Get The Latest
Announcements, Alerts
& Information in
your Inbox!
Join SCB's
Policy Listserve!
|
|
News Update on US Federal Policy and SCB
February 2007 - January in Washington, D.C. was remarkable, with temperatures approximately
seven degrees Celsius above the average. That heat seemed to be reflected
in Congress. Congress appointed new leaders and committee and subcommittee
chairs in the Senate and the House of Representatives for the first time
in twelve years. During its first days in session, the new United States
Congress began to shift recent subsidies for oil and gas to renewable
sources. In two small but notable exceptions to its current approach of
providing approximately level funding across most federal agencies for
the remainder of fiscal year 2007, the House of Representatives moved
to provide $335 million of additional support to the National Science
Foundation and $300 million more for renewable energy and efficiency programs.
The Progressive Caucus in the House, the largest of its many caucuses,
presented a briefing by several of the new committee chairmen and women
who are members of the Caucus. Their eagerness energized everyone in the
room. The new chair of the Finance Committee, Barney Frank, enjoyed recounting
that many participants in the Davos World Economic Forum were shocked
to hear that the Doha round of trade agreements might not be approved
if it was sent to Congress in its current form. Frank implied that this
Congress will consider very carefully the impact of trade on labor and
the environment at home and abroad. SCB Policy Director, John Fitzgerald
spoke with a staffer to Charley Rangle, chair of the Ways and Means Committee
(which has primary jurisdiction over trade issues), noting that SCB may
be able to offer the expertise of the Society for Conservation Biology
and its members on conservation issues that arise in trade agreements,
from control of non-native species to ways of determining the origin and
composition of traded species of wood.
Several days earlier, E.O. Wilson, Peter Raven, Jim McCarthy (Professor
of Biological Oceanography at Harvard University), Jim Hansen (a senior
climate scientist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration),
and other kindred spirits joined leaders of evangelical associations and
churches to announce an ongoing dialogue and program on saving creation.
Senators McCain, Lugar, Obama, and others sent letters of support to the
group. Afterward, Hansen and Fitzgerald discussed his reviewing papers
that SCB might prepare on climate change and conservation biology. Raven
suggested that SCB increase its profile in Asia and India in particular,
and I told him that SCB's 2009 annual meeting will be in China. Wilson
suggested that SCB note the announcement of many new positions in biological
sciences at Christian colleges around the United States.
On February first, the John H. Chafee lecture at the National Committee
on Science and the Environment was presented by Larry Brilliant, Executive
Director of Google.org, a philanthropic foundation supported by the company.
Brilliant highlighted the massive human health effects of climate change
and the challenges it presents for adaptation and preparation. Lifetime
achievement awardee Theo Colborn discussed the increasing rates of endocrine
disorders in animals and humans caused by synthetic chemicals. Tim Wirth,
former senator and delegate to the United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development in Rio de Janeiro and current President of the United
Nations Foundation, was one of many decision-makers who attended that
lecture and the news conference on the evangelical-science dialogue simply
to listen and observe the potential power of changes in policy.
Policies addressing climate change, environmental standards in international
aid and trade, and the defense of science and scientists in government
agencies are just a few of the many areas that might benefit from SCB's
expertise. SCB's policy vision is broad, extending not only to the United
States federal government but, as described in our strategic plan, to
other governments, international institutions, and foundations. We expect
that these important organizations will welcome our help if it is offered
in a way that is relevant and timely.
Implementation of changes in environmental policy typically requires
a combination of financial incentives or penalties, legal limits (such
as liability for damages), technology, and education and social pressure.
Accordingly, sustained and diverse efforts usually are necessary to achieve
major policy objectives. In January, for example, the new Congressional
committees held hearings not only on climate change but on the suppression
of science in climate change research and reporting. A report featured
at the hearing by the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee
was coauthored by SCB member Francesca Grifo, Senior Scientist and Director
of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Scientific Integrity Program. Making
a long term commitment to the issue, the House Committee on Science created
a subcommittee devoted in large part to investigating the suppression
of science. The Policy Committee has asked the Board of Governors to consider
how SCB might contribute data and analysis on these and other issues.
The North America Section also will contribute to development of SCB's
policy agenda, reflecting the geographic emphasis of the philanthropic
foundations that provided initial support for the policy director and
policy program.
Early in February Fitzgerald met with the new staff directors of the
two subcommittees that traditionally are among those most closely associated
with conservation, the House Natural Resources subcommittees on Forests,
National Parks, and Public Lands and on Fish and Wildlife. Staff on both
subcommittees already were familiar with SCB. They were pleased to learn
that our members are organized and accessible by expertise, location,
and discipline (e.g., public policy and education). These subcommittees
will be considering management of roadless areas and fisheries, and are
eager to hear our suggestions for oversight hearings.
SCB Executive Director, Alan Thornhill, and Fitzgerald met the new Senate
majority staff on the Oceans subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee,
one of whom is a member of the Society. The Subcommittee, like its House
counterpart, is planning to review the Marine Mammal Protection Act, among
other things.
We soon will introduce SCB to the Government Oversight and Reform Committee,
which held one of at least two hearings on the suppression of climate
science by the Executive Branch.
Finally, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi testified before the Committee on
Science noting among other things that forests account for 25% of the
climate change equation, that global solutions were needed and that she
had asked all House committees to report their climate legislation by
the end of June so that July 4th, 2007 could be Energy Independence Day.
Congressional actions in January and early February indicate that science
and, in particular, environmental science and its bearing on economic
and other policy will be taken quite seriously in the current Congress.
Consideration of science will affect oversight, budget allocations for
taxing and spending, authorization of new standards and initiatives, and
engagement in international law. The Executive and Judicial branches will
follow. SCB and its partners will be ready to offer scientific expertise
to inform these policy processes and decisions.
John Fitzgerald
If you would like more information on the priorities and actions of different
Representatives and Senators or wish to follow recent events as this Congress
takes up issues relevant to SCB's mission, from budgets for agency programs
to the oversight hearings described above, see related entries on this
web site and visit www.senate.gov and
www.house.gov.
|
