,
13 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
So a little after 9 a.m. I get an email "Interior to Host Press Call on Endangered Species Act," I request dial-in information as a reporter. It never arrives. Instead, I get a press release about a new Trump initiative to "improve" the #EndangeredSpeciesAct by gutting it.
Together with endorsements by James Imhofe & a string of other GOP dunderheads, the beef industry, the home building industry, the energy industry--and absolutely no one who gives fuck-all about the natural world.
Key phrase: "in some cases, designation of critical habitat is not prudent"
Treats these two things as equal: "directs that determinations to add or remove a species from the lists of threatened or endangered species be based solely on the best available SCIENTIFIC AND COMMERCIAL information"
More "improvements": "Revisions to the definitions of “destruction or adverse modification,” “effects of the action” and “environmental baseline” further improve the consultation process by providing clarity and consistency."
Threatened species lose: "finalized a separate revision rescinding its “blanket rule” under section 4(d) of the ESA. The rule had automatically given threatened species the same protections as endangered species unless otherwise specified."
You can read all the bad news: "The final regulations submitted to the Federal Register can be found here: fws.gov/endangered/imp…."
Hoping that some reporters for legitimate news organizations are actually able to sit in on the call and ask some hard questions.
@nytimes: "The changes will make it harder to consider the effects of climate change on wildlife when deciding whether a given species warrants protection." nytimes.com/2019/08/12/cli…
Bottom line (which is the only thing that matters to these numbskulls): "Overall, the new rules would very likely clear the way for new mining, oil and gas drilling, and development in areas where protected species live." HT @nytimes
@nytimes Wildlife Conservation Society CEO Cristián Samper: "The Administration is putting some wildlife in the impossible position of justifying their existence with a specific dollar value."
@nytimes What we have here is a once-&-future oil lobbyist on a short-term stint in government making a big fat gift to his clients by protecting fossil fuels instead of wildlife.
Bernhardt has already profited from the revolving door once before, after working in the Bush Administration. earthjustice.org/blog/2019-augu…
