Obama Suspends Bush Rule on Endangered Species

ALiberalModerate · Mar 4, 2009

Harry Guerrilla said:
As much as I dislike it, I could be open to this.

I want to protect the environment from dangerous abuse but I also want property owners to have full rights, it is a hard thing to compromise.

There is really two different problems here:

1. How should we manage the commons (public lands) for preservation and maintaining biodiversity.

2. How do we preserve critical habit on private lands while still maintaining property rights.

BulletWounD · Mar 4, 2009

Harry Guerrilla said:
As much as I dislike it, I could be open to this.

I want to protect the environment from dangerous abuse but I also want property owners to have full rights, it is a hard thing to compromise.

Not really. Vote with your dollar and encourage others to do the same.

First Thought · Mar 4, 2009

SouthernDemocrat said:
There are a lot of politically driven critiques of the Endangered Species Act. However, this is an issue of science, so science should be what evaluates the effectiveness of it.

Report is here: The Road to Recovery: 100 Success Stories for Endangered Species Day 2006

So compared to extinction rates for endangered species prior to the act, its been quite effective from a biologist perspective. I would certainly agree that there are conflicts with property rights and I think that some warrant being addressed, but the goal of the act is a good one, and we should not throw it out altogether.

I agree. I apologize for coming off like a dick, I'm not feeling too well today. :3oops:

I do not think we should throw it out, I just believe we need major revision. Some of the animals on the list are far from endangered, while other near endangered species have missed the safe haven boat.

ALiberalModerate · Mar 4, 2009

EgoffTib said:
I agree. I apologize for coming off like a dick, I'm not feeling too well today. :3oops:

I do not think we should throw it out, I just believe we need major revision. Some of the animals on the list are far from endangered, while other near endangered species have missed the safe haven boat.

I agree with that. I just think that environmental protection is probably one of the few legitimate roles of government. Sometimes I think people get so anti-government that they actually think that National Parks were a bad idea. You know what I mean.

Cilogy · Mar 4, 2009

talloulou said:
Moderator's Warning:

Same topic. Threads merged. :2wave:

Oh I'm sorry did I post mine after the other one?

I apologize.

Grateful Heart · Mar 4, 2009

Re: Obama overturns Bush endangered species rule

SouthernDemocrat said:
Its a false dichotomy to argue that we have to chose between environmental assessments and your being able to run your microwave, cool your house, and so on. We have required these assessments for over 30 years now, yet we still have coal, oil, and so on.

And for the past 30 years our population grows and new production capabilities are stalled, we're placing an increasing strain on our electric power grid:

U.S. baseload generation capacity reserve margins "have declined precipitously to 17 percent in 2007, from 30-40 percent in the early 1990s," according to the study. A 12-15 percent capacity reserve margin is the minimum required to ensure reliability and stability of the nation’s electricity system. Compounding this capacity deficiency, the projected U.S. demand in the next ten years is forecast to grow by 18 percent, far exceeding the projected eight percent growth in baseload generation capacity between now and 2016.

NextGen Blackout Study

We need lots of new energy and we need it soon. If people think the current financial crisis is bad... wait until we flip our light switches and nothing happens. That's when we'll be rioting.

:shock:

ALiberalModerate · Mar 4, 2009

Re: Obama overturns Bush endangered species rule

Grateful Heart said:
And for the past 30 years our population grows and new production capabilities are stalled, we're placing an increasing strain on our electric power grid:

NextGen Blackout Study

We need lots of new energy and we need it soon.

:shock:

You are talking about our antiquated power grid. Thats an infrastructure issue. Environmental regulations are not standing in the way of improving our energy grid, its simply the lack of political will and private sector resources.

The issue being discussed is the requirement of an environmental assessment on public lands before energy exploration.

Slippery Slope · Mar 4, 2009

Basically what this seems to come down to is, do we wreck the environment in the search for fossil fuels or do we focus on alternatives?

Wind, Solar, and Hemp would nearly put the petrochemical companies right out of business so we must not talk about them, instead lets talk about how silly it is to protect the striped furry pond frog...

