U.S. Budget & Science: pluses and minuses, commercial interests favored

In the United States, with the release of President Obama's proposed budget for the fiscal year of 2013, many branches and departments within government must now await to see what the final outcome is - whether proposed cuts are sustained by Congress or whether increases get cut back. If past experience from the last few years and initial comments from Republican leaders are any indication, it's going to get messy.

Overall, for science, the proposed budget provides a modest increase of about 5 percent for non-defense research and development. However, priorities - and budget dollars - favor those areas that have economic or commercial implications.

According to reporting by Nature.com, “'Overall, the budget sustains an upward trend,' says John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy in Washington DC. 'Because of fiscal restraints, it’s not at the rate we preferred.'”

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), receives a 3 percent increase with a portion of that going to further develop a program of polar-orbiting weather and environment satellites that has been plagued by delays and cost overruns.

An assessment of spending and cuts, cited by ScienceInsider, points out the strategy or method-to-the-madness wherein departments that have an immediate impact on economic or commercial interests retain or increase funding. And the programs or projects which get cuts are those that might, in essence, bring up bad news, like threatened species, and would require remedial action (and therefore more expenditures).

"NOAA's National Ocean Service (NOS), which includes the agency's marine sanctuary network and estuarine research reserves, would see a 4% cut to $458.5 million, down from $477.9 million this year. The NOS's conservation and ocean assessment programs would take a $10 million cut, to $166.1 million, while the marine sanctuary program would lose $1 million, bringing it to $46.6 million."

"The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which manages fisheries within the 322-kilometer Exclusive Economic Zone off U.S. shores, would get an 8% increase to $857.8 million, up form $794.2 million this year. But programs aimed at studying and protecting threatened species would take a $6.4 million cut, to $170 million, and habitat conservation and restoration programs would fall by $7.2 million, to about $36 million."

Another example of preference toward economic interests can be seen in NOAA's 2012 interim catch limits set for Gulf of Maine cod. To avoid having the spawning biomass get below 7,300 metric tons - which would push the population to a tipping point of collapse, a catch limit was set at 6,700 metric tons. However, the Conservation Law Foundation has compiled scientific recommendations that put the appropriate limit at 4,000 metric tons - a limit that is hotly contested by commercial fishery groups as too low to sustain their fleet.

Additionally, larger and more influential industrial fishing fleets are getting a distinct advantage over smaller, local fishermen with NOAA's "catch share system" which allows the larger boats to work inshore rather than limited to farther out at sea.

According to Massachusett's Gloucester Times, "In November, before the arrival of the cod crisis, Gov. Deval Patrick, backed by the congressional delegation, filed socio-economic research evidence showing that the fishery was consolidating into an economic disaster through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's catch share system, which is steering more and more permits and quota into the hands of fewer and larger businesses, and away from smaller, independent boats. NOAA's own figures show that Gloucester's fleet lost some two dozen of its estimated 96 boats in the 2010 to 2011 fishing year alone."

It's to be expected that during this difficult economy, with its slow and fragile recovery combined with calls for deficit control, many of the areas of interest to conservationists would be subjected to a lack of political commitment. Areas that support industry and possible job growth are bound to get all the attention.

But the influence peddlers who prowl the halls of Washington can often succeed in shuffling priorities and budget dollars for short-term gain, while non-profit environmental and conservation organizations and scientific research groups scrounge for every nickel they can get their hands on. And it's those very groups, working on behalf of the planet, which are looking at long-term consequences that will not only save plant and animal species and whole ecosystems but, as a result, commercial industries as well. If we, as constituents, choose to raise our voices to our elected officials, it should be in support of those groups and those issues that have the greatest impact on our long-term future as a civilization.

Trying to be guardedly optimistic regarding the proposed budget, Scott Slesinger, legislative director for the Washington DC-based Natural Resources Defense Council, said, “They did a pretty good job in making sure we are not hurting our environment and conservation programs.”

We shall see.

Source: Nature.com
Source: Gloucester Times
Source: ScienceInsider

Environmental Protection Agency: Senator trying to take key agency out of the loop

First, let's take a moment to give thought to those impacted by the earthquake in Haiti. Needless to say, international relief agencies need your support; the American Red Cross and International Red Cross are two of the leading organizations. Give what you can.

And let's not be distracted by comments from pompous religious zealots who wish to claim that this natural disaster is the fault of the Haitian people consorting with the devil. Small minds deserve small attention.

But back on the environment front, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski has proposed legislation - actually an amendment to be tacked on a government spending bill - that would deprive the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases. The crux of the issue has to do more with politics than with a difference in environmental opinion. The EPA is an executive branch agency and there are those who would prefer to see greenhouse emissions regulation originate from Congress - a decidedly less scientific body greatly influenced by outside interests opposed to decisive action to curb CO2 emissions.

The EPA's December declaration that pollution from greenhouse gas emissions endangers public health and that the agency would take action under the Clean Air Act met with support from conservation and environmental groups and disdain from lobbyists and supporters of fossil fuel energy industries. But this recent announcement was not solely on the EPA's initiative; it was the result of a Supreme Court ruling some three years ago. As reported by the Miami Herald:

"The EPA's move to regulate carbon dioxide and other emissions is part of its compliance with a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision requiring the agency to determine whether greenhouse gases endanger the country's health and welfare. If the agency found that such emissions are indeed dangerous -- which it did -- the court instructed the EPA to address the problem."

The wheels of Congress and the EPA, both, turn slowly and it will be years before one can expect regulations to take effect. But action must be taken now if the scientific-based input from the EPA is to be considered and not shut out of the discussion. The Center for Biological Diversity has started a drive to send letters to all members of Congress to oppose the Murkowski amendment. If you would like to add your voice, click here.

