Ocean Acidifcation: Center for Biological Diversity initiates new campaign

Ocean acidification is garnering more and more attention within the ocean conservation community.  And well it should.  It was only a few years ago that the issue started to reach a state of critical mass within the ocean advocacy community.  And as more and more research is taking place to understand its causes and effects, we are more and more coming to understand its insidious impact on the marine environment.

With today's massive amounts of CO2 being discharged into the atmosphere, the ocean itself is absorbing more and more of the carbon as it settles to earth.  Where once we thought that the ocean could actually be a storage facility for large quantities of carbon (called carbon sequestration), we now find that the amount far exceeds what the seas are capable of handling.  The result is a decrease in the pH of the ocean, making it more acidic.  That is the essence of ocean acidification.

“The havoc wreaked by ocean acidification is unfolding faster and more severely than anyone thought it would. Coral reefs are collapsing, and food chains may break apart as our oceans go through a dangerous transformation,” said Miyoko Sakashita, oceans director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “If we’re going to stop this crisis from getting far worse, we’ll need national leadership at the top levels of our government.” 

The effects of ocean acidification is a reversal of many of the other threats imposed by man.  Overfishing, particularly of pelagic predators like tuna, billfish, and sharks, among other fish commercially sought after, is a top down assault on marine ecosystems.  Ocean acidification, on the other hand, works primarily from the bottom up.  The decreased pH level destroys many of the microscopic animals that make up plankton, a basic building block in the aquatic food chain.  Also animals like shells and coral that use calcium carbonate in the making of their exoskeletons are put at risk as the increased pH retards or breaks down the growth of calcium carbonate.

The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) has started a new ocean acidification campaign, Endangered Oceans.org.  CBD specializes in taking conservation issues to the doorsteps of government agencies by wielding the power of the courts.  Working in consort with other organizations, the Center has initiated many lawsuits and other legal actions to force U.S. government agencies to abide by the mandates that currently exist, but are often ignored, within federal and state environmental laws.  And they have a track record of many successes.

However, ocean acidification is a challenging nemesis for CBD to take on as it is a truly global issue.  The CO2 being pumped into our atmosphere - from factories, automobiles, energy plants, just to name a few - does not recognize political or geographic boundaries.  Every nation has a responsibility to act not only for they sake of their own people but for humankind as a whole - not to mention the oceans themselves.

While I was attending the BLUE Ocean Film Festival and Ocean Conservation Event last month in Monterey, California, another important conference was also taking place in the same hotel and conference center.  It involved over 500 scientists who had come together to discuss the current state of ocean acidification, where it's heading, and what needs to be done about it.

"Carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal, oil and gas are causing the oceans to acidify more and more rapidly than at any time since the extinction of the dinosaurs. It's time for actions that reduce carbon pollution in our oceans before it's too late,” said Ken Caldeira, climate scientist in the Carnegie Institution Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University. 

Learn more about CBD's Endangered Oceans campaign and circulate their new infographic (shown above, click on the image to enlarge) among your friends and colleagues - those who may not be aware of ocean acidification and the threat it imposes on the oceans and ourselves.

Source: Endangeredoceans.org
Source: CBD Press Release              

Step By Step: Center for Biological Diversity presses forth

Well, let's see what the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) has been up to lately.  This group, either working on its own or in consort with other like-minded groups, often takes a more combative or proactive approach to environmental issues by using the courts to prod government agencies to address some of the many conservation challenges we face.

Good News:

Following the settling of a lawsuit between CBD and it's fellow conservation groups versus the National Marine Fisheries Service, the government agency proposed a new rule for shallow water commercial fishermen, who harvest shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico, requiring them to use Turtle Excluder Devices, or TEDs, in their nets.  Essentially escape hatches for the turtles, TEDs have already been mandated for deeper water but this new rule is a first for shallow water.  The one drawback is that Congress is considering budget cuts that may stymie implementation and enforcement of the ruling.

The dwarf seahorse - at one inch, the smallest seahorse in the United States - is one step closer to mandated protection.  CBD had petitioned the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for greater protection under the Endangered Species Act and the NMFS has announced that the seahorse may indeed be in need of federal protection.  Living in the shallow seagrass beds in the Gulf of Mexico, the dwarf seahorses numbers have been declining, apparently due to harvesting from the aquarium trade and health damage to both the seahorse and its seagrass habitat from BP's Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  

Snakes may not be your cup of tea, but their numbers have not been doing well. Yet only 58 of the approximately 1,400 species receive any federal protection.  The Eastern diamondback rattlesnake has been particularly hard hit as it has seen its natural habitat reduced to a small percentage of what it was several decades ago.  Following a petition drive by the CBD, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has announced a full review to consider whether the rattlesnake requires protection under the Endangered Species Act. 

There are dozens of other new challenges that CBD is getting involved in, from the Keystone Pipeline to Arctic oil drilling to saving woodpecker populations, and much more.  The Center for Biological Diversity's weapon of choice still is the pressure exerted by legal action.  It may be frustrating at times as their lawyers weave their way with the regulatory morass, but the result often can be concrete results.

