Salazar saying at the time, "The changes we're making are based on the lessons we have learned."
Lessons that apparently did not leave a lasting impression. The last of the protesters blocking a Royal Dutch Shell icebreaker from leaving Portland this week have been "physically removed and arrested" by Portland police and the U.S. Coast Guard, "public safety being the main concern," according to a local police official. So Shell is off to the Arctic to do whatever they do with a free pass from a White House whose main priority appears to be politics.
Sure, Obama has taken a few symbolic steps on behalf of the environment, proposing that carbon emissions from American power plants be cut -- from 2005 levels -- 30 percent by 2030. It's enraging the coal industry, but in reality barely scratches the surface of the problem.
The 2014 agreement between the U.S. and China to limit greenhouse gases is an impressive initiative, but with Obama writing China out of the TPP agreement, China's cooperation on anything is not something the White House should count on.
Another noteworthy Obama environmental action was the expansion of the Pacific Remote Islands National Marine Monument from 89,000 square miles to over 490,000. But at the same time, Obama has been a staunch proponent of natural resource exploitation on American protected lands. So "protection" in the Obama era is apparently relative, if not meaningless.
Overall, President Obama appears to view environmental concerns through a decidedly political lens. It's not a passion for the man; it's not something that he is committed to. The actions and decisions of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of the Interior underscore that lack of commitment.
The administration has the power. Does it have the will? The survival of many species depends upon that.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