We must not forget that there are strong forces at work in opposition of regulating greenhouse gas emissions. There are huge economic interests from industries who have operated on a centuries-old business model, that of utilizing fossil fuels (oil and coal), and are not prepared to accept the fact that that business model is not only a finite model, but that the inevitable change to cleaner alternative energies must start now in earnest.

If you would like to get a perspective from the "liberal, radical, tree-hugger" side of the aisle, there are interesting articles in the latest issue of Rolling Stone (Issue 1096). One article, by contributing editor Jeff Goodell, details the extent of the lobbying campaigns by the oil and coal industries; while writer Tim Dickinson follows up with an article listing 17 leading businesspersons and politicians and others who are pushing hard to derail efforts to curb global warming. It's always good to know who are policymakers are either up against or being influenced by.

Read the Miami Herald article on Sen, Lisa Murkowski.
Join The Center for Biological Diversity's letter campaign.
Read about climate change opposition in Rolling Stone.

From Wolves to Sharks: undoing 11th hour damage from a prior administration

In December and January, I posted items regarding the previous U.S. administration's 11th actions to change or loosened environmental protections. These ranged from removal of the Gray Wolf from the endangered species list to allowing federal agencies to move forward on projects without consulting with environmental experts to looser air quality standards. (Read prior postings: Dec. '08 / Jan. '09)

• The challenge was that to undo the damage required a complex and lengthy process. But an amendment to a spending bill will empower President Obama to reverse the rule (one of the few times that something tacked on to a bill made any sense).
• Shortly after his inauguration, the president ordered all pending Bush regulations to be frozen. The Dept. of the Interior has cancelled oil and gas drilling leases near national parks (another piece of 11th hour chicanery).
• In addition, the president has directed the EPA to reconsider its denial of California's request to regulate greenhouse gas emissions for automobiles (California's proposed regulations are stricter than federal standards).

Shark News!

Additionally, the Shark Conservation Act (H.R.81), that was making progress in 2008 but ultimately languished and was reintroduced by Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo, was passed by the House of Representatives on Monday. H.R. 81 requires that all caught sharks must have their fins naturally attached. This will allow better enforcement of anti-finning laws and better management of catches (it's difficult to determine the number and species of sharks being taken when all there is for inspection is a hold full of fins).

The Senate must pass the legislation and many of the NGOs are lining up support efforts to make sure voices are heard. Check in with Oceana.org to see what you can do. (Oceana press release.)

Shark Conservation Act: shark finning legislation re-introduced in U.S. Congress

Another piece of shark news that could prove to be a success if we all get behind it and push is the Shark Conservation Act (HR 81) recently introduced in the U.S. Congress. This piece of legislation closes a loophole in previous legislation - a loophole that was supposed to be taken care of by last year's HR 5741 which unfortunately stalled in the Senate until the session expired.

Re-introduced by Congresswoman Madeleine Bardallo (Guam), the Shark Conservation Act requires that all sharks taken in U.S. waters must have the fins naturally attached - Want the fins? Then you must take the whole animal.

Wait, you say! Isn't shark finning illegal in the U.S.? Well, yes and no. In Pacific waters, it is legal to transport fins as long as they were not finned aboard the vessel - a loophole that this legislation will close. The benefits of this legislation are two-fold:

1. It will prevent shark finning in U.S. Pacific waters and possibly impact the practice outside of U.S. territorial jurisdiction.
2. It will allow for better enforcement of existing regulations and improved management of the commercial fishing industry in the taking of sharks or shark-related products.
3. A more subtle impact will be that boats will be financially pressured to reconsider the commercial value of taking sharks when they must fill hold space with the lower valued carcass along with the higher valued fins. This could in time, reduce the commercial take of sharks all together.
   

The Shark Conservation Act must make its way through the halls of Congress and on to the Senate for final passage and implementation. To motivate your congressperson, you can make your voice heard through Oceana.org's Wavemakers web page which will forward your personal email to your elected representative. Here's the link.

Let your voice be heard!

Endangered Species Act: one more shot at weakening it

From time to time, I bring up political issues that are affecting the environment but I always do so reluctantly. I have this naive need to mobilize the general populace, hoping that our leadership will respond to the will of the people. But sometimes the machinations of the political machine must be pointed out. The Endangered Species Act is one of the foundations of our national environmental policy but it is under attack from the outgoing administration. One of the key provisions of the act is the requirement that any federal agency wishing to take action that may impact a protected species must first consult with federal wildlife scientists to ensure their actions will not have any negative effects. In essence, this independent review prevents the foxes from guarding the hen house.

The current administration has proposed changing this requirement, allowing federal agencies to consult with themselves and not with the independent scientific reviewers. In 2003, the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management tried this approach and the end result, according to the departments of Interior and Commerce, was that they made the wrong call 62% of the time.

The current administration has made several attempts to undermine various environmental policies and procedures (see previous postings on July 9th and July 14th). And in this case, the executive branch can make the change without congressional approval. But . . . congress controls the purse strings to implement the changes. If you are one who is proactive enough to write or email your congressional leaders, be sure to make them aware of this potential change in the Endangered Species Act and urge them to not appropriate the funds for its implementation.

HR 5741 moves to the U.S. Senate for approval

One step at a time . . . HR 5741 - the amendment to close an important loophole in the Shark Conservation Act of 2008 - has passed the House of Representatives and has moved on to the Senate for a vote. This is important legislation that will help put a dent in the taking and processing of shark fins.

The Humane Society is running an online support drive whereby you can email your state senator requesting support and passage of this important piece of shark conservation legislation. To send your senator an email, click here.

Give HR 5741 your support so that we can see it pass through Congress as quickly as possible. One step at a time, but every vote . . . and every fin . . . counts!

HR 5471 (background info)