Bush wants some endangered species rules extinct

More-than-happy - Isn't that, exactly, what they have been doing for almost 8 years now? We have and are going to see ever accelerating efforts to expedite the unravelling of any and all regulations - the environment, safety and health, work rules, financial, etc. in the next 5+ months.

This Administration has made a habit of announcing or should I say slipping in or doing away with regulations they don't like by signing statements, weekend purges, and during any kind of a big news cycle event where they think no one is paying attention. I expect they will become more bold about their actions in the last few months in office.

You would be surprised how pig headed they can be when it comes to getting what then want when they want it. Right now I'm convinced that Cheny and crew are bound and determined to bring about armeggedon (sp?), and destroying the whole planet not just the US.

They are trying to undo any anti-monopoly legislation since the great depression and take over first this nation and eventually other areas into one corporate state under a plutocracy. They respect no one and no thing. I wish them great ill.

The Bush administration has so little time left and so much work to do. Maybe he shouldn't have taken so many vacations. He could have done so much more harm to the United States and the world if he could have just stayed focused.

Who needs input from scientists anyway? They just want to push their liberal agenda of evolution, global warming, etc.

The final nail in their coffin is that they don't end their scientific papers with phrases like, "pray for our troops," or "god bless America." We need to return to the good old days when the church and state were so intertwined that you could be executed for reasons that have nothing to do with reality. Those were the days. If only we had more of that.

Thank you Abby. I agree completely that Bush seems intent to destroy any reason of sanity in the federal programs meant to protect the environment. But I'm glad to see you stated it that way. Being a republican I hate seeing the whole party automatically lumped in with Bush. You might be surprised how many of us dislike him even more than most democrats do.

The problem is that more and more we're becoming a harmful part of our ecosystem. The Matrix was right; we're a virus. Consuming and consuming and consuming in our constant expansion, never producing anything beneficial to the ecosystem beyond that which benefits us. If we refuse to use the intelligence evolution has granted us to realize that our technological development is evolving at a rate hundreds of times faster than biological evolution can keep up with, and thereby have the sense to act responsibly and in consideration to the rest of the ecosystem, the environment we thrive in will be upset beyond the fixing point and we'll be the next species in danger of extinction. You're a smart guy, Adam, but saying "We're part of nature too, so we don't have to worry about it" is a cop-out, and a lot more "absurd" than working to protect endangered species.

The problem is that more and more we're becoming a harmful part of our ecosystem.

That's relative. Are we harmful to how the ecosystem is now? Maybe. But what's to say that the ecosystem we are going to create isn't better? And then where is it government's place to take a side?

Is there something inherently wrong if we turn Earth into a Trantor/Coruscant?

"Are we harmful to how the ecosystem is now?"

If we go to the general experience of life on the planet the greatest harm we are now doing is overpopulating. The Rome Report predicted a rapidly expanding world population leading to a food crisis. There have been recent food riots and an increase in the number of deaths due to starvation. Clean water is becoming a problem in many places. The fish stock in the seas are being over fished. As Americans we tend to be ethnocentric. The rest of the world are not as blessed as we. The time will come when even we will face a diminished life style.

Overpopulation isn't a problem that America is facing though. If you remove immigration we are actually right around replacement level.

There have been recent food riots and an increase in the number of deaths due to starvation.

That's not a problem of supply though, that's a problem of distribution.

I believe we have some responsibility to the suffering populations in the world. We can't do it alone but even Mr. Bush gave moneys to combat disease in Africa.

Fair enough, but that's also besides the point, which is about the Endangered Species Act.

That's relative. Are we harmful to how the ecosystem is now? Maybe. But what's to say that the ecosystem we are going to create isn't better?

It's not relative. We are part of that ecosystem, as you previously pointed out. If that ecosystem is altered faster than our biology can adapt to it, we will suffer for it. Take a colony of any species out of its natural habitat and introduce it to a wildly different environment in a short period of time, and the colony will die off. Even creatures which adapt and evolve quickly enough to survive (like bacteria and viruses) suffer massive casualties before recovering. We are altering our natural environment--in ways not only harmful to other species, but harmful to ourselves--very quickly on the evolutionary time scale.

Is there something inherently wrong if we turn Earth into a Trantor/Coruscant?

I'm not talking morality, I'm talking about sustaining the human species. Life isn't a Star Wars movie. A Coruscant-style planet would not, realistically, sustain human life.

And then where is it government's place to take a side?

When the "sides" are the future of the human species vs. less hassle and more profits, I would hope to whatever there is that's good in the universe that even the most radical libertarian would say it's a matter of public interest enough for governing agencies to take action. If you're going to do away with all regulations on the freedom of citizens to destroy the environment we all occupy, you might as well do away with murder and theft laws as well.

Danny, I agree with you in part that we need to support sustainable development. However, in the context of the endangered species act, I just don't see the point. If a few species go extinct, even cute and cuddly ones, what's really the impact in the larger picture?

Just look at many of the comments here, so many people are quick to say no profit for endangered species, where of course that profit isn't there's. I wonder how many people would be willing to lose their job to save a bald eagle? Hell, how many people would be willing to spend even a thousand dollars of their own money to save a bald eagle?

Yes sustainability is good, but we don't have to take a snapshot of the earth as it is now and do everything possible to keep it that way. Some change is ok.

Danny, I agree with you in part that we need to support sustainable development. However, in the context of the endangered species act, I just don't see the point. If a few species go extinct, even cute and cuddly ones, what's really the impact in the larger picture? *********************************

Adam - have you ever heard of using a canary in a coal mine as a gauge to insure that the air is breathable? We are losing species of certain types and at accelerating rates which point to a future environment that will not support human life. That is the point.

But as long as there is a buck to be made, some folks will tear it all down. Why worry about this evil world when you have a perfect heaven waiting? Such garbage.

We are losing species of certain types and at accelerating rates which point to a future environment that will not support human life.

[citation needed]

But as long as there is a buck to be made, some folks will tear it all down.

Which brings me back to an earlier point, it's not your buck so you don't care. It's easy telling other people that they can't make money, but how about putting you money where your mouth is? Much easier to just complain on the internet than to actually do something about it isn't it?

Danny, I agree with you in part that we need to support sustainable development. However, in the context of the endangered species act, I just don't see the point. If a few species go extinct, even cute and cuddly ones, what's really the impact in the larger picture?

You have a point that the ESA being modified -> humanity goes extinct is a bit of a slippery slope argument (although you were the one who brought up the Coruscant analogy, which is why I went that far). As far as one or two species going extinct, I think the problem is that it's very difficult to gauge what effect that would have on the grand scheme of things. Our ecosystem is a delicately balanced one and even minor changes can have a major impact on things. I read once--although I don't feel like looking up the story so consider it anecdotal evidence--that a single house cat (or maybe a small group of cats, say two or three) was introduced to a tropical island that had no natural mammalian predators. Within months, one of the bird species on that island nearly went extinct due to the rapid introduction of a predator that the bird hadn't evolved the ability (or instinct) to deal with.

Which brings me back to an earlier point, it's not your buck so you don't care. It's easy telling other people that they can't make money, but how about putting you money where your mouth is? Much easier to just complain on the internet than to actually do something about it isn't it?

Isn't it our tax dollars that are funding the way the regulations currently work? As far as I'm aware, it is our money, and yes, I am willing to pay the necessary cost, which is why I support the regulations as they stand. Do you have any evidence to indicate that "jobs are being lost" as a result of these regulations? The way I'm perceiving this is that, without these regulations, the companies in question could be making x amount of dollars. With the regulations in place, they are instead making x amount of dollars minus y (where y is simply the potential profits lost due to delays and re-planning to ensure environmental stability). Honestly, I'm not seeing the big deal. Yes, it's a hassle, and of course stockholders would prefer to see larger profit margins, but even considering the trickle-down effect, I don't envision little Jimmie not being able to go to college when he grows up because his dad works for Bob's Construction Co., which recently had to revise construction plans to accomodate for the fact that the woods they originally planned on building over houses a population of a threatened species of bird.

Our ecosystem is a delicately balanced one and even minor changes can have a major impact on things.

That may be true, but I'm not so concerned about the ecosystem of an individual place. The vast majority of endangered species are so because they have an extremely limited habitat. Hell, the vast majority of species on the endangered species list aren't even really species, but subspecies. It's not line frogs are going extinct, it's a specific subspecies of frog. These changes are local, and don't affect the earth as whole so much. If we come to find something like the cockroach is going extinct worldwide, then I'll agree with you that we have a problem. But if it's just some subspecies that only existed in one locality in the first place, then not so much.

