Endangered Species Act faces its own existential threat
We are on the cusp of losing the integrity of one of the most significant environmental acts ever enacted in the United States. Why should this matter? As the Pulitzer Prize-winning evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson put it: 'We should preserve every scrap of biodiversity as priceless while we learn to use it and come to understand what it means to humanity.' Wilson considered the Endangered Species Act of 1973 the most important piece of conservation legislation in our nation's history. I know what that means. I know because I lived it.
Fifty years ago, when I began studying peregrine falcons in Colorado, there seemed little hope the species would escape extinction. I was well aware of the shocking statistics: From a historical population of 8,773 pairs in North America, only 500 pairs were known to remain on the continent in 1975. In the Rockies, only 14 birds were surviving.
The Endangered Species Act arrived in the nick of time. It had been passed by a near-unanimous bipartisan vote in Congress and signed into law by President Nixon. The act did several things immediately.
Each step was critical. It mandated the formation and funding of 'recovery plans' for endangered species, bringing together teams of the best scientific minds to design strategies for averting extinction. It also called for protecting critical habitat — the natural landscape surrounding the breeding, feeding and resting sites of endangered species. And it did something more. The law required federal agencies to work to ensure that any actions they might fund did not indirectly threaten, or 'harm,' the existence of an endangered species. The Endangered Species Act worked.
Thanks to the legislation and the way it has been enforced, today we have the opportunity to watch soaring bald eagles in the lower 48, see gray whales migrate along the California coast and appreciate the grace and speed of the species that I researched, the American peregrine falcon. At present, the act has protected more than 2,000 species.
There are now more than 3,000 pairs of peregrine falcons in North America — a number unthinkable to me in 1975, when so few individuals remained. Today we can still witness the inspirational spectacles of peregrines slicing the air, hurtling in a 200-mile-per-hour dive to the earth. The odds for such success in the future suddenly don't look good. After 52 years of bipartisan efforts working to save species, the Trump administration is pushing mightily to undo the Endangered Species Act, claiming the law is in need of updating. This is the wrong term for what is being proposed, according to biologists — 'unraveling' is more like it. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is seeking to remove the regulatory definition of 'harm' from the act, and rely instead on the definition of 'take.'
'Take' in this instance means actions that harass or kill species directly. 'Harm,' however, has been understood in much broader terms, as actions that may incidentally jeopardize a northern spotted owl, or a Palos Verdes blue butterfly, or various populations of wild salmon, and especially as actions that could degrade an endangered species' habitat. This simple distinction between direct and indirect threats is crucial. A species is its food, shelter and breeding grounds. From the Endangered Species Act's inception, the interpretation of 'harm' has recognized that. Without it the act's power to preserve critical habitats — and save or protect plants and animals — could be dissolved.
There is something else missing from the current discussion of upending the act. The Endangered Species Act benefits people far more than most of us realise. Animals and plants we may consider inconsequential may yet hold promises for our future, in medicine, in agriculture, in our sharing of this Earth. Each living species is a holding tank, a treasure chest of unique genetic material that has evolved within its habitat for thousands of years. Even with a robust Endangered Species Act, scientists believe human activity is extinguishing species at a rate that far exceeds what's natural. Critics of the Endangered Species Act see it as keeping resources from people when it prevents a logging operation or the drilling of an oil well to protect a species. It's better understood as maintaining biodiversity for people, and for the health and safety of the planet.
Removing the proper definition of 'harm' from the Endangered Species Act will mean removing habitat that is essential for a species' survival. The rule change will be decided soon. The public has until Monday to comment. I hope they will, on the side of this visionary law. The Center for Biological Diversity lists the monarch butterfly, the Florida panther, the desert tortoise and seven more at-risk species that right now need habitat protection. To end 50 years of common-sense interpretation of the Endangered Species Act — the pivotal law that brought the peregrine falcon, the fastest animal on Earth, back from extinction — would be a sad day for America.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arabian Post
14 minutes ago
- Arabian Post
Trade Envoys from US and China to Convene in London Amid Renewed Optimism
Top trade officials from the United States and China are set to meet in London on Monday, 9 June, in a bid to ease escalating tensions over tariffs, technology transfers, and critical mineral exports. The announcement follows a 90-minute phone call between President Donald Trump and President Xi Jinping, during which both leaders agreed to resume dialogue and expressed cautious optimism about resolving key disputes. Leading the US delegation will be Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. The Chinese side has not officially confirmed its delegation, but past rounds have included Vice Premier He Lifeng, Vice Commerce Minister Li Chenggang, and Vice Finance Minister Liao Min. Li, who was appointed as China's International Trade Negotiator in April, has been instrumental in shaping Beijing's response to the ongoing trade conflict. The upcoming talks follow a temporary truce brokered in Geneva on 12 May, where both nations agreed to reduce retaliatory tariffs—previously as high as 145%—to more manageable levels. However, the ceasefire is set to expire on 12 August, adding urgency to the London negotiations. ADVERTISEMENT A central issue on the agenda is the flow of rare earth minerals, which are essential for advanced manufacturing and defence technologies. China's earlier suspension of some rare earth exports to the US had heightened concerns about supply chain vulnerabilities. During their phone call, President Trump stated that President Xi agreed to resume these exports, a move that could alleviate pressure on US manufacturers. However, Beijing has yet to publicly confirm this commitment. The trade dispute has had significant economic repercussions. American businesses have faced increased costs due to tariffs, and a pending lawsuit challenges the legality of these tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The outcome of both the negotiations and the legal case could significantly influence future US trade policy and economic relations with China. President Trump has expressed optimism about the upcoming talks, stating, 'The meeting should go very well.' However, the complexity of the issues at hand suggests that reaching a comprehensive agreement may require sustained effort and compromise from both sides.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Republican removes social media post criticising Sikh congressional prayer