Source & Photos: Center for Biological Diversity

Protecting Corals and Island Nations: conservation group and the President of Palau both speak out

The Center for Biological Diversity is blowing its environmental horn not only to draw attention to its own actions but those of other nations concerned with the fate of marine ecosystems and the forces that impact them worldwide:

Settlement Requires Protecting 82 Corals
"On Tuesday the Center for Biological Diversity and the [U.S.] National Marine Fisheries Service reached an important agreement that will move 82 species of coral closer to protection. The agreement, following a 2009 petition and two notices of intent to sue by the Center, requires the Service to make decisions on protecting 82 U.S. corals -- including the mountainous star coral, blue rice coral and several Acropora corals -- under the Endangered Species Act by April 15, 2012. The Center has already earned protection for elkhorn (another Acorpora species) and staghorn corals."

As reported in the Houston Chronicle, "Unless we protect them right now, coral reefs will be lost within decades, and our grandchildren will never see these colorful underwater forests teeming with life," Miyoko Sakashita, the director of the organization's oceans program, said in a statement.

Currently, only reef-building staghorn and elkhorn corals are listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. Of the species under review, 75 are found in the Pacific. Nine exist in Hawaii waters, including ringed rice coral, which sometimes has a purple hue but is other times rust orange or brown. It's a candidate for listing because it's only found in the Hawaiian islands. This makes the species vulnerable to being wiped out if there's a heat wave or an invasive species infiltrates its habitat. Protection under the Endangered Species Act could put fishing, dumping, dredging, offshore oil development and other activities under stricter regulatory scrutiny.

Palau Speaks Out Against Climate Change
"The Pacific island nation of Palau has announced it will urgently seek an "advisory opinion" from the United Nations on whether some polluting countries have a legal responsibility to ensure that their greenhouse gases don't harm other countries. Under international law, Palau points out, states are required to take all necessary measures to stop their activities from harming other states. Despite mounting evidence that the climate crisis is only deepening, the U.S. has failed to make significant strides in reducing carbon dioxide emissions and, in fact, some in Congress are pushing to weaken the Clean Air Act rather than harness it to do what's needed to reduce greenhouse pollution and avert the worst effects of the global climate crisis."

Palau President Johnson Toribiong told the General Assembly’s annual general debate that, along with the Marshall Islands, Palau will call on the 193-member Assembly to urgently seek an advisory opinion – which would be non-binding – from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), also known as the World Court. Palau is one of several Pacific island countries that have repeatedly spoken out at the General Assembly about the impact of climate change, with rising sea levels resulting from the emissions of greenhouse gases threatening to swamp their islands.

"Article 194(2) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea provides that States shall take all measures necessary to ensure that activities under their jurisdiction or control do not spread and do not cause damage by pollution to other States. It is time we determine what the international rule of law means in the context of climate change,” the president was quoted as saying in the UN News Centre.

In today's difficult economic climate, we see the impact of globalization; that our economic health can not be isolated or immune from the financial conditions being experienced by other nations. The same is certainly true for the environment - we're all in this together.

Watch a video of President Toribiong speaking to the General Assembly.

Conservation Progress: avoiding species extinction through the legislative process

Here's a mixed bag of good news/bad news from the Center for Biological Diversity. It ranges from progress on protecting endangered species that have been in political limbo for years, to threatened leopard frogs, to further recognition of the bluefin tuna's precarious status.

There's a dilemma we often face. Sometimes we feel we need to prioritize and possibly protect one animal but let another suffer for the sake of economic development or some other pressing reason. We hope that we can evaluate each situation objectively, but it can be a slippery slope. The problem is what that one loss might represent: a weakening in our obligation to protect natural resources that can lead to rationalizing one species extinction after another.

We must be steadfast in our personal choices and remain vigilant in preserving the political safeguards and regulations that provide conservation and protection.

839 Species Move Toward Protection
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service this week agreed to a legal settlement that might result in federal protection for 839 plants and animals spiraling toward extinction. The agreement could lead to final protection decisions for 251 species that have been stuck on the federal warranted-but-precluded "candidate" list, many for decades; the Center for Biological Diversity filed scientific petitions to list 192 of these. It may also spur the Fish and Wildlife Service to process listing petitions for 588 additional species, of which the Center petitioned and/or filed suit to protect 511. In all, the Center's endangered species campaign brought 84 percent of all the species included in the agreement to this point of protection.

The species include the Rio Grande cutthroat trout and yellow-billed cuckoo, which the Center petitioned to protect in 1998 and has filed multiple lawsuits over; the Pacific fisher, which we petitioned to protect in 2000; the yellow-billed loon and Kittlitz's murrelet, which we petitioned for in 2001 and 2004; and the Oregon spotted frog, which we petitioned to protect in 2004.

Unfortunately, while the Center was working to reach a better, more certain agreement, the Fish and Wildlife Service secretly convinced another conservation group, which had petitioned for very few of the species, to sign this weaker deal, full of loopholes and containing harmful language that will help the agency reject the protection of other equally imperiled species in the future. The Center is considering options to fix the flawed agreement and ensure that the species we pushed this close to protection are actually brought over the finish line.

