The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
9,000+ Scientists Defend Endangered Species Act in Letter to Trump Administration
Thousands of scientists have signed two letters opposing changes to the Endangered Species Act proposed by the Trump administration that critics say would weaken protections in favor of developers, Reuters reported Monday.
The proposed changes were announced by the Interior and Commerce Departments in July, and include axing the "blanket rule' granting threatened species the same protections as endangered species and removing language telling officials not to consider economic impacts when listing a species.
"If enacted, these rules will be an absolute disaster for efforts to save species from extinction," said Dr. Stuart Pimm, Doris Duke professor of conservation ecology at Duke University in a Center for Biological Diversity press release announcing one of the letters. "With humanity's footprint ever growing and climate change looming, we need the Endangered Species Act more than ever. These rule changes are 180 degrees in the wrong direction."
Pimm was one of 273 conservation scientists to sign a letter Monday addressed to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke critiquing three proposed changes: the removal of the "blanket rule," the permitting of economic considerations when deciding whether to protecting species, and changes making it harder to preserve critical habitat for vulnerable species.
The scientists opposed a new definition of "adverse modification" to "critical habitat" that would limit the definition to "alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the conservation of a listed species."
"The definition will allow activities to destroy or modify critical habitat so long as they don't affect 'the whole' of critical habitat, which particularly for species with large ranges will allow most if not all destructive actions to move forward," the scientists wrote.
Habitat destruction is the leading cause of harm to endangered species, the scientists said.
They also opposed a rule that would not designate critical habitat for species if the leading cause of threat is climate change, disease or another factor not directly related to habitat destruction.
"Species facing such intractable threats as climate change or disease, need habitat protection to ensure that those places where they are managing to survive in the face of threats are not destroyed and to provide habitat for species migration in response to climate change driven habitat changes," they wrote.
The 273 conservation scientists were joined in their efforts by three agencies representing 9,000 biologists, who sent a separate letter to Zinke and Ross Monday opposing the changes, Reuters reported.
The letters come as the 60-day public comment period on the proposed changes concluded, Reuters said.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Singapore will become the first country in the world to place a ban on advertisements for carbonated drinks and juices with high sugar contents, its health ministry announced last week. The law is intended to curb sugar consumption since the country has some of the world's highest diabetes rates per capita, as Reuters reported.
By Susan Cosier
First there was Fred Stone, the third-generation dairy farmer in Maine who discovered that the milk from his cows contained harmful chemicals. Then came Art Schaap, a second-generation dairy farmer in New Mexico, who had to dump 15,000 gallons of contaminated milk a day.
California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a bill that that bans the sale and manufacture of fur products in the state. The fur ban, which he signed into law on Saturday, prohibits Californians from selling or making clothing, shoes or handbags with fur starting in 2023, according to the AP.
By Simon Evans
During the three months of July, August and September, renewables generated an estimated total of 29.5 terawatt hours (TWh), compared with just 29.1TWh from fossil fuels, the analysis shows.