|
|
|
|
Advertisement
With just a few months left in office, the Bush Administration recently released a proposal to scale back some regulations that seek to protect animals under the Endangered Species Act. The changes would allow for a more streamlined process for construction project approvals but, many environmentalists fear, would not protect endangered species. During today's OnPoint, John Kostyack, executive director of wildlife conservation and global warming at the National Wildlife Federation, discusses the proposed changes and their implications. Kostyack also addresses how these changes could affect future offshore drilling projects and talks about the congressional reaction to the proposed regulatory overhaul.
Monica Trauzzi: Welcome to the show. Our guest today is John Kostyack, executive director of wildlife conservation and global warming at the National Wildlife Federation. John, thanks for coming back on the show.
John Kostyack: Thanks for inviting me.
Monica Trauzzi: John, lots going on in the last couple of weeks concerning the Endangered Species Act and a push by the Bush administration to make some changes to some regulations. Let's start off by just giving our viewers a sense of what's been proposed by the administration.
John Kostyack: Sure, right now, under the Endangered Species Act, we have what are known as the consultation rules. And these are really the key provisions of the act that will help rescue species like the bald eagle and the Florida panther and the whooping crane from extinction because they require that any federal projects, whether it's mining on federal land or filling wetlands that require a Clean Water Act permit, go through an expert scientific review to consider their impact on endangered species. And if there is a harmful impact, you can adjust the project and essentially create a win-win situation if the species survive and the project goes forward. That's the history. What the administration is proposing now is to cut the expert scientists out of this review, allow these so-called action agencies to push their projects forward by having them make all the decisions.
Monica Trauzzi: OK, the administration would argue that this helps remove some of the red tape, that very often it takes a long time for these projects to actually happen because they have to go through this lengthy process. Thoughts on the reasoning? What are the implications of something like this?
John Kostyack: Well, the implications are vast because these are thousands of projects to get reviewed every year under the Endangered Species Act. And yes, there probably are some delays. We don't call it red tape. We call it looking before you leap. You need to understand the impacts of these projects under the Endangered Species Act so you can make some adjustments and help species survive for our future generations. And by taking away that important scientific review that we relied upon in the past, yes, things will be streamlined, but at the expense of our nation's wildlife heritage.
Monica Trauzzi: They talk about energy and transportation projects specifically. In our current climate there's a big focus on more domestic drilling perhaps. What does this mean for oil drilling? What does this mean for our domestic energy supply?
John Kostyack: Well, certainly a large number of energy projects that are being proposed have impacts on our nation's wildlife, whether it's the polar bear in the Arctic sea, in the Chukchi Sea, or whether it is the many species that rely upon fresh water and grasslands in the Rocky Mountain states. And we know that those oil and gas drilling activities are having devastating impacts on communities that rely upon clean water, rely upon healthy habitats. And so we think it is perfectly appropriate for the Endangered Species Act to provide that check and balance, to provide the safety net. And to take that away, we think, is going to be extremely harmful and certainly nothing that the American people would ever support. You know, an important part of this story is that this was all proposed back in the 1990s. You might remember the big efforts to change the Endangered Species act in Congress led by Mr. Pombo. Congress said no. The American people said no in poll after poll and then here it comes, they're trying to slip that under the wire in the waning days of this administration.
Monica Trauzzi: But implementing these changes could maybe get these energy projects to get started a little quicker?
John Kostyack: Right, probably so, but at what expense? I mean we all want to have diverse and abundant energy supply, but let's do it carefully so that it doesn't wipe out the wildlife and healthy habitats that both people and wildlife rely upon.
Monica Trauzzi: So, beyond this issue that we that we just discussed, there's also an issue with the amount of time that the administration allotted for public comment. They have given 30 days. They said that an extension is possible. What are your thoughts? There are just a couple weeks left in the public comment period, is this enough time?
John Kostyack: No, it's not. You know, when these changes were proposed back in the 1990s, there were enormous numbers of hearings, experts were brought in, people from around the country were consulted. Thirty or 60 days, which are the two options that are being tossed around by this administration, neither of them are satisfactory. We really need to hear and really and truly understand the application of this before anything moves forward. And it's a very cynical attempt to put it forward at this moment in the administration as they’re dashing out the door and we hope Congress will step in and stop it.
Monica Trauzzi: And how has Congress reacted so far? I understand some Democrats have come forward with a letter to Dirk Kempthorne.
John Kostyack: Yes, both on the House and Senate side we've had leaders step forward and ask for additional time for weighing this, expressing concern about the substance of this proposal. What, ultimately, we’re going to need them to do however is essentially tell this administration they may not spend money on finalizing these regulations.
Monica Trauzzi: So, how likely is it that something like this would pass?
John Kostyack: We fear there's a serious risk that this will pass. Essentially it will require the administration to come to its senses or for Congress to step in and put that spending limitation on. And as you probably know, there's a great desire for Congress to get home and go back and campaign. Anything that complicates getting the final spending bill passed is an uphill struggle for us and so we're trying to keep this neat and simple, which is say no to something you've rejected in the past and recognize this is a bad procedure and abuse of executive power that Congress should not tolerate.
Monica Trauzzi: So, how do you think this decision fits into the Bush administration's broader stance on the environment?
John Kostyack: Well, there have been a number of similar assaults on the environment in the past, most have not been successful, some have. But we think, at this particular moment, that it's more dangerous because people are distracted by the elections, Congress is trying to get home, and, therefore, we are extremely wary about this and a few other proposals that are moving forward, some through the regulatory process with notice and comment procedures, others much more surreptitiously through changes in legal guidance from solicitors offices and that sort of thing. So there's definitely reason now for more concern than ever.
Monica Trauzzi: So, let's take a look at the presidential candidates. How are you expecting things to change or will they change with a new president in office in terms of environmental regulations?
John Kostyack: Well, things are bound to change, particularly on the chief issue of our time, which is the impact of global warming on both wildlife and people. Both candidates have taken positions in favor of mandating cuts and emissions through a cap-and-trade program, both candidates have expressed support for taking the funds that would be generated from the sale of emissions permits and put them to good public uses, such as protecting our natural resources from the extremely harmful impacts of global warming. So we're encouraged by that and we think there's a lot of work to be done, but we’re going to have to hit the ground running with whatever administration comes in.
Monica Trauzzi: Any one candidate that you think will do a better job at it?
John Kostyack: We're a nonprofit organization that won't do any of that contrasting for you, sorry.
Monica Trauzzi: OK, we'll end it right there. John, thanks for coming on the show.
John Kostyack: Thank you for inviting me again.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
Advertisement
watch video
email video