Someone said the actions of Bush and Obama are both wrong. If the guy next door steals your kids bicycle and you go take it back, who is wrong again?

Grateful Heart · Mar 4, 2009

Re: Obama overturns Bush endangered species rule

SouthernDemocrat said:
You are talking about our antiquated power grid. Thats an infrastructure issue. Environmental regulations are not standing in the way of improving our energy grid, its simply the lack of political will and private sector resources.

The issue being discussed is the requirement of an environmental assessment on public lands before energy exploration.

Perhaps you need to re-read the study I provided. Environmental issues are very clearly slowing down the generation of new power capability.

The study also presented a survey of political developments and trends that amount to "structural political barriers being erected to system reliability." It pointed to the fact that "environmental activist groups" are now:

* Suing to block the construction of virtually every single baseload coal-fired power plant, in spite of advanced environmental technologies these plants would deploy.

* Gearing up to block construction of any baseload nuclear power plants across the West.

* Suing or protesting virtually every proposed lease on public lands in the Rocky Mountains for natural gas drilling.

* Working to slow or stop the completion of the two main multi-year, stakeholder-based transmission corridor processes that both Democrats and Republicans in Congress approved as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

* Pushing for additional endangered species designations, which will make siting and construction of both power plants and transmission lines difficult.

* Pressuring government leaders to limit access by larger, baseload technologies to the region's high-voltage transmission grid and, instead proposing to artificially favor non-baseload, intermittent power facilities that will (at some point) further stress the reliability of the entire Western grid.

NextGen Blackout Study

ALiberalModerate · Mar 4, 2009

Re: Obama overturns Bush endangered species rule

Grateful Heart said:
Perhaps you need to re-read the study I provided. Environmental issues are very clearly slowing down the generation of new power capability.
NextGen Blackout Study

You are quoting an industry lobby site, not the National Academy of Sciences.

NextGen Energy Council - SourceWatch

Public land is our land. Its authoritarian to remove public input from its management. If the taxpayers that own a national forest or blm land do not want a gas well on it, then its in their rights as owners of that common resource to not allow it.

I am not saying there are not abuses, but we should address the abuses, not just throw out the law and its protections as the industry wants us to do. America is not just a way of life, even more so its a land, a land that we should take steps to protect and preserve when possible.

Bergslagstroll · Mar 4, 2009

That seems to be more and more incorrect is the idea that it's all about the economy versus environment. That it becomes more and more clear that todays dependency on fossil fuel is not dependable. Then the demand for oil is stadily increasing while the supply side can't keep up. If it wasn't for oil USA would have be so costly involved in the ME mess. That is also a security threath to the western world to be that dependent on fossiel fuel. That if you USA and the rest of the western world had realise that earlier new better technology could have emerged quicker.

Slippery Slope · Mar 4, 2009

Re: Obama overturns Bush endangered species rule

WI Crippler said:
First of all, we are a part of the natural process. To say we introduce the unnatural, is erroneous. Unless you believe us created by a supernatural being, our evolution to this point is how the earth itself has shaped us. What we are doing is within our natural rights.
We are supposed to be trying to send future generations out into space, to spread our species amongst the stars. That should be the gift we give them above all others.

So we shouldn't evolve our use of the environment since we are able to shape it? Just because we can destroy something doesn't mean we should. We've evolved a brain that allows us to contemplate our actions instead of acting on our impulses or our baser instincts. The fact is that we only harm ourselves and our progeny when we ignore our environmental impact.

In the 2 pictures, which would you rather leave to your children? I live in the Appalachian Chain, and we hike in the Blue Ridge Mountains... it would be a shame if my son or grand kids couldn't do the same.

Grateful Heart · Mar 4, 2009

Re: Obama overturns Bush endangered species rule

SouthernDemocrat said:
You are quoting an industry lobby site, not the National Academy of Sciences.

That's true. Do you have data from the National Academy of Sciences contradicting the claims made by the industry lobby?

And I'm curious, if I were to cite a report by an environmental lobby group, would that be equally as suspect?