We'll keep you updated in the coming weeks on our efforts to secure full protection for these species. Thank you for your vital help and support getting these rare, important plants and animals this far.

Southwest Frog Defended From Open-pit Copper Mine
The Southwest's stocky, charcoal-spotted Chiricahua leopard frog now inhabits less than 20 percent of its former range -- yet in the feds' new proposal for protecting its much-needed remaining habitat, areas important for the frog's recovery are glaringly absent. The Center for Biological Diversity filed comments Thursday to remedy that.

Long threatened by grazing, disease, groundwater pumping and pollution, the Chiricahua leopard frog is now imminently threatened in southern Arizona's Santa Rita Mountains, where the proposed Rosemont open-pit copper mine could obliterate the sensitive amphibian. The mine site was left out of the feds' proposal for protected "critical habitat" even though frogs live there, making the area critical to protect. Worse, the feds' proposal downplays scientific evidence that the frog's northern populations may be a different species, meaning that southern populations -- like those in the Santa Ritas -- may be even rarer than previously thought.

Read more in our press release and learn about our campaign to save the Chiricahua leopard frog.

Scientists Declare Bluefin Tuna Endangered -- Join Our Bluefin Boycott
The list of those who say bluefin tuna urgently need protection continues to grow. This week a committee of Canadian scientists and government representatives declared that the bluefin should be listed as an endangered species; we couldn't agree more. Last year the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned to have the Atlantic bluefin protected under the Endangered Species Act. In November, after international regulators failed to take action, we launched a nationwide boycott of bluefin.

One of the most remarkable marine creatures in the world, the warm-blooded bluefin tuna is a fierce ocean predator, can reach up to 10 feet in length and 1,200 pounds in weight, and can swim at up to 50 miles per hour, crossing the ocean in just weeks. But it can't outswim overfishing, which is driving it extinct at alarming rates, and the BP Gulf oil spill has helped make Atlantic bluefin more endangered than ever.

If you haven't already, join more than 30,000 activists in the Center's Bluefin Brigade by pledging not to eat bluefin or support restaurants that serve it -- and don't forget to spread the word by liking and sharing the page on Facebook. Then get details on our Bluefin Boycott, the Atlantic bluefin tuna and the bluefin developments in Canada.

Politics and the Environment: legislative rider and other tricks can undermine environmental laws

One of politics' most insidious little inventions is the "rider" - an attachment to an unrelated piece of legislation that enables passage under the cover of radar of something that it's supporters would prefer to not see get much public exposure. The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) is rightfully concerned how the rider is being used to undermine environmental laws and regulations. It's something that we all should be concerned about.

Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber, recently wrote to President Obama expressing serious concern over the rider on the budget bill, signed by the president, which takes wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains off the endangered species list -- "a highly undesirable precedent," the governor noted, on an issue that "deserve[d] open and informed debate." Kitzhaber asked the president to "avoid repeating such an approach to policy decision-making" in the future. And indeed, the threat of special interests trumping species protection is great:

• Livestock interests and the anti-wolf Arizona Game and Fish Department are seeking legislative delisting of all gray wolves in the nation, including the approximately 50 Mexican gray wolves surviving in Arizona and New Mexico.
• The oil and gas industry is seeking to exempt greenhouse gases from regulation, despite their catastrophic effects on polar bears, walruses, coral reefs and much more.
• Agribusiness interests in California are seeking a rider to deprive the San Francisco Bay ecosystem of the water necessary to keep delta smelt and many other imperiled fish from extinction.

Please ask your governor to join in writing the president, expressing dismay that wolves were delisted via congressional rider and requesting presidential leadership to ensure that the Endangered Species Act will not be circumvented again.

CBD can help you send a message to your governor. Just click here.

Focus On Fur: protecting endangered or threatened animals on land

Proactive conservation groups come in a wide variety of flavors, focusing on a singular issue or many, working in conjunction with other groups or going it alone. Whatever the strategy, the goal is to achieve results that are meaningful and lasting.

In the past, I have cited the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) as an organization that has chosen the legal approach to advancing the cause of conservation and protection of endangered species. Working with other legal groups like Earthjustice or conservation groups like Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense Council, Oceana, and others, CBD adheres to a strategy of utilizing the courts to get federal agencies to follow through with laws or regulations already in place or to consider issues that are in line with the agencies charter or mandate.

While this blog gravitates mostly towards issues regarding the ocean, occasionally I like to turn attention to those creatures that reside on dry land. Focusing on fur, here are a few developments announced by the Center for Biological Diversity that caught my attention. Two represent ongoing challenges - of which public support can have an impact - and two are victories that can be savored but require continued diligence if they are to persevere. The Center is not the only the group involved in pushing ahead on these issues; CBD will mention working in conjunction "with others" and I often wish they would list those others groups - all deserve their due credit.

And you can make a difference to - by petition support or financial contribution, if possible.

Wolves' Fate at Stake in Congress -- Take Action
The Center for Biological Diversity and 47 other groups yesterday wrote to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D.-Calif.), chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, urging her to oppose legislation that would permanently end federal protections for endangered gray wolves, leaving them open to slaughter. Later in the day wolves caught a slight break when the Senate voted down a House Republican spending bill that, among other anti-environment measures, included a provision to strip wolves of federal protections.