Republican Congresswoman Mary Miller is facing criticism after she said it was 'troubling' that a Muslim led the morning prayer in US Congress, and then changed her social media post once she learnt that it was a Sikh who had spoken. 'America was founded as a Christian nation, and I believe our government should reflect that truth,' she wrote in her social media post on X on Friday. The representative later removed her post after being admonished by both her Democratic and Republican colleagues. 'Mary, you're a racist, bigoted, disgusting, and shameful person, you don't deserve to represent anyone in public office,' wrote Democratic Representative Maxwell Frost. The man who led the prayer, Giani Surinder Singh of the Gurdwara South Jersey Sikh Society, was invited to be the morning guest chaplain by Republican Representative Jeff Van Drew, according to Politico. Republican Representative David Valadao took Ms Miller to task for her post. 'I'm troubled by my colleague's remarks about this morning's Sikh prayer, which have since been deleted,' he wrote on X. 'Religious freedom is one of our nation's founding principles, and I started the American Sikh Congressional Caucus to draw attention to this very issue and work towards religious tolerance for all.' Representative Miller's comments, which were also widely considered to be Islamophobic, came on the first day of Eid Al Adha, one of the most important holidays of Islam.
Gulf Today
10 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Why Medicaid work requirements won't work
Kathryn Anne Edwards, Tribune News Service The US labour market is a truly astonishing thing to behold. It includes 171 million Americans, as young as 14 and older than 90, some who never finished elementary school and others with PhDs. It is resilient and dynamic, shrinking during recessions but growing again after. It provides the majority of Americans with the majority of their income. All of which is to say: It is common to look to the labor market as a kind of salve for all economic wounds. Whatever the problem is, the solution is to get people working. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. For all its strength, the labor market is encumbered by the low-wage labor market — where work doesn't support a stable living, and where jobs are so bad they're more salt than salve. This is a reality that Republicans in Congress, in their current push to impose work requirements on Medicaid recipients, ignore. They are making policy for a labor market that doesn't exist. The 'low-wage labor market' is a vague designation. It's typically defined as those workers who have relatively or absolutely low hourly earnings, such as the bottom quintile or quarter of wage earners, or earners below some nominal wage cutoff. Whatever the definition, however, there are some aspects of the low-wage labor market that are obvious: The low-wage labor market is large. At least 39 million workers in the US earn less than $17 an hour, which is the equivalent of $35,360 annually. That is just below 138% of the poverty threshold for a family of three — the income needed for parents to be eligible for Medicaid in states that expanded it under the Affordable Care Act. Earnings in the low-wage labor market are volatile. Earnings volatility measures change in wage income from one month to the next. Instability at both the very top and very bottom is so great that economists have a term for it: the 'wild ride.' Recent research from the Brookings Institution's Hamilton Project shows that low-wage earners see more spikes and dips in income than any other group, with the dips being especially large. They have the most volatile earnings when measured by the coefficient of variation, regardless of whether the household has a single or multiple earners. That volatility can be partly attributed to unpredictable hours. Many low-wage earners are employed in shift work, in which their hours and schedule can vary week to week, often with little notice. According to Harvard's Shift Project, two-thirds of workers in retail and food service get less than two weeks' notice of their schedule, half get less than one week's notice, and 70% report that the timing of their scheduled shifts changes at least once a month. This flexibility is more likely to be imposed by employers rather than requested by employees; the more volatile the hours, the fewer hours typically worked. Low-wage jobs usually also have low-quality benefits. Of private-sector workers in the bottom 25% of the wage distribution, 30% do not have access to any type of leave, whether it is sick, holiday, vacation or personal. Some 56% do not have access to an employer-sponsored health-care plan, while 84% do not have access to an employer-sponsored dental plan. And 50% do not have access to a defined-contribution retirement plan. The bottom line is clear. Working Americans are eligible for social benefits such as Medicaid not only because their pay isn't high enough, but also because it isn't reliable enough. Classic labour theory holds that workers are balancing two conflicting goals: the consumption of purchased goods, and the consumption of leisure time. The former requires time at work; the latter requires time away from work. It is up to the worker to calibrate how much of each they want. Of course, economists will try to predict how workers and consumers will react to any change in their earnings. If a worker gets a wage increase, the 'income effect' would push them to work less: They can still consume the same amount of purchased goods but also have more leisure time. Alternatively, a wage increase could trigger the 'substitution effect,' pushing them to work more: The price of leisure (foregone wages) is now more expensive. But what if that worker gets a non-wage increase from a public benefit? There is no substitution effect, just the income effect — that is, they would work less. This is the economic foundation for the idea that public benefits discourage work. Work requirements are meant to counter this incentive. It sounds reasonable. But for at least 39 million Americans, work brings low wages, unstable earnings, unpredictable hours and few benefits.
