Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The person was claiming it was hard to remove species that recovered? Climate change is certainly a factor with the extinction of species that are being migrating to other areas.
You realize species listed as endangered are not being affected.
Funny that these laws brought the Bald Eagle back from potential extinction, but Trump supporters don't care about this, and have the audacity to call anyone who questions Trump a commie. What bumper sticker patriots, lol.
Economic