• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Suspends Bush Rule on Endangered Species

Cilogy

Pathetic Douchebag
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
1,587
Reaction score
374
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Obama overturns Bush endangered species rule

Obama overturns Bush endangered species rule - CNN.com

President Obama on Tuesday overturned a last-minute Bush administration regulation that many environmentalists claim weakened the Endangered Species Act.

The regulation, issued a few weeks before George W. Bush left office, made it easier for federal agencies to skip consultations with government scientists before launching projects that could affect endangered wildlife.

This is good. :)
 
Re: Obama overturns Bush endangered species rule


I'm not sure why this is so good. While I recognize environmental issues as being very important (and am even doing some GA work for a company that has a fantastic program to help improve clean water initiatives and waste disposal/landfill problems) I have some serious concerns about how endangered species rules have unnecessarily restricted our ability to explore for natural energy. In a time when we are struggling to become energy independent (well working towards that goal as outrageous as it may seem) the last thing we need is the striped furry pond frog getting preference over the U.S. populace.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama overturns Bush endangered species rule

I'm not sure why this is so good. While I recognize environmental issues as being very important (and am even doing some GA work for a company that has a fantastic program to help improve clean water initiatives and waste disposal/landfill problems) I have some serious concerns about how endangered species rules have unnecessarily restricted our ability to explore for natural energy. In a time when we are struggling to become energy independent (well working towards that goal as outrageous as it may seem) the last thing we need is the striped furry pond frog getting preference over the U.S. populace.

But it was a matter of government project directors not consulting anyone on how certain things would affect the environment. This is wrong.

This doesn't mean that all searches for natural energy are halted, it just means that projects won't be carelessly started with negligence to animal wildlife.

That is why it is good. :)
 
By executive order, President Bush suspended a rule in the Endangered Species Act, which required Federal agencies to consult with "experts" on the environmental impact of Federal projects on endangered species.

Today, President Obama has overturned that rule.

I have one question to ask about this controversy, and I ask this question to everybody on both sides of the aisle:

Isn't Congress supposed to enact law, and the Executive Branch enforce what Congress enacts? Is the Executive Branch overextending its powers in both cases? And what about Congress? Where the hell are they? Why aren't they sticking up for themselves?

OK, that was 3 questions, not one, but you get the idea. IMHO, something unconstitutional happened when Bush issued his executive order, and something unconstitutional is happening with Obama issuing his.

Article is here
.
 
Re: Obama overturns Bush endangered species rule

I'm not sure why this is so good. While I recognize environmental issues as being very important (and am even doing some GA work for a company that has a fantastic program to help improve clean water initiatives and waste disposal/landfill problems) I have some serious concerns about how endangered species rules have unnecessarily restricted our ability to explore for natural energy. In a time when we are struggling to become energy independent (well working towards that goal as outrageous as it may seem) the last thing we need is the striped furry pond frog getting preference over the U.S. populace.

I understand your concerns. However, this is an ethical issue as well. Does this generation have the moral authority to rob future generations of biodiversity simply in an attempt to maintain our way of life in this generation?

For example, should the Woodland Caribou go extinct in America just so we can have the chance at slightly cheaper lumber?
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama overturns Bush endangered species rule

I understand your concerns. However, this is an ethical issue as well. Does this generation have the moral authority to rob future generations of biodiversity simply in an attempt to maintain our way of life in this generation?

For example, should the Woodland Caribou go extinct in America just so we can have the chance at slightly cheaper lumber?

Future generations can deal with what they get handed from us, just like we deal with what the ones before us, handed to us. Improvise, adapt, overcome.
 
Re: Obama overturns Bush endangered species rule

Future generations can deal with what they get handed from us, just like we deal with what the ones before us, handed to us. Improvise, adapt, overcome.

Previous generations gave us National Parks, National Forests, and Federal Wilderness areas, as well as the Endangered Species Act.

What moral authority do we have in this generation, or any generation, to cause the extinction of a species?
 
Re: Obama overturns Bush endangered species rule

Previous generations gave us National Parks, National Forests, and Federal Wilderness areas, as well as the Endangered Species Act.

What moral authority do we have in this generation, or any generation, to cause the extinction of a species?

Species go extinct all the time, what does it matter if its us or some other cause that wipes them out?
 
Re: Obama overturns Bush endangered species rule

Species go extinct all the time, what does it matter if its us or some other cause that wipes them out?

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:

mountain%2Bwv%2B2.jpg


Into this:

mountaintop-removal-jj-001.jpg


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.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama overturns Bush endangered species rule

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:

mountain%2Bwv%2B2.jpg


Into this:

mountaintop-removal-jj-001.jpg


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.

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.
 
Re: Obama overturns Bush endangered species rule

This represents a theft from future generations.

{snip}

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.

That all sounds nice. Everybody likes mountains with trees and animals rather than mountains with bare rocks.

Unfortunately, we need to keep the power on. You know, so that moms and dads and kids will have lights, heat, AC, microwaves... and TV. And it's also nice to keep that power affordable. So that all the poor Americans who are having trouble making mortgage and car payments right now can pay their bills.

When 'green' energy is readily available and cost-effective, there's no doubt we'll all support it. Everyone. We'll all welcome it. Unfortunately it's not available. (Now's when the Big Oil conspiracy theorists will jump in.)

When 'green' energy is a reality we won't have to cut down forests or drill messy oil and gas wells and cause species to go extinct. Until then, we really don't have much choice. It's a delicate balancing act. No one likes it. It's not fun. But the alternative simply isn't viable. Because we're not about to let the lights go off on all those moms and dads and their kids.