But that doesn't mean wolves are out of the woods. Members of Congress have shown a disturbingly keen interest in stripping Endangered Species Act protections for wolves throughout Montana and Idaho and parts of Utah, Oregon and Washington. If approved, such legislation will bar protection for northern Rockies wolves as "endangered" even if their numbers plummet toward zero. Both Montana and Idaho have long been chomping at the bit to raze wolf populations.

Congress has never taken a step like this before -- and endangered species protection must be determined according to science, as current law prescribes, not through a rider hidden in a gigantic funding bill. In fact, such legislation puts the very Endangered Species Act at risk and sets a terrible precedent for other species hovering on the brink of extinction.

Take action with us now by telling your senators to stop any congressional effort to strip protections from gray wolves.

Read more in E & E News.

Big Oil Sues Over Polar Bear Habitat Protections
Big Oil has filed the first lawsuit challenging the biggest "critical habitat" designation ever made -- and won by the Center for Biological Diversity and allies. Specifically, the Alaska Oil and Gas Association -- representing 15 oil and gas companies, including BP, Exxon and Chevron -- last week sued the federal government for protecting 120 million acres for Alaska's polar bears. The oil companies say that polar bears are too "abundant" to deserve the protected area, and that setting aside the land will be too expensive because it may get in the way of oil and gas development. Other entities, including the state of Alaska, are also expected to challenge the designation.

The Center has been working since 2001 to save the polar bear from the dire threats the species faces -- including oil and gas development. We're the group that originally wrote the petition earning the bear its status under the Endangered Species Act; we're still fighting to earn it the full "endangered" protection it desperately needs. We won't let any critical-habitat challenge succeed. Stay tuned for a polar bear update soon.

Read more in the UK's Daily Mail.

Wolf Massacre Halted in Alaska -- Thank You
Wolves on Alaska's Unimak Island won't have to face the prospect of getting gunned down by aerial shooters -- and you deserve some of the credit. After Center for Biological Diversity supporters sent in nearly 34,000 comments, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service this Monday announced it won't let Alaska aerial gunners kill gray wolves on the island as part of a misguided attempt to stop the decline of caribou. (There's little evidence that wolves are at fault.) The Alaska Department of Fish and Game was planning to shoot wolves from helicopters on the Alaska Maritime Wildlife Refuge. Aerial killing is as inhumane as it is unnecessary, especially during the pup-rearing season. Thanks so much for saving wolves young and old from devastating deaths.

Get more from the Alaska Public Radio Network.

Protection Restored for Tongass National Forest
In another big Alaska victory, a judge has ended a lawsuit brought by the Center and allies by vetoing a decision that exempted the majestic Tongass National Forest from the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The rule, passed in 2001, is meant to protect pristine public forests from destructive activities like road building and resource extraction. But to boost the timber industry, the Bush administration decided the rule wouldn't apply to the Tongass, leaving the 17-million-acre forest wide open to exploitation.

"This is a victory for the wolves, bears, deer, goshawks and other unique species that rely on the untouched old-growth forest of the Tongass for their survival," said the Center's Alaska Director Rebecca Noblin. "The Tongass never should have been exempted from the roadless rule, and this court decision provides valuable respite for old-growth-dependent species that have been hammered by unsustainable logging practices in the Tongass."

Read about the Tongass victory in the Los Angeles Times.

Nature and the Law: Center for Biological Diversity continues to work the courts

The conservation strategy adopted by the Center for Biological Diversity revolves around bringing the courts to bear on the issues that seem to have been ignored and to put the feet of government agencies to the fire when it appears they are not fulfilling their responsibilities and obligations. It is a strategy that certainly keeps the Tucson, Arizona-based nationwide organization busy.

Turning attention towards the predicaments of cats in the United States (wild, not domesticated) and a few other animals, here's what Executive Director Kieran Suckling and his staff have been up to:

Historic Suits Defends 214 Rare Species From Pesticides
"In the most comprehensive legal action ever taken to protect wildlife from pesticides under the Endangered Species Act, the Center for Biological Diversity and Pesticide Action Network North America sued the Environmental Protection Agency today for failing to determine whether hundreds of approved pesticides harm already-imperiled species around the country.

The lawsuit names more than 200 species in 49 states -- from the Florida panther to the Chiricahua leopard frog to the Alabama sturgeon -- that wildlife officials and scientists say are threatened by pesticides. Our lawsuit challenges the EPA for not consulting with wildlife agencies before approving more than 300 pesticides. 'For decades, the EPA has turned a blind eye to the disastrous effects pesticides can have on some of America's rarest species,' said the Center's Jeff Miller."

Read more in a Center for Biological Diversity press release.

Lynx to Earn More Protected Habitat
"The feds will likely protect more habitat for the stealthy Canada lynx, one of North America's most imperiled predators; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has dropped its appeal of a federal court decision last summer that said the agency's 'critical habitat' designation for the lynx was too paltry.

