Bush moves may endanger Endangered Species Act

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The Bush Administration's push for "midnight regulations" in the last moments of office continues.

In the next 24 hours, the Bush is expected to relax requirements for federal environmental officials to sign off on building projects that pose a threat to species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Publishing the rules by tomorrow means they would take effect before President-elect Barack Obama's Jan. 20 inauguration. Otherwise, Obama could simply decide not to put them into practice.

The rules would allow each federal agency to determine for itself whether its own projects (such as building a highway or dam) present an environmental threat, rather than getting clearance from wildlife biologists who sometimes order modifications, according to the Associated Press, which obtained a copy of the new watered-down regulations.

About one in 3,500 federal actions have been blocked since the ESA took effect in 1973. What's more: despite a requirement that a critical habitat (areas that can't be touched) be set aside for listed endangered species, only 160 of the 1,200 or so listed species actually has gotten one; they were held up mostly by lawsuits filed to block the set asides.

The softer Bush rules would also prohibit federal agencies from assessing the effects of global warming-linked emissions on wildlife in deciding whether to declare them endangered, the AP says.

The Department of the Interior is racing to finalize the rules, part of a series of “midnight regulations” the administration is rushing to push through in President Bush’s last days. In recent weeks, his team tried to remove gray wolves from the list of endangered species, and proposed loosening controls on factory farm waste and letting power plants operate near national parks as well as let mining companies remove mountaintops to get at coal underneath.

Obama campaigned on a green platform that included cutting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80 percent below that by 2050. He also said he wanted to promote clean technology in coal-producing regions. As it stands, the Bush administration has worked with companies to voluntarily bring so-called carbon intensity—the amount of greenhouse gases for every, say, widget produced—down by 18 percent by 2013, which would allow overall emissions to increase.

An Interior Department spokeswoman wouldn’t tell the AP whether the rule would be published by tomorrow.

Image by iStockphoto/Emrah Turudu

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe