Bush set to relax rules protecting species

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Evo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rules Set
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the Bush administration's proposed changes to regulations protecting endangered species, focusing on the implications of these changes for conservation efforts and the role of scientific input in decision-making. Participants express a range of opinions on the necessity and effectiveness of species protection, as well as the broader environmental consequences of human actions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the proposed changes will weaken protections for endangered species by removing the requirement for federal wildlife scientists to be involved in decision-making.
  • Others express concern that the administration is not supportive of scientific expertise in environmental matters.
  • There are claims that certain species, like the lynx and wolves, face resistance to protection from politically influential groups.
  • Some participants question the rationale behind protecting endangered species, suggesting that extinction occurs naturally and asking for logical arguments in favor of conservation.
  • Others argue that protecting species is essential for maintaining biodiversity and understanding ecological relationships.
  • A few participants express skepticism about the effectiveness of captive breeding programs and the motivations behind species protection efforts.
  • Humor and sarcasm are used by some to critique the situation, including comments about political affiliations and societal attitudes toward species protection.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the necessity and effectiveness of protecting endangered species, as well as the implications of the proposed regulatory changes.

Contextual Notes

Some arguments hinge on the definitions of species protection and the role of human intervention in conservation. The discussion reflects a variety of perspectives on the balance between economic considerations and environmental stewardship.

  • #31
chemisttree said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/20/AR2008112003465.html

Apparently the new rule is written to prevent the global warming nuts from devastating our economy by forcing us to curb greenhouse gas emissions because some polar bear has less ice to walk on...

Actually these rules can likely be set aside by the next Congress.

As to ruining the economy, the Republicans have plenty of experience with that it seems. I guess they don't want others to horn in on their specialty?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Even better, the rule states that the agency is not required to consult (it doesn't forbid it) and refers to the effects manifested only through global processes. Pretty much a direct reference to global warming being specifically excluded.

The rule states: "Federal agencies are not required to consult on an action when . . . the effects of such action are manifested only through global processes and (i) cannot be reliably predicted or measured at the local scale, or (ii) would result at most in an extremely small, insignificant local impact, or (iii) are such that the potential risk of harm to species or habitat are remote."
 
  • #33
chemisttree said:
Even better, the rule states that the agency is not required to consult (it doesn't forbid it) and refers to the effects manifested only through global processes. Pretty much a direct reference to global warming being specifically excluded.

Not to worry. These kind of fascist maneuvers by the Bush-Cheney team in the last spasms of exercising their vindictive power will likely be rooted out.

Change is coming. And the stale air in Washington is being sent on its way to the bridge to nowhere.

I suspect that in the end these kinds of thing are at heart merely posturing and playing to their dwindling base.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
18K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K