Only about 1,000 Canada lynx remain in the United States, and about half of them are in Montana. After a lawsuit in 1994 by the Biodiversity Legal Foundation (now merged with the Center for Biological Diversity) and allies, the Fish and Wildlife Service in 2000 designated the spotted silver cat as 'threatened' under the Endangered Species Act. But even after a Center lawsuit overturning a previously inadequate critical habitat decision, the agency failed to base its designation on areas where lynx currently roam, leaving out habitat key for recovery (especially in Colorado). The latest development means the Fish and Wildlife Service will reevaluate how much critical habitat it will assign to this rare and mysterious forest cat."

Read more in the Helena Independent Record.

Suit Filed to Block Loan to Proposed Minnesota Mine
"The Center for Biological Diversity and four partners on Tuesday sued Minnesota's Iron Range Resources Board over its $4 million loan to PolyMet Mining Company, which has proposed the state's first open-pit sulfide mine. The state agency's loan is premature and illegal under state law because the proposed mine is still going through the required environmental review process. The mine site is in the Superior National Forest, within the Lake Superior watershed.

PolyMet's proposed mine would destroy hundreds of acres of high-quality wetlands, violate water-quality standards for hundreds to thousands of years, and eliminate two square miles of protected 'critical habitat' for imperiled lynx and wolves. The draft environmental impact statement for the proposal was deemed "environmentally unsatisfactory-inadequate" by the EPA, triggering the need for a supplemental draft analysis that is still months from completion."

Read more in the Duluth News-Tribune.

The Center for Biological Diversity wants people to realize that the legal process can be a very productive tool in building conservation awareness. The latest edition of their newsletter, Endangered Earth, recaps many of their 2010 accomplishments and lays out the organization's objectives for 2011. You can download it by clicking here.

Polar Bears: good news and bad news in the U.S.

Following up on my December 19th posting regarding polar bears, here's an example of one-step forward, two steps back.

Gaining Ground, Literally
The step forward has to do with the designation in late November of 187,000 sq.miles of northern Alaska wilderness as a "critical habitat" for polar bears. As part of a mandated response to having the polar bear listed as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated the area - although it had to be prodded into action by a lawsuit from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) which has been after the Fish and Wildlife Service to fully implement protections, like the critical habitat, required by the Endangered Species Act.

The critical habitat designation mandates that any federal agency that would wish to open up any of the land for economic activity (as in granting permits for gas and oil exploration, which several oil companies were planning on doing), they would have to first consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding adverse impact against the polar bears.

“This critical habitat designation enables us to work with federal partners to ensure their actions within its boundaries do not harm polar bear populations,” said Tom Strickland, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks in a Fish and Wildlife Service news release. “Nevertheless, the greatest threat to the polar bear is the melting of its sea ice habitat caused by human-induced climate change. We will continue to work toward comprehensive strategies for the long-term survival of this iconic species.”

Read about the polar bears' "critical habitat" in BBC News.

Losing Ground
In response to the critical habitat designation, the governor of Alaska has announce his intention to have the state file suit against the federal government. As reported by the Washington Post, Governor Sean Parnell contends the critical habitat designation will delay jobs and increase costs - or even kill - resource development projects that are important to Alaska.

"Once again, we are faced with federal overreach that threatens our collective prosperity," Gov. Parnell said. "We don't intend to let this stand."

A recent newsletter from the CBD reported, "The Center is already in court defending the polar bear against the state's previous suit to have it removed from Endangered Species Act protection, arguing instead that protection should be upgraded. Scientists estimate there's a greater than 80 percent chance that polar bears in Alaska will be extinct by mid-century under current greenhouse gas emissions trends."

"They [the Alaska state government] have opposed every Endangered Species Act listing to date," said CBD attorney Brendan Cummings.

Read more about Alaska's threat of legal action in the Washington Post.

Losing More Ground
The Center for Biological Diversity will be kept busy with the additional setback announced this past Wednesday by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The department filed arguments in court to support its decision to list the polar bear as threatened, as opposed to endangered under the Endangered Species Act - endangered being a designation that many conservation groups have pushed for because it requires the government to address the source of the endangerment (global warming).

Also, the department is maintaining a Bush-era decision to exempt greenhouse gases from regulation under the Endangered Species Act, thereby eliminating from consideration all scientific studies and data that point to climate change as being one of the primary threats to polar bear ice-based habitat.

The CBD plans to counter the department of the Interior's arguments in court in February. CBD attorney Kassie Siegal said, "[The department's action] puts a gloss on a horribly flawed Bush-era decision that is anti-science and serves to greatly undermine the protection of not just the polar bear but all of America's imperiled wildlife."

There are some environmentalists and legal experts that feel that the Endangered Species Act is not the best vehicle for pressing forward with the greenhouse gas issue, that it would best be served in Congress than in the courts. But given the current state of partisan politics and the influence of gas and oil lobbyists, that probably won't be happening any time soon, so groups like the Center for Biological Diversity continue with legal action.

Read more about the Dept. of Interior decision in the Los Angeles Times.

A Trick, No Treat For Bats: white-nose syndrome hits hard

Halloween's approaching and for those who celebrate "All Hallowed Eve" there's candy, costumes, and images of all things spooky - like zombies, witches, and bats. What would the world be like without those things that go bump in the night? Well, we could do without the zombies, I think. And perhaps witches, both the green Wizard of Oz kind and the ones running for political office.

