The Alaska Legislature is willing to pay $1.5 million for a conference and public relations campaign to persuade Congress to limit the Endangered Species Act and launch a program to "reverse the negative economic effects from (Endangered Species Act) listings based on climate change." Their primary concern: The Endangered Species Act will create negative economic impacts for the state of Alaska by impeding development.
I suggest, instead, that we reverse the negative economic effects from ESA listings based on climate change by slowing climate change, prominently placing Alaska, with its continually growing body of university researchers, government scientists, environmental advocates, and local citizens, in an international leadership role to solve the climate crisis. If we can tackle the threats to climate change in Alaska, such as the ongoing erosion of coastal communities, the loss of sea ice habitat for multiple arctic species and the loss of subsistence lifestyle as species disappear, we will not need to hire a PR campaign to fight the "negative impacts of Endangered Species Act listings" because we will not need Endangered Species Act listings.
Let's move on. Instead of fighting a myth, let's instead work together on the reality of finding solutions to our growing environmental catastrophes in the arctic. We cannot expect other states to step up to bat for us. We cannot expect the federal government to hold our hand as our sea ice melts, our villages erode, our polar bears disappear, our bowhead whales change migration patterns, and our walruses end up trampled to death on the shore. We have the ability, as well as a duty, to lead the country in solving a climate crisis by starting with our home turf. We are an arctic state. We could have the strongest voice in the country. Instead, we choose to spend money to squelch our own screams.
The Alaska Legislature does not represent all of the state's citizens, neither does it mimic the voice of the majority. However, it is going to launch a campaign to fight the ominous "endangered species monster." As years progress, and we continue to stick our heads in the sand, we will continue to lose the natural treasures that define Alaska and set us apart from nearly every other location on the planet. We will be looking for another PR firm, one that can help us try to save face as we deplete our own resources and rake our own landscapes clean of iconic, almost legendary species such as the polar bear and walrus. We will probably be a poor state by then, because tourism will tank, money garnered from resource extraction will be spent on restoring communities on the brink of disaster, and we will be in severe debt to the federal government because disasters -- including flooding, erosion, and ecosystem collapse -- will cost more money than we can generate with the trickle of oil and gas reserves that will be left at that time. So, I am guessing we might not start the bidding at $1.5 million, trying to attract New York City PR firms with no basic knowledge of life in the Arctic. No, we might just have to look for volunteers.
Anchorage resident Dr. Natalie Dawson is a staff scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity.
One of the natural outcomes of advanced civilization is a large and growing proportion of the population who has the desire, time, and resources to spend more time in natural settings, both enjoying and learning more about our physical and biological worlds. This capability is a direct result of economic growth. A key part of this development has been this population's growing awareness of the complexity, fragility, and importance of biological systems for long-term global economic growth, the creation of new medicines and sustainable energy sources just two obvious examples (not to mention the psychological benefits of exposure to natural systems.) Environmental, including biological, protection is not anti-economic growth. It IS economic growth.
For those who disagree, please visit, or at least learn about, air pollution in Bejing and Mexico (make sicko) City, or throughout much of Eastern Europe. Most Americans would not let their dogs live in such places.
-
- +3
-
-
The ESA could be treated as an opportunity to gather federal and global resources to target root problems; adding to the economy as well as adding to science-based learning and to policies that enhance environmental and social quality. Instead, too many Alaskans choose minimization, denial, ideological self-delusion, active ignorance, and self-destruction as the alternative.
As an aside, I find the ultra right-wing Conservative and Christianist movement in Alaska and other parts of the country immoral, almost to the point of evil.
-
- +4
-
-
Here's part of a Sheila Toomey piece on the subject from a few years ago.
Oil industry watchdog Rick Steiner recently submitted a Freedom of Information request to state Fish and Game for public records regarding the listing of polar bears as endangered. He wanted the records "to see how politics influenced their position to oppose the listing," Rick said in a note.
F&G Commissioner Denby Lloyd wrote back that the fee for what Rick wanted would be $468,784. Rick, a prof at UAA, said he's going to ask if they'll accept his IOU. Denby gently suggested Rick might want to narrow his search request. Rick not so gently suggested it was obstructionism by Palin, who has said publicly she doesn't think polar bears should be listed.
-
- +2
-
-
-
- -2
-
-
If the oil corporations could be induced to use power plant gas to pressurize oil deposits to aid recovery, that would be wonderful. It won't totally sequester CO2, though, which you should know if you're a gas man. It isn't only CO2 that's being released, I assume, but CO.
I worry more about the oil industry's wanton disregard for the health of Alaskans in populated areas, such as near the Flint Hills refinery in North Pole. Charles and David Koch are the eight and ninth richest Americans, the second and third richest oil men in the world, yet despoil the environment because they can get away with it.
The champions of the dangerous and polluting gas industry, such as Scott Ogan, with his pimping for shallow bed methane, are still sucking at the state teat. They need to pay more attention to the ultimate health, safety and welfare of Alaskans instead of putting profits above all else.
-
- +2
-
-
Have you ever wondered what the mushers eat while out on the trail?
