Back to A NOTE FROM POLICY DIRECTOR JOHN FITZGERALD

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to VIEWPOINT: FLIGHT TO EXTINCTION?

SCB LAUNCHES MAJOR INITIATIVE TO APPLY SCIENCE TO NORTH AMERICAN AND GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

January in Washington, D.C. was remarkable, with temperatures approximately seven degrees Celsius greater than average. During its first days in session, the new United States Congress began to shift recent subsidies for oil and gas to renewable sources. Further, 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 has moved to provide $335 million of additional support to the National Science Foundation and $300 million more for renewable energy and efficiency programs. At the same time, Congress appointed new leaders and committee and subcommittee chairs in the Senate and the House of Representatives for the first time in twelve years.

Encouraging news in January also came from the global environmental community, illustrating rapidly increasing interest in socially and environmentally responsible investment. For example, the United Nations Environment Programme's Finance Initiative (UNEP FI) and its progeny, the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment, are working with Washington, D.C.-based World Resources Institute (WRI) to explore how finance, investment, and capital markets are related to biological diversity and ecosystem services. UNEP FI and WRI currently are scoping donor funding opportunities to support a multi-year program of work.

In addition, UNEP FI plans to publish a "CEOBrief" during the second quarter of 2007. This document will present the financial services business case for addressing loss of species and ecosystems and examine emerging opportunities for the financial services sector. During 2007, UNEP FI expects to deliver a corporate biodiversity benchmark tool for investors to measure company performance in sustaining biological diversity. For more information, visit www.business-humanrights.org/Home or contact biodiversity@unepfi.org.

Fundamental changes in the 110th Congress will affect environmental policy not only in the United States, but around the world. This Congress is at least beginning to dedicate itself to the rule of law and its own rules of procedure, to science's preeminent place in policy, and to addressing the United States' responsibilities as an integral member of the community of nations. For example, Tom Lantos (Democrat of California), the new chair of the House International Relations Committee, not only has a strong record on the environment but was born in Hungary and survived the holocaust. He is acutely aware of the benefits that international law and diplomacy can bring to the world. In the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Richard Lugar of Indiana, the ranking Republican and former committee chair, and the committee's current chair, Joe Biden (Democrat of Delaware), are internationalists who led the committee's approval of the Convention on Biological Diversity by a vote of 16-3 in 1994. That vote occurred just before Senator Jesse Helms (Republican of North Carolina) prevented ratification of the treaty by threatening to bring all Senate action to a halt. Helms is now retired.

Last week, I attended a briefing given by several of the new chairs who are members of the Progressive Caucus in the House. 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. I spoke with a staffer to Charley Rangle, chair of the Ways and Means Committee (which has primary jurisdiction over trade issues), noting that we 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 told me he would be glad to review any papers 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 1 February, 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 we met with the new staff directors of the two subcommittees that traditionally are 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. We soon will introduce SCB to the Government Oversight and Reform Committee, which held the hearing on suppression of climate science, and new Senate staff on the Oceans subcommittee, which already includes at least one member of the Society.

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, such as budget requests from the administration for agency programs to the oversight hearings described above, visit www.senate.gov and www.house.gov

Back to A NOTE FROM POLICY DIRECTOR JOHN FITZGERALD

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to VIEWPOINT: FLIGHT TO EXTINCTION?