ALiberalModerate · Mar 4, 2009

Re: Obama overturns Bush endangered species rule

Grateful Heart said:
That's true. Do you have data from the National Academy of Sciences contradicting the claims made by the industry lobby?

And I'm curious, if I were to cite a report by an environmental lobby group, would that be equally as suspect?

If you cited Green Peace and Green Peace was not citing anything peer reviewed in their claims, then yes I would be equally suspect.

You cited a propaganda cite that claims that we are in for mass power shortages this summer because of environmental regulations. I doubt the folks at the national academy of sciences or any of the major scientific societies have bother to address that kind of lunatic drivel.

The fact is, for 40 years now we have been hearing industry lobbyists cry doom and gloom over environmental regulations.

Lerxst · Mar 4, 2009

Cilogy said:
Oh I'm sorry did I post mine after the other one?

I apologize.

No, you were first. I put that "train left the station" picture in Dana's thread cause he was late to the game. Tall merged the threads.

Grateful Heart · Mar 5, 2009

Re: Obama overturns Bush endangered species rule

SouthernDemocrat said:
If you cited Green Peace and Green Peace was not citing anything peer reviewed in their claims, then yes I would be equally suspect.

You cited a propaganda cite that claims that we are in for mass power shortages this summer because of environmental regulations. I doubt the folks at the national academy of sciences or any of the major scientific societies have bother to address that kind of lunatic drivel.

The fact is, for 40 years now we have been hearing industry lobbyists cry doom and gloom over environmental regulations.

It's not just coal/oil/gas lobbyists who are crying doom and gloom over environmental regulations. We're now hearing much the same from the 'clean energy' industry:

NY Times said:
Citing Need for Assessments, U.S. Freezes Solar Energy Projects

DENVER — Faced with a surge in the number of proposed solar power plants, the federal government has placed a moratorium on new solar projects on public land until it studies their environmental impact, which is expected to take about two years.

“It doesn’t make any sense,” said Holly Gordon, vice president for legislative and regulatory affairs for Ausra, a solar thermal energy company in Palo Alto, Calif. “The Bureau of Land Management land has some of the best solar resources in the world. This could completely stunt the growth of the industry.”

“I think it’s good to have a plan,” Mr. Cox said, “but I don’t think we need to stop development in its tracks.”

New York Times

Don't get me wrong, I'm no proponent of turning our nation into a wasteland. But I think the trend has moved dangerously in the wrong direction for the time being.

Gill · Mar 5, 2009

Re: Obama overturns Bush endangered species rule

SouthernDemocrat said:
Yes, species have always out competed each other and some survive and some go extinct. Its just what happens in the natural world. However, we human's have introduced a "market distortion" into the natural world. As a direct result of human activity, species extinction over the last century has accelerated to 1000 times the natural rate. At the rate we are going, half the biodiversity on earth will be gone by the end of this century.

This represents a theft from future generations.

Another example of this is how we are rapidly changing the land. In the name of "Clean Coal", we are taking entire mountains in the Appalachians and turning them from this:

Into this:

In the end it is nothing less than theft from future generations, in this case, we are stealing entire mountains from thousands of future generations all in our attempts to maintain our lifestyle in this generation.

Here's what coal land looks like after being reclaimed. Nothing wrong with it. We have 12,000 elk here in Kentucky now and there haven't been any here in over 100 years, all on reclaimed coal land in east Kentucky.

How many species have become extinct in the past 50 years??

ALiberalModerate · Mar 5, 2009

Re: Obama overturns Bush endangered species rule

Gill said:
Here's what coal land looks like after being reclaimed. Nothing wrong with it. We have 12,000 elk here in Kentucky now and there haven't been any here in over 100 years, all on reclaimed coal land in east Kentucky.

How many species have become extinct in the past 50 years??

Mountain top removal has destroyed around 1200 miles of streams, and destroyed forests on around 300 square miles of land. Yes, the land is reclaimed once the mining is finished, but the land is never capable of supporting the biodiversity it did prior to mining. There is more to a forest than a thin layer of top soil spread over bedrock.