Then there's bats. What would the world be without bats? As it turns out, it would be a world nearly overrun with bugs. Bats are one of the planet's great equalizers, feeding on insects and helping to keep the populations in balance. While not exactly an "apex predator" like sharks, bats serve a very similar role. Sharks and other large predators that reside at the top of the predator-prey pyramid are kept in check by a slow reproductive rate. Not so for the bat, but then it's feeding on insects that can number in the millions.

So, bats, those spooky little critters of Dracula movie fame that can congregate in caves by the thousands and make us run for cover lest we get one in our hair, are actually very important to maintaining a healthy ecosystem.

But in the eastern United States, parts of Canada, and even France, we are losing vast numbers of bats to a disease: white-nose syndrome. This syndrome manifests itself as patches of white fungus on the nose and wings of the bat. There are several suspected fungi thought to be possibly involved, although Geomyces destructans is considered the most likely culprit. It is a cold-temperature fungus that can flourish in the caves that bats inhabit. The white-nose syndrome disrupts the bats normal winter hibernation cycle and produces behaviors, like flying, that can lead to the bat's death, often from starvation (due to a combination of excessive activity combined with the winter's lack of food).

No more ugly little bats. Big deal, right? So what if there's a few more insects, right? We'll just use a rolled up newspaper or get out the bug zapper. Oh, were it that simple.

Actually, the loss of bats in the northeast all the way to the Mississippi poses a tremendous economic threat to agriculture, as bats act as a very important insecticide control agent. Without bats, insects would ravage more crops, more pesticides would have to be used (with their own inherent problems), and food prices would soar. The timber industry would also be effected.

Scientists who have been studying the condition are not exactly sure as to how it is transmitted over such a wide area. To rule out any human involvement, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has strictly limited access to known caves where large number of bats live. But the condition appears to be continuing to spread, having first been reported in 2006 and now affecting 9 different bat species. Research has found that the fungus reacts to some human anti-fungal treatments but how those can be applied practically has yet to be determined.

The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) is running a campaign to get the attention of U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar to devote serious effort to the issue. Whatever initiatives and small cost that might be required (CBD suggested $10 million), that would easily be offset by the multi-million dollar savings to agriculture and the consumer.

Trick or treat. Looks like it's a trick for the bat this year.

Support the Center for Biological Diversity's petition campaign to save U.S. bats.

Gulf Oil Spill: six months later - never forget

It is now six months since the Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf of Mexico erupted into one of the greatest oil spill disasters of all time. Many news outlets and conservation organizations are taking a status check at this half-year mark, to see where the environment stands, what has happened, and what needs to be done both now and in the future.

But for many of us, we would like to sweep it all under the rug. The Gulf oil spill competed with the economy and politics for our attention a lot longer than many other news cycles, and with many of those other issues still remaining, most people just don't have the stomach for it anymore. It's human nature and I understand that; call it a defense mechanism, a means to cope by emotionally and intellectually moving on.

And it would be such a mistake to do so.

The long-term effects of this spill must not only be studied by scientific research organizations, but the results of those studies and their implications must be proactively distributed to the decision makers and the general populace. In other words, we must continue to have our nose rubbed in it. The Gulf marine ecology has been altered - subtly or radically. And by remembering that the environmental and economic effects of this spill will be with us for years if not decades, it could be the seminal event that finally signals a shift in our attitudes towards fossil fuels.

If there could have been any kind of silver lining to this dark petroleum cloud, it would have been that alternative energy sources would have received the support and backing they needed to push those technologies forward, making their use more effective, efficient, and affordable. But with the U.S. government's decision to lift the moratorium on the deep water drilling, there is a sense of returning to business as usual, albeit with a few more safeguards in place - but a critical, opportune moment may be passing.

So, pay attention to those organizations that are still studying, still observing the impact of wildlife, analyzing the impact on human health - from direct exposure to the oil or more indirectly, through the food chain. Lend them your ears and your support. Here are a few:

Using the Law
The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) continues on the legal front with lawsuits to have the government check on tuna populations that were breeding in the Gulf at the time of the spill.
CBD also supported the Sea Turtle Restoration Project in their successful efforts to stop the burning of surface oil as it was killing sea turtles, burning them alive. And they continue to storm the gates of Washington to insure that environmental protection laws are rightfully enforced.

Studying Deep Water Impacts
Greenpeace has a research vessel and deep water submersible in the Gulf where they are conducting studies on the impact of the spill on deep water corals. A portion of the oil was thought to have settled to the bottom. If so, Greenpeace wants to determine what effect it may be having on deep water coral communities. Do entire reef communities of fish and crustaceans move on? And if so, how does that impact other marine communities beset by oil spill refugees?

Oil-Eating Microbes
The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution has recently completed a study of the Gulf oil spill, verifying that there was a large oil plume that floated 3,000 feet below the surface. But they also determined that much of that plume was consumed by oil-eating microbes; more so than anticipated because of a high population of bacteria that has adapted to Gulf conditions. The researchers also found that the bacteria consumed less oxygen than expected, thereby diminishing the possibility of oxygen-free dead zones. All of which would be at least a relief, if not encouraging.

But the researchers still had plenty of questions and concerns as to what long-term effects all of this microbial activity could have on the Gulf ecosystem. Talking with Florida State University oceanographer Ian MacDonald, the PBS News Hour reported, "He cautions that many questions remain unanswered -- such as what has happened to the methane released into the water along with the oil, what percentage of the total oil released ended up in this deep-sea plume, and the environmental effects of changing the deep-sea microbial community."

Again, it's human nature to want to turn back the clock, to somehow take us back to when the waters were clear of oil, jobs were plentiful, and homes and credit were easily available. But if we succumb to that impulse, we are only setting up ourselves or the next generation for a repeat performance of what happened six months ago.

Never forget.

Read a six-month recap from the Center for Biological Diversity.
Read about Greenpeace's deep water coral research.
Read about Woods Hole's microbial research.

Victory for the Northern Rocky Wolves: judge returns dwindling numbers to endangered status

The wolves of Greater Yellowstone and the Northern Rockies have won an important reprieve in the courts. On Thursday, a federal judge ruled that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had illegally stripped the gray wolves of the northern Rockies in 2009 of their protections under the Endangered Species Act by using political, rather than scientific-based, reasoning. The judge ordered the wolves be placed back on the endangered species list, which effectively halts the hunting of wolves that was taking place in Montana and Idaho.

The ruling was the result of a lawsuit brought by The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Defenders of Wildlife and other groups, and defended by Earthjustice, a major environmental legal firm. It is a prime example of the importance of utilizing the power and effectiveness of the courts on behalf of conservation issues - as equally important a component as is generating public awareness and support.

"Yesterday's ruling will also help other wildlife because it strikes a down Bush-era policy adopted by the Obama administration allowing the government to protect only small populations of endangered species instead of the entire species. Reliance on this anti-environmental Bush policy has been one of the many low points of Interior Secretary Salazar's management of endangered species," said Kieran Suckling, executive director of CBD.

Wolves - like sharks, tigers, and other apex predators - serve an important function in maintaining a healthy ecosystem. I commented on the importance of this predator vs. prey relationship and the consequences that have transpired over the years with the on again, off again eradication of wolves. This new ruling will hopefully put the natural balance back on a steady course.

But the wolves are not totally out of the woods yet, as there are pockets of wolf populations that are at risk from reduced habitat and conflict/poaching potential with ranchers. Roger Schlickeisen, president of the Defenders of Wildlife, noted, "We must continue our on-the-ground efforts to prevent conflicts between ranchers and wolves, counter anti-wolf misinformation in the media and work with all stakeholders to ensure these wolves fully recover and can then be legitimately delisted."

Read press release from the Defenders of Wildlife.
Read article from Montana's Missoulian.

Endangered Species Day, May 21st: a day to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves

Tomorrow, May 21st, has been set aside by the U.S. government as Endangered Species Day. From the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) web site, it reads, "On May 21, 2010 the Fish and Wildlife Service will observe Endangered Species Day in order to recognize the national conservation effort to protect our nation’s endangered species and their habitats."

Recognition is certainly important, but action speaks louder than words. And according to some conservation organizations, the government - under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act - has been a little slow out of the starting blocks with several species that have been designated as "endangered."

When a plant or animal is listed as an endangered species, the government is required to take steps to protect it - definitive steps that include setting aside critical habitat areas and addressing the environmental issues that placed the species in such a degree of jeopardy. Organizations such as Earthjustice and The Center for Biological Diversity have often resorted to legal action against any government agency that can be shown to be negligent or disinterested in following the letter of the law as prescribed by the Endangered Species Act.

Sometimes government action has been lacking because of government bureaucracy; sometimes because of a perceived lack of resources to act; and sometimes its intransigence is more politically deliberate. When concern was growing for the polar bear living in an Arctic with less and less sea ice for it to rest or travel on, the prior administration acted against the advice of many leading conservation and research groups and gave the polar bear a threatened species classification, which freed the government from the obligation of having to take action to correct the environmental situation that would imperil an "endangered" polar bear species - in this case, to recognize and correct global warming.

However, there are many organizations that are going beyond just lip service in recognizing Endangered Species Day including the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Check these out:

• U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: lists educational information and USFWS/state-sanctioned events.
• Stop Extinction.org: web site includes event calendar, K-12 school info for teachers, podcasts, and Endangered Species Day Ambassadors.
• National Wildlife Federation: web site has ways to celebrate the day, endangered animals portraits for Facebook, and tweets that you can post on Twitter.

There's something for everybody, so celebrate Endangered Species Day by helping someone you know learn a little more about what needs to be done to preserve the planet's priceless animals and plants.

Petition Drive: keeping the Clean Air Act strong at 350ppm

In the past several months, with the poor results coming from the COP15 conference in Copenhagen and the CITES conference in Qatar, environmental issues have taken a few lumps. It would seem that the policymakers and the industrialists have their own agendas and these don't seem to be aligned with the long-term interests of the planet. So, what to do? We take back the initiative!

