What’s Uncle Sam Up To? Environmentally Involved Bureaucratic Agencies: Part 2

The National Marine Fisheries Service announced that they have given state officials permission to capture and or kill sea lions that have been feeding on salmon at the Bonneville Dam. The sea lions, protected under the Marine Mammals Protection Act of 1972, are apparently an exception to the rule. In defense, opponents have pointed out not only the Protection Act, but also the impacts of local fishermen and dams that have also led to a decrease in salmon. It appears the scapegoat for problems that humans are largely responsible for is in this case a scape-sealion. Apparently we also do not learn form our mistakes that have been made numerous times in attempting to control animal populations. The wolves for example were hunted until there were none left in Colorado, and when we were finished with them, we realized that the main source of porcupine population control had just been eliminated. It wasn’t until recently that the wolves started to make their way back into Colorado, and even the hint of a wolf (ie. its tracks) is enough to get the entire Rocky Mountain National Park staff excited. And now the states are endorsing the killing of sea lions to “help control” animal populations. If you’ll excuse me I feel obligated to go and join Arapahoe’s animals deserve rights club.
Federal flood control managers (the guys with the remotes to the dams) were planning on releasing “a rush of water” into the Grand Canyon. They believe the rush will “restore sand banks and side pools”, but the National Park Service begs to differ. NPS officials believe the rush is an attempt to meet pressure from hydropower companies, and argue that the act will ultimately destroy habitat that the Federal flood control managers claim to want to restore. I could be wrong, but it seems that those who have lived and worked around the actual habitat (the NPS officials) would be more knowledgeable about the subject, but then again, that never stopped any legislator from making up his own mind did it. No word yet on whether the flood control managers have bothered to give tourists on the river a heads up about their plans.
The Environmental Protection Agency released an economic analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act and in doing so gave both sides arguments for and against the passage of climate legislation. The EPA found that the legislation, which includes a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, “would not significantly harm the U.S. economy over the next twenty years.” The bill would also cut greenhouse gasses to eleven percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and even further (56 percent below) by 2050. It is interesting to note last year’s U.S. opposition of G8 proposals to mandate a return to 1990 greenhouse gas levels by 2050, as well as Japan’s proposal this year to implement such a mandate, knowing that the U.S. will once again strike it down even though legislation like the Climate Security Act could result in a significant reduction in greenhouse gases.
In the economic realm, the bill is projected to come only one percent short of standard GDP predicted levels that do not include the new bill. Critics have pointed out that such restrictions on carbon emissions “could increase electricity prices some 44 percent by 2030 and may increase gasoline prices by 53 cents a gallon by 2030”. If however current research on energy efficiency and new forms of energy production develop positive results, the arguments against this cap-and-trade system become irrelevant and we can accept the new legislation. Of course, the problem lies in ensuring the success of said research. Environmentalists see the EPA’s report as “confirmation that climate bills can coexist with economic growth, and also stress that the EPA analysis didn’t calculate the economic benefits of reducing the emissions.” Environmentalists were less prone to mention the increase in energy and fuel prices, although a majority of them are probably already living efficient lifestyles. Ultimately, it will come down to who is willing or who is actually capable of making the necessary sacrifices.
Through a series of legislative and judicial decisions, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently reversed its plans to cut back on protected habitat for the marbled murrelet. I previously reported on difficulties that were currently being experienced in relation to endangered species and the Bush administration. The decision about the marbled murrelet, a small sea bird, and its habitat means much more for environmentalists than simply protecting another rare animal. The FWS had planned on eliminating more than ninety percent of the bird’s habitat in order to gain access to old-growth forests prime for logging. Due to the decisions however, 3.9 million acres of the old-growth forests will remain under protection. Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles summed up the result of these events, “This reversal, coupled with a recent court decision throwing out a timber industry attempt to de-list the murrelet, should end the timber industry's profit-driven and illegal attack on the coastal forests that murrelets need to survive”. For environmentalists, this victory although not monumental proves that difficulties experienced in protecting land and animals can be overcome.
In February, the state of California sued the U.S. Forest Service claiming, “it violated federal environmental laws and ignored state policies prohibiting road building in roadless areas of national forests”. There are currently more that 500,000 acres among four national forests in California that are going to be opened up to road building, and an additional 52,000 acres are scheduled for drilling. California is seeking an injunction to stop the planned roads. Even Schwarzenegger himself spoke about the issue saying, “Despite repeated attempts to ensure that the United States Forest Service honor its written assurances that California's roadless areas would be protected they have failed to do so”. Who knows, maybe the he’ll take refuge in the forests and chase away anyone who even thinks about roads in or near the forest. Probably not, but until then we can still hope that the injunction does its job to prevent the construction.
Additional bureaucratic agencies and organizations obviously do exist; however, they have done little as of late to attract the attention of Grist reporters. I believe it is safe to assume that they might be currently non-existent, A.K.A. under the governmental radar. One could also assume that the organizations with little to report are doing their jobs well and are providing the environment (and those of us who remind ourselves of its fragility) with an adequate level of well being.