Isn't it our tax dollars that are funding the way the regulations currently work?

Regulations don't cost so much in the grand scheme of things. The money being lost is the people who own that land which was once valuable, but is now worthless because they government tells them that they can't do what they want with their own land. Or the money is lost from a loss of opportunity, opportunity cost is a real phenomenon in economics.

Do you have any evidence to indicate that "jobs are being lost" as a result of these regulations?

Yea, I do, Economics 101. When demand stays stable, and these economic regulations do nothing to affect demand, and supply is dropped that means prices rise. That means if the development is not allowed to occur, little Jimmie's parent's have to pay more for their homes. Also, since construction of this theoretical development is no longer allowed, that means those who were going to work on that construction now no longer have any job at all. And also remember that not all stockholders are billionaires, 401(k)s, mutual funds and pensions plans are built on the backs of common stock.

And if the development does continue, but just costs more due to environmental regulations that money still has to come from somewhere. That means either the final property will cost more, harming the consumer, or the developer will have to cut corners by paying staff less or cutting jobs or using crappier materials, or more likely some combination of all of that.

I do find it interesting that in many states, environmental science via biology is a required subject in public school curriculum, but economics is not. It is real easy to say protect the cute and cuddly animal, it's much harder to actually come to grasp with a full economic understanding of how a simple regulation can affect so much.

Besides which, if people really wanted to protect endangered species, there is a real simple way to do so that doesn't require government regulations at all, buy the land and keep it as an economic conservation. But again, most people would rather complain, than actually do something about it.

Adam: "But what's to say that the ecosystem we are going to create isn't better?" Two words: Biosphere II.

Nowadays it's a thriving research center, but its original plan, to create an artificial, self-contained ecosystem, was a total failure.

Sheryl, the good news is that barring a coup d'etat, they will be gone in 5 1/2 months, and then President Obama can start undoing the damage.

That is a magnificent picture of an eagle, isn't it? Far be it from me to accuse the photo editor of a little editorializing here, but what a contrast of glorious image and disgusting headline.

Certainly the current bias toward corporate interests must be aborted. We are not here to master and plunder. We are here to husband and make abundant. We have been too long exploiting. We might better guard what's left of that which we were given.

developers and other federal agencies blame for delays and cost increases on many projects.

Damn, that makes me mad. Developers do not get to say what species get to suffer because of their quest for the almighty dollar!!!!

Me too, Abby. We are destroying our world.

Some of us were lucky enough to see the planet more in balance. Fifty years ago, for example, our national parks were not flooded with tourists. They were retreats into nature.

To read all those who are up in arms makes me wonder how many waste their votes on one of two "major" parties.

You mean the "worthless" major parties that worked together in 1973 to create the ESA? Or the congress that's kept "conservative Republicans" from raping the ESA in this manner for years until Bush decided to revise it without congressional review? Or the congress that's continually struck down measures to drill in the ANWR?

If you want to talk about "wasting votes," consider the impact of voting for a third-party candidate with views so far on the fringe that they only ever garner enough votes to steal the election from the nearest reasonable contender.

You guys want oil right???

No, I want better technology than continuing to suck the planet dry of a finite resource.

The President is just responding to the publics out cry to drill.

Public outcry? Where exactly is this "public outcry" of which you speak?

Oil is just a Texas word for money. It's almost spent. We need to suck in our guts, tighten our belts and work to a less destructive future. Look around you and notice why we have the diseases we now have developed. We are too far out of balance.

hey hey now - "building Refineries that are almost forty years old."

How do you build some that is forty years old?

Just wondering...

In Bush's paradigm......You can invade anybody you want for any reason you want...people's live's have as much or as little value as he says they do...you can build forty year old refineries...don't argue with the man!

By the way...I love the moniker...The Day The Earth Stood Still...

A former Governor of Texas (Ann Richards) once said that, "George Bush was born with a silver foot in his mouth." She had ze way with ze words.

She was referring to Bush 41, but it applies even more to Bush 43. By the way, with the petty vindictiveness for which all the Bushes are so famous, Poppy never forgave her for that, and bankrolling Sonny's run against her for governor was done mainly out of spite, sort of like Caligula appointing his horse a consul to stick it to the Roman Senate.

"Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out."

That saying says it all. It plays out on a lot of what is going on in the world today.