It may sound a little 60's-ish corny, but it's time for the people to be heard again. If we can't depend on our institutions to do the right thing then the least we can do is let them know where we stand and that we are watching. If we can vote you out, we will. If we can refuse to buy your products, we will. And we will support those groups that actively promote the long-term interests of the planet - and by "planet" I mean plants, animals and humankind.

350.org and The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) are starting a petition drive to keep the Clean Air Act strong by having greenhouse gases designated as "criteria" pollutants under the act and to get the 350ppm standard for CO2 emissions adopted by the EPA. If you recall, leading climate scientists have cited the 350ppm level as the point that must be attained if we are to have a fighting chance in getting a handle on climate change and insuring a manageable future for generations to come. Ambitious? Sure. Controversial? Absolutely. It will require a major commitment on the part of governments and industry. And there won't be 100% consensus within the scientific community that this is the right approach. Accept when we ask this simple question: what's wrong with reducing carbon emissions to that level? Will it harm the environment? Would we be moving in the wrong direction environmentally?

350.org and CBD are hoping to get 500,000 to sign on to the petition. No reason why not. Click here to read about it and add your name. And check out 350.org's web site, too. Lots of good information there.

Click here to sign the petition.
Click here to visit 350.org.

Over-population: a lighter approach to a very serious problem

It was a year ago that I ran a post about the 800-lb. gorilla-in-the-room problem: world overpopulation. Take a look at what I wrote on March 6 of last year.

Not much has changed, other than the human population has continued to grow unabated. But as last year's posting notes, it's a touchy subject. The Zero Population Growth movement of the late 60's and 70's has faded in our memories, replaced by a more draconian system in China and ignored as a serious issue in most other industrialized nations.

However, it is at the core of many, if not most, of our environmental problems. We are pushing nature beyond its limits to sustain us, and all of our efforts to address the symptoms - through increased crop yields, sustainable seafoods, cleaner industrial factories, and even alternative energy - are ultimately stop gap measures at best.

But to raise public awareness through fear and dire predictions seems to fall on deaf ears nowadays. Perhaps we are beset with too many problems, too many issues of Armageddon-like proportions, that we just can't handle one more, particularly one in which there does not seem to be a simple, mutually agreed upon solution.

A year ago, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) was painting a bleak picture about overpopulation. This year, they are using a somewhat lighter touch with Endangered Species Condoms.

Each individually boxed condom has information about the impact of human overpopulation on all species - although I'm not sure how many people are going to pause to read the box ("Can you hang on a second, dear. I want to read something here."). Maybe afterwards, as a replacement for that traditional post-coital cigarette or snuggle time.

CBD's executive director, Kieran Suckling, says, "The packages are designed to get people talking about overpopulation. And boy, do they work. We tested them on Valentine's Day, expecting 100 volunteer distributors to come forward. An astounding 5,000 people volunteered taking all 100,000 condoms in just a couple of days!

As planned, the media ate it up. We generated funny but deadly serious conversations about overpopulation and the extinction crisis in hundreds of newspapers including The New York Times, L.A. Times, Miami Herald, and Boston Globe. More than 300,000 blogs and Web sites covered the issue."

CBD hopes to distribute 250,000 condoms by Earth Day, on April 22nd. You can learn more at a special Center for Biological Diversity web site devoted to the subject.

Says Suckling, "It is imperative that we break the wall of silence around overpopulation. If we don't, all the environmental progress we make will be overwhelmed by the sheer mass of people pushing into the last wildlife habitats, eating the last fish, and damming the last wild rivers."

Clean Air Act: though threatened with restrictions, act has a history of doing good

As you may know from following U.S. news or from past postings in this blog, there is an ongoing political battle over the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and its ability to use the Clean Air Act to enforce standards that would require addressing issues regarding climate change and global warming. The previous administration had tried to weaken or limit the application of the Clean Air Act and though some action was taken by the current administration in rolling back those restrictions or limitations, it's not out of the woods yet.

The Center for Biological Diversity is using an email campaign to remind legislators as to the importance of a full and vibrant Clean Air Act by citing not the environmental or ecological implications and impacts, but by putting it in the context of dollars and cents, lost productivity, and increased human health hazard.

"It is directly responsible for saving lives, improving health, and decreasing hospitalizations and lost school and work days. According to the EPA, in 2010 the Clean Air Act will save 23,000 lives and prevent 1.7 million asthma attacks, 4.1 million lost work days, and more than 68,000 hospitalizations and emergency-room visits.

The Clean Air Act saves money and protects our economy. In its first two decades alone, the Act provided pollution reduction benefits 42 times greater than the estimated costs of regulation, including decreased healthcare costs and reduced lost work time worth $22.2 trillion. If implemented by the EPA as required by existing law, the Clean Air Act will produce similar benefits while reducing greenhouse pollutants."

Now, opponents of climate change or those favoring a more limited application of the Clean Air Act might argue with the stats listed above, but it makes for a more politically relevant debate when the impacts in question are immediately personal and not appear, at least to the politician, somewhat esoteric or obscure. Heaven forbid that these impacts might catch the attention of ... of... one of their... voters! Eeeuuuuwh!

Click here to send an email to your legislator.