:2wave:
 
Re: Obama overturns Bush endangered species rule

I understand your concerns. However, this is an ethical issue as well. Does this generation have the moral authority to rob future generations of biodiversity simply in an attempt to maintain our way of life in this generation?
Yes.
:doh
 
Re: Obama overturns Bush endangered species rule

That all sounds nice. Everybody likes mountains with trees and animals rather than mountains with bare rocks.

Unfortunately, we need to keep the power on. You know, so that moms and dads and kids will have lights, heat, AC, microwaves... and TV. And it's also nice to keep that power affordable. So that all the poor Americans who are having trouble making mortgage and car payments right now can pay their bills.

No one is arguing that we do not need to keep the power on. However, I think the vast majority of Americans would think its perfectly reasonable to require an environmental assessment before we blow the top half a mountain off to get some coal.

Thats what this is about. What oil and coal industries want is to be able to buy a lease, and then go and either explore for oil, or blow the top out of a mountain to get to the coal underneath, without having to go through an environmental assessment or public comment period first.

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.
 
Re: Obama overturns Bush endangered species rule

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.

We are at the top of the natural world. No other species in history has had the ability to shape the natural world like we can. That carries an ethical responsibility that say a slug would not have.
 
The Endangered Species Act is a ****ing joke in the first place.
 
The Endangered Species Act is a ****ing joke in the first place.

A perfect example of the 300 year old antiquated thinking of hard core right -libertarians. Basically, to you guys, its your property and you can do what ever you want with it without regard to future generations or natural life on it.
 
A perfect example of the 300 year old antiquated thinking of hard core right -libertarians. Basically, to you guys, its your property and you can do what ever you want with it without regard to future generations or natural life on it.

What you propose, although I do agree with it on a voluntary personal basis, leads itself to abuse.

When a property owner decides he/she wants to develop an apartment complex and the locals don't want them to they can use the Endangered Species Act to at least delay or stop someone from doing so.

It gives power to someone else over your property. That is wrong especially when your hard earned resources were spent getting it.
 
Re: Obama overturns Bush endangered species rule

We are at the top of the natural world. No other species in history has had the ability to shape the natural world like we can. That carries an ethical responsibility that say a slug would not have.

So we should sit around here, and not exploit natural resources for our own gain? Thats our nature, thats what we do. Thats how we got ahead in the first place, and thats the only way we will continue to advance. Now I am about conserving what we can while were here, cause we need this place to be around long enough for us to figure out the problems inherent in space travel/colonization. I don't advocate people going out and hunting wolves, just to say they shot a wolf. I hate canned hunts with a passion, because they serve no purpose for our advancement. But nature takes a backseat to getting off this rock and part of that is developing cultures that are advanced and technologically capable of solving those issues. And that takes energy. Massive amounts of it. Now I also support the research into alternative energies, not because I am worried about some polar bears starving to death, but because oil is a finite resource and it will most likely run out before we figure out how to move through interstellar space. We need alternatives for that reason alone, and the sooner the better. But I have no qualms about taking what oil we can in the meantime. Its there, and its the cheapest method currently. Use it. Ethics should always take a backseat to survival.
 
What you propose, although I do agree with it on a voluntary personal basis, leads itself to abuse.

When a property owner decides he/she wants to develop an apartment complex and the locals don't want them to they can use the Endangered Species Act to at least delay or stop someone from doing so.

It gives power to someone else over your property. That is wrong especially when your hard earned resources were spent getting it.

I agree with you on the potential for abuse. However, environmental preservation represents a Market Failure. In most cases there is little incentive to preserve the environment or biodiversity for future generations at the costs of profit. So there has to be some way of doing this outside of just the pure voluntary. We tried that up until the 20th century, and it did not work. So if the Endangered Species Act is flawed then it seems to me that we ought to change it or come up with something better to replace it with rather than just throwing it alway and trusting that it will work out on its own.
 
Re: Obama overturns Bush endangered species rule

So we should sit around here, and not exploit natural resources for our own gain? Thats our nature, thats what we do. Thats how we got ahead in the first place, and thats the only way we will continue to advance. Now I am about conserving what we can while were here, cause we need this place to be around long enough for us to figure out the problems inherent in space travel/colonization.

Ok, I think we are at impasse then. Because if you think this is just a rock to use until we can get off of it and find something better, then we are not going to agree at all.

I see this as the only home we are ever going to have, so we have to take care of it.
 
I agree with you on the potential for abuse. However, environmental preservation represents a Market Failure. In most cases there is little incentive to preserve the environment or biodiversity for future generations at the costs of profit. So there has to be some way of doing this outside of just the pure voluntary. We tried that up until the 20th century, and it did not work. So if the Endangered Species Act is flawed then it seems to me that we ought to change it or come up with something better to replace it with rather than just throwing it alway and trusting that it will work out on its own.

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.
 
A perfect example of the 300 year old antiquated thinking of hard core right -libertarians. Basically, to you guys, its your property and you can do what ever you want with it without regard to future generations or natural life on it.
Please educate yourself. Playing the fool gets old really quick.

Endangered Species Act: FLAWED LAW
 
Please educate yourself. Playing the fool gets old really quick.

Endangered Species Act: FLAWED LAW

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.

The US Center for Biological Diversity has just released an important study assessing the success of the US Endangered Species Act: the primary piece of legislation to protect biological diversity in the US.

As the report states, the purpose of the Act is "to prevent the extinction of America’s most imperiled plants and animals, increase their numbers, and eventually effect their full recovery and removal from the endangered list. Currently 1,312 species in the United States are entrusted to its protection".

Their results suggest that the Act has been successful in achieving its objectives:

No species has become extinct after listing.

Most species have improved since listing, with 93% of species increasing or maintaining a stable population since listing.

Seven of the 11 species whose recovery plans aimed for recovery by 2005 had been delisted or at least ‘downlisted’ (ie, downgraded from ‘endangered’ to ‘threatened’).

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom