Policy Update
In this article we provide an update on policy
developments since the current Newsletter
article was written about three weeks ago.
Major policy developments are posted on the
www.conbio.org website which we are also
improving with the help of our two new IT
experts in order to provide more user-friendly
information and policy tools. In the meantime,
our actions, and this note, are both focused on
actual issues on which decision-makers need
information, options, and advice, and that also
highlight key principles in both conservation
biology and policy that are likely to solve the
problems decision-makers are facing now.
SCB Global Five
(written on May 7)
1) Climate
Contributing to the Debate
In early May we submitted testimony
to the U.S. Ways and Means Committee
for the record it is compiling in a series of
hearings on energy and tax policy in the face
of climate change. Our testimony was developed
by a small but growing number of climate
team members recommended by our
original informal board-based climate team,
including one who had recently attended
“Gore camp” – a two-and one half- day training
led by Al Gore. Future statements will be
sent directly to all policy committee members
for their consideration as well as to the Policy
Committee chair and the climate team members.
Our testimony was limited to 10 pages
but included most of the tax-related points that
we had addressed in our longer response to the
letter from the Chairmen of the Energy and
Commerce Committee and Subcommittee in
March. We did not want to simply repeat ideas
already in play so we focused on aspects that
were not frequently emphasized, such as the
need to cap emissions at current levels and
reduce them rapidly, (as recommended recently
by leading climatologists such as Jim
Hanson and others), the role of incentives for
forest conservation and restoration, and the
use of taxes as a means of sending global economic
signals and funding the conversion
from a fossils-based economy. The key principles
we added to the debate included findings
on forest management and climate summarized
in Conservation Biology among other
sources, and the suggestion that the committee
consider how the use of its powers to tax domestic
and imported products could resolve
the conundrum of how to level the playing
field with China, India, and other growing
greenhouse gas producers, pending adoption
of a global system of controls. We suggested
the committee review the considerable body of
research by government (Congressional
Budget Office (9-06), Environmental Protection
Agency, Argonne National Laboratory,
and Department of Energy) and academic and
think- tank experts on the use of greenhouse
gas taxes. The research demonstrates that a
greenhouse gas tax, with its proceeds devoted
in large part to energy and ecosystem conservation
and backing out of fossil fuels with
renewables, could initiate a very powerful
cycle of restorative economics and resource
management. According to that research (see
citations in testimony posted on the website)
that tax and reinvestment cycle, plus steady
reductions in allowed emissions, could reduce
emissions faster than any other proposal in
play with the greatest efficiency and least cost.
The third report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change estimated the
costs of mitigation to be as high as three percent
of global gross domestic product if we
move quickly, but much higher if we do not.
In the preceding days, photographic and other
evidence compiled by the American Geophysical
Union were released showing that the
Arctic was melting so fast that it would likely
be largely ice-free by 2040, thirty years sooner
than previously expected, posing major threats
to both artic wildlife and coastal cities.
A global solution?
We also suggested, as the current
and future French leadership has suggested to
the E.U., that a tariff imposed on imports to
reflect greenhouse gases not controlled by the
exporters could both internalize those costs
and fund grants to poor countries or low interest
loans to others to help them clean up their
production methods.
Many in the U.S. have been excusing
U.S. inaction by saying we had no influence
over developing countries but should not
harm our own economy until they limit theirs.
This proposal removes that excuse and a way
that also engages our trading partners in a
positive relationship.
Other Action in U.S. Congress on Climate
Change
Not to be outdone by the House and
its short timetable, the Senate Energy Committee
held the first “Mark-Up” reporting legislation
to be considered by the whole Senate,
while other committees in both the House and
Senate are still completing their hearings, (the
primary way that committees conduct and
present research before settling on legislative
choices). The Energy Committee bill spurs
production of bio-fuels, assesses technologies
for carbon capture and storage, and takes limited
steps to increase energy efficiency. These
bills are S. 987 on bio-fuels, S. 1115 on efficiency
and S. 962 on carbon storage. The bill
may be considered by the full Senate as early as
May 14th. Conservationists warned that biofuels
development, while potentially positive,
must be carefully limited by a review of alternatives
through environmental impact assessments,
endangered species consultations, and
other reviews in order to ensure that essential
habitats are not converted or genetically modified
crops are not used without adequate precautions.
The Senate Environment Committee
received legislation introduced by Sen. Bernie
Sanders (I-VT) that would require greater reductions
in greenhouse gas emissions than most
other legislation introduced to date. The press
release is available at http://www.sanders.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=272971
U.S. House Highlights
On April 26th, Rep. Pete Stark introduced
the Save Our Climate Act, an updated
version of his 1990 bill to place a tax on carbon
of $10 per ton of carbon in coal, petroleum, and
natural gas. The tax would increase by $10
each year until emissions are reduced by
80%. His press release is --
http://www.house.gov/stark/news/110th/pressreleases/20070426_carbontax.htm .
Rep. Tom Udall is considering offering
an amendment to the Interior and EPA appropriations
bill to require the EPA to issue
regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.
Subcommittee Chairman Norm Dicks
(D-WA) has pledged to include only nonbinding
language so far.
On May 1st, the House Natural Resources
Committee held a hearing on carbon
sequestration. The SCB EO and NA colleagues
had identified a slate of candidate experts who
could testify on forest carbon cycles but the
Subcommittee chose to invite the Society of
American Foresters whose testimony seemed to
favor additional harvests to imitate the patchwork
of forest ages and types that they say
would be most likely to restore North American
forests to the condition that existed when fire
was not suppressed. This testimony seemed not
to have taken into account the recent statement
of Dr. Anthony Westerling, who documented a
rapid increase in fire intensity and frequency
due to higher temperatures and lower rainfall in
the west.
On May 3rd the House Natural Resources
Committee heard testimony on the effects
of wind power on bats and birds, including
summaries of a report from the National Academy
of Science indicating the lack of data and
concern about bat kills in at least one or two
areas, while buildings kill orders of magnitude more birds than do
windmills. Still, careful location of wind
farms remains an important concern. Conservation
groups and others are discussing the
need for net life cycle assessments of the net
toll of all energy types on wildlife, from mining
to global warming from initial siting to
final retirement of plants and mines.
On May 8th the House Energy & Commerce
Committee will hear about Alternative fuels.
On May 21 there is scheduled one of
the first House markups in the House as the
Energy and Commerce committee acts on
energy legislation.
2) Scientific Integrity in Government Decisions
Endangered Species Act – Hearing
-- Dominick DellaSala, Policy Chair of the
NA Section, will be testifying on political
interference in the development of the recovery
plan for the Northern Spotted Owl. He
will join others who lead programs on scientific
integrity and the environment in testifying
on May 9th before the Fish, Wildlife and
Oceans Subcommittee of the Natural Resources
Committee of the House concerning
political appointees apparently overriding
science in the implementation of the Endangered
Species Act.
Policy Director Fitzgerald met with
most of the witnesses who will be testifying,
on several topics including possible remedies
for federal actions in which the integrity of
science in the endangered species act has been
suppressed or overruled. Fitzgerald and Executive
Director Thornhill met with the science
integrity team at the Union of Concerned
Scientists and later with their new legislative
liason, a former lobbyist for Common Cause.
At least three letters from groups of
Representatives and Senators had been or were
about to be sent to Secretary of the Interior
Kempthorne opposing the sweeping changes
of the sort that would have been made by draft
regulations leaked by a whistleblower. These
included a number of Republicans as well as
Democrats. In fact, the most detailed and analytical
letter came from long-time defenders of
the Act, Republicans Wayne Gilchrest (MD)
and Jim Saxton (NJ).
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) has
asked Chairman Norm Dicks to include in his
Interior Appropriations bill, language to prevent
the implementation of draft regulations
that would undercut most functions of the
ESA, which regulations that might otherwise
require years of litigation to correct.
Investigations and Resignations –
Julie MacDonald has become the latest Interior
Department official to resign. The Inspector
General of Interior had issued a report
detailing instances in which she overruled
scientific findings without alternative scientific
evidence to support her different decision.
The question of how to correct tainted decisions
permitted habitat destruction or blocking
protection was raised at the May 9th
hearing.