As to current extinction rates, since science has only identified around 10% of the world's plant and animal species, extinction rates can only be estimated. However, most estimates put current extinction rates at around 50 to 150 species a day, or around .2 to .6% of species a year being lost (which is a 1000 times the natural rate).

Biodiversity for Development CD-ROM

Most of these are plant species and insects, but just the same, the more species that are lost in an ecosystem the greater the pressure on the remaining species. Moreover, that species thats lost could have been the next cancer treatment, or parkinson's drug.

Look, I am not against energy exploration. We need the energy. Environmental protection and preservation depends upon a strong economy. I am not against coal mining either. We need the coal. Some of the best fishing within a 100 miles of here are the old strip pit lakes. There is however a huge environmental cost to mining and some types of energy exploration, so we should, just like we always have, require an environmental assessment on leases so that environmental cost can be weighed against the benefits of energy exploration on a case by case basis.

Gill · Mar 5, 2009

Re: Obama overturns Bush endangered species rule

SouthernDemocrat said:
Mountain top removal has destroyed around 1200 miles of streams, and destroyed forests on around 300 square miles of land. Yes, the land is reclaimed once the mining is finished, but the land is never capable of supporting the biodiversity it did prior to mining. There is more to a forest than a thin layer of top soil spread over bedrock.

There's only a thin layer of soil over bedrock anywhere in Kentucky. The trees learn to put roots down into cracks in the rock.

As to current extinction rates, since science has only identified around 10% of the world's plant and animal species, extinction rates can only be estimated. However, most estimates put current extinction rates at around 50 to 150 species a day, or around .2 to .6% of species a year being lost (which is a 1000 times the natural rate).

Biodiversity for Development CD-ROM

Most of these are plant species and insects, but just the same, the more species that are lost in an ecosystem the greater the pressure on the remaining species. Moreover, that species thats lost could have been the next cancer treatment, or parkinson's drug.

Look, I am not against energy exploration. We need the energy. Environmental protection and preservation depends upon a strong economy. I am not against coal mining either. We need the coal. Some of the best fishing within a 100 miles of here are the old strip pit lakes. There is however a huge environmental cost to mining and some types of energy exploration, so we should, just like we always have, require an environmental assessment on leases so that environmental cost can be weighed against the benefits of energy exploration on a case by case basis.

Actually, there have been only 60 documented extinctions of life since 1500 and 27 in the past 20 years. That's according to the Red List published by the IUCN.

With that said, I completely agree that mines of any type, either surface or subsurface should not be allowed to damage our streams and wildlife. Runoff from mines can contaminate streams. Several streams here in KY with native Brook Trout have been endangered by mine runoff.

ALiberalModerate · Mar 5, 2009

Re: Obama overturns Bush endangered species rule

Gill said:
There's only a thin layer of soil over bedrock anywhere in Kentucky. The trees learn to put roots down into cracks in the rock.

Actually, there have been only 60 documented extinctions of life since 1500 and 27 in the past 20 years. That's according to the Red List published by the IUCN.

With that said, I completely agree that mines of any type, either surface or subsurface should not be allowed to damage our streams and wildlife. Runoff from mines can contaminate streams. Several streams here in KY with native Brook Trout have been endangered by mine runoff.

Correction on your IUCN numbers. The reason why the number of documented extinctions of life is so much lower than the estimated number of extinctions is that from a biologist perspective, we live in a largely unknown planet. At best, only 10% of the world's species are even known to science so far. Basically, right now we have only documented most of the big stuff.

From the IUCN:

FACTS
• 16,928 plant and animal
species are known to be
threatened with extinction.
This may be a gross
underestimate because less
than 3% of the world’s 1.9
million described species
have been assessed for the
IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species.

• Only 1.9 million species
have been described out of
an estimated 13-14 million
species that exist.

• In the last 500 years,
human activity is known to
have forced 869 species to
extinction (or extinction in
the wild).

• One in four mammals and
one in eight birds face a
high risk of extinction in the
near future.

• One in three amphibians
and almost half of all
tortoises and freshwater
turtles are threatened.

