News from a Changing Planet -- #5
(Before we get started, I just wanted to remind you that my book comes out in 2 weeks, so there is still time left to pre-order! Find all the links here. And come see me on tour! I just added events in New York and LA!)
It’s possible that you have never heard of the Greater Sage Grouse, a species unique to the sagebrush seas of the intermountain West, like a chicken in size but a peacock in character with a famous mating dance. Because of development in its native habitat, which stretches across 11 states in the West, the sage grouse population has fallen dramatically, from tens of millions about 200 years ago to, optimistically, around 200,000 to 500,000 this century. Roads, cities, agriculture, fossil fuel infrastructure, invasive species and disease have splintered its historic range, as have fires, made worse by climate change and by certain human management strategies.
Over the past decade or so, the sage grouse has been at the center of the argument between conservationists and environmentalists on the one hand, and those trying to develop this part of the country, with oil and gas extraction, or ranching, for example. In 2015, the Obama administration made an effort at compromise between the two, trying to protect the bird and preserve oil and gas drilling, ranching and mining in the region. The Department of Interior did not list the sage grouse as “endangered” and decided, after much negotiation, that conservationists and industry groups and federal and state governments could work together to protect this unique, disappearing species. They put protective measures in place across 90 percent of the birds' breeding habitat, which stretches about 270,000 square miles, and set aside about 16,000 square miles of public land to be free from development. (This ecosystem originally took up about 500,000 square miles of the United States.) About half of the bird's habitat is on federal land; the rest is on a combination of state and privately-owned land.
The sage grouse is important beyond just being a unique animal: scientists consider the bird indicator species for this ecosystem, which means that when this species is in danger of collapse, the ecosystem is too.
Earlier this year, the Department of Interior (now run by a former oil lobbyist) unveiled plans to get rid of those carefully crafted protections for the sage grouse on nearly 14,000 square miles of public land, in order to make oil and gas drilling easier. And even though most of the oil and gas extraction on public lands was outside the protected area, the Trump administration removed the protections anyway, giving up more land to these industries. Now, only about 2,800 square miles will retain the protections.
Just as the plight of the sage grouse is a warning for the overall health of the Sagebrush Sea, this action last year should have been a warning of what was to come: the dismantling of the Endangered Species Act, one of the strongest and most effective environmental laws we have, which the Trump administration announced on Monday.
The Endangered Species Act is responsible for saving the bald eagle and the grizzly bear and the humpback whale and the Florida manatee from extinction since it was enacted in 1973. Climate change will put 1 million species at risk of extinction around the world, according to the United Nations. Despite the law’s broad popularity, it has long been a target for those arguing against overly burdensome regulations, proof that environmentalists care more about the sage grouse than they do about the jobs of people in “flyover country.”
Now, they've gotten what they wanted: government officials will be able to factor in the economic impact of protecting a species, in terms of possible revenue lost by prohibiting certain activities in protected areas (they used to only be allowed to consider science.) And when determining which species should be protected and how, these officials have more discretion in deciding what “foreseeable future,” part of the text of the law, means. For the Trump administration, that means only looking a few years ahead, effectively removing climate change as a reason to protect animals, as the government did in 2008 when it listed polar bears as threatened, because of diminishing sea ice due to climate change, without which they cannot survive. The overall result of this is to hand over millions more acres of public land more easily to fossil fuel industries and others – lumber, ranching. They will also be able to remove species from the list more easily and weaken protections for “threatened” species (one tier below “endangered”).
I’m sure there will be some people – perhaps even readers of this newsletter! – who think that government regulations on development on public lands are overly burdensome, and that the sage grouse doesn’t need thousands of square miles where no development can take place. It is true that the Endangered Species Act has led to the decline of certain industries – lumber in the Pacific Northwest because of protections for an endangered owl, for example. And it’s easy for me, whose livelihood doesn’t depend on these industries, to say that there should be no fossil fuel leasing on public lands. I recognize that, and that’s why I think we need more renewable energy investment in communities that will be affected by the decline of fossil fuels, as Gov. Jay Inslee has suggested in his climate plan for his presidential campaign.
But the Endangered Species Act actually protects people as well as wildlife. Setting aside land for conservation allows species to recover, which is, in and of itself, important. But it also means more carbon dioxide sequestration from trees and grasses, which helps mitigate climate change. A study this week found that more than 40 percent of forests are threatened by just 15 insects, now better able to survive winters and extend their ranges as a result of warming temperatures. This too will have a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions. More fossil fuel extraction leads to more fossil fuel burning which also leads to more greenhouse gas emissions, making it more difficult for us to stay below 2ºC. More fossil fuels also present threats to air quality, and development on public lands can also destroy important or sacred tribal sites.
I can’t figure out how to end this newsletter, other than to say that this isn’t a new law, it’s a change in the rules of enforcement, so it’s not permanent. But it will be permanent if people don’t vote. Vote for politicians who actually incorporate science into their decisions about the environment, and who recognize the threat that climate change represents not just to animals but to every single one of us.
In the meantime, a final reminder that my book comes out in two weeks! There is still time to pre-order your copy, officially making me the happiest environmental reporter alive! You can find all the links about where to buy right here!
And my book tour begins later this month...please come see me at a local independent bookstore near you!