Wolf Delisting Comments
In a prime example of the strength
of SCB chapters and sections working together
and with the SCB leadership, President
Reed Noss led a team that revised a draft set of
comments on the proposed delisting of gray
wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountain region.
The comments were initially developed
by the Montana Chapter of the SCB. They were submitted to the Fish and Wildlife
Service as comments of the NA Section.
The revision included strengthening suggestions
by Policy Chairman Luigi Boitoni on
wolf biology, Policy Director, John Fitzgerald,
on the Endangered Species Act, and numerous
suggestions from a team of scientists.
Scientist’ Letter on The Solicitor’s Opinion
…SCB leaders signed a letter opposing a recent
Solicitor’s Opinion curtailing habitat protection
for endangered species. …
3) Treaties
On May 3rd, the U.S. House Subcommittee
on Fish, Wildlife and Oceans held
the oversight hearing on CITES we had hoped
they would hold in anticipation of the Conference
of the Parties in the Hague in June. We
helped a coalition of groups to prepare the Subcommittee
on the key questions of how the U.S.
and its delegation would be preparing to ensure
that trade in CITES-listed species, such as Peruvian
large leafed Mahogany, met the two fundamental
requirements of CITES – that the species
continue to play its role in its ecosystem
throughout its range and that its acquisition be
legal. The committee had reviewed
memoranda from the Secretariat casting serious
doubts on the plans of Malaysia and Peru to
export significant amounts of listed wood species
without apparent support for the CITESrequired
findings. The Chairwoman posed
several questions on the matter and offered the
new head of the delegation, Mr. Todd Willens,
(former staff of defeated chairman Richard
Pombo), to offer his own suggestions on how to
solve the problem. He referred to working
groups and noted that eventually we may need
to halt trade that does not meet the requirements
of the treaty.
A report on IMOSEB consultations in
Europe is being reviewed by Jon Rosales, the
NA SCB member who attended the IMOSEB
consultation in NA and wrote about that consultation
in the Newsletter.
4) Biological Security
With the support of SCB’s Policy
Director, NA President Reed Noss joined other
organizations’ leaders in signing a letter to Congress
urging them to take action on legislation
needed re-authorization and updating in order to
control aquatic invasive species. The letter to
Congress did not support a particular bill but
simply flagged the need to address the relatively
non-controversial provisions in order to effectively
control the quiet but harmful invasions.
Questions asked by the Chairwoman
at the CITES hearing (described above) laid the
groundwork for the consideration of measures
such as that of Rep. Earl Blumenauer, (D-ND)
to add plant species to the wildlife already protected
from importation and interstate trade
when harvested illegally.
5) Investment
Norway’s Pension Fund gained public
notice when it was featured in news reports as
having avoided or sold investments based on
damage to the environment and human rights
concerns raised by corporate actions and those
of at least one country to far – Burma. This
raises the opportunity to help them and other
large investors adopted a science-based, objective
approach, such as one developed by Yale
and Columbia Universities for rating the stewardship
of nations.
UNEP-FI-Biodiversity Work Stream
met in London April 5th, and discussed elements
to consider concerning the impact on
biodiversity when investing in extractive enterprises.
We were unable to participate,
though invited late in the process, and hope to
be able to have a team engaged with them
shortly.
…
Sections
NA – The NA Section was the first
to submit its report on policy work in 2006
and will be reviewing its plans for 2007-8 at a
meeting of its board on May 24th. In addition
to the SCB five issue areas, NA will consider
work on a conservation blueprint, among
other proposals.
…
Chapters
SCB DC held its first policy meeting
on May 2nd and accepted the names of several
well-qualified policy volunteers after a discussion
of the SCB five issues and a question and
answer period led by Fitzgerald, Thornhill and
EO liaison, Jennifer Brosteck. After discussing
additional ideas from the group, we adjourned
for informal discussions at a nearby pub.
SCB Minnesota has drafted a position
on the Farm Bill, which is being reviewed by
the NA Policy Chair and the SCB Policy Director.
Some chapters may not be aware of the
coordination requirement so we are planning
additional outreach to clarify that.
Montana, as noted above, contributed
greatly to the NA comments on wolf delisting.
|