• The current species
extinction rate is estimated
to be between 1,000 and
10,000 times higher than
the natural or ‘background’
rate.

• The total number of known
threatened animal species
has increased from 5,205 to
8,462 since 1996.

http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/species_extinction_05_2007.pdf

Gill · Mar 5, 2009

Re: Obama overturns Bush endangered species rule

SouthernDemocrat said:
Correction on your IUCN numbers. The reason why the number of documented extinctions of life is so much lower than the estimated number of extinctions is that from a biologist perspective, we live in a largely unknown planet. At best, only 10% of the world's species are even known to science so far. Basically, right now we have only documented most of the big stuff.

http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/species_extinction_05_2007.pdf

I don't doubt the numbers, but you can't count your chickens if you don't know where they are.

Grateful Heart · Mar 5, 2009

If we're really going to do something about preserving our precious natural wildlife, we'd better put a stop to all the growth in Africa.

If we were to conduct a worldwide poll, there's little doubt in my mind that the most precious and valued of endangered species live there...

Gorillas
Chimpanzees
Black Rhinoceros
Gazelle
Zebras
Cheetahs
Lemurs
Wild Dogs
Crocodiles
Ostriches

The list goes on... And every new highway, fence, power transmission line, waterway, and hospital that gets built in Africa only contributes further to the demise of these treasures.

We haggle quite a bit over snail darters and other relatively obscure wildlife in the U.S. Meanwhile, the really valuable and precious animals are being destroyed by development on another continent. And make no mistake about it. Africa cannot have both. It cannot become a first world thriving agricultural and industrial state and at the same time preserve its habitats... any more than it would be possible for herds of wild buffalo to roam freely across the Western Plains in modern America.

The National Bison Association keeps a record of all public and private herds.
Their breakdown of the bison population is as follow:

Privately owned bison - U.S. - 244,000
Privately owned bison - Canada - 100,000
Public herds - U.S. - 10,000
Public herds - Canada - 3,000
Native American herds - 7,000
Bison in zoos - 750
Bison outside U.S & Canada - 300

Google Answers Wild Buffalo

ALiberalModerate · Mar 5, 2009

Grateful Heart said:
If we're really going to do something about preserving our precious natural wildlife, we'd better put a stop to all the growth in Africa.

If we were to conduct a worldwide poll, there's little doubt in my mind that the most precious and valued of endangered species live there...

Gorillas
Chimpanzees
Black Rhinoceros
Gazelle
Zebras
Cheetahs
Lemurs
Wild Dogs
Crocodiles
Ostriches

The list goes on... And every new highway, fence, power transmission line, waterway, and hospital that gets built in Africa only contributes further to the demise of these treasures.

We haggle quite a bit over snail darters and other relatively obscure wildlife in the U.S. Meanwhile, the really valuable and precious animals are being destroyed by development on another continent. And make no mistake about it. Africa cannot have both. It cannot become a first world thriving agricultural and industrial state and at the same time preserve its habitats... any more than it would be possible for herds of wild buffalo to roam freely across the Western Plains in modern America.
Google Answers Wild Buffalo

A lot of environmental and wildlife organizations are doing a lot of work in Africa.

However, your argument is like saying that since air pollution is so bad in China, we should not worry about it here.

That said, over population certainly is the biggest threat to the environment worldwide.

Harry Guerrilla · Mar 5, 2009

SouthernDemocrat said:
A lot of environmental and wildlife organizations are doing a lot of work in Africa.

However, your argument is like saying that since air pollution is so bad in China, we should not worry about it here.

That said, over population certainly is the biggest threat to the environment worldwide.

I hate to say it but the only way we can curb over population is to allow malaria and the other diseases to remain in Africa.

We would also need to stop the feed the children programs to.

Obama Suspends Bush Rule on Endangered Species

Pragmatist

Well-known member

Pragmatist

Pathetic Douchebag

Well-known member

Pragmatist

Well-known member

Pragmatist

Well-known member

Pragmatist

U mad bro?

Well-known member

Pragmatist

Pragmatist

Well-known member

Pragmatist