ESA
In the early 1970s a landmark bill was passed into law which has since provoked heated debate on the tradeoff between the economy and the environment. The law I speak of it the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Since its creation, the ESA has delayed, and in many instances prevented, development projects across the country. Portions of forests are not allowed to be logged because they provide a necessary habitat for endangered plants and animals, such as the spotted owl. Some farmers who wish to develop their land are prevented from doing so because vital habitat for an endangered species would be lost. It is clear why the ESA is so controversial. People equate the situation as a tradeoff between “trees and jobs.” Despite the controversy, the ESA has, for the most part, been successful in preventing extinctions of species.
Last week the House passed an amendment to the ESA that, if also passed by the Senate, would greatly reduce the power of the act. The specific details of the amendment can be found through the link at the bottom of this post. My question to the audience is this: is our economy at the point now where saving endangered species like the snail darter and the red-legged frog should take a backseat to more pressing issues?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/30/endangered.species.ap/index.html
1 comment:
I am not sure I would characterize the ESA as a success story when it comes to recovering threatened and endangered species. There are currently about 1000 species on the endangered (and threatened) list--about 400 animals and 600 plants. Only 40 species have been de-listed since the ESA has been in effect. Of those 40, nine species were removed because they became extinct and fifteen were removed because the original data was in error. Only 16 species have been removed because their populations have recovered. This doesn't sound like a good batting average to me.
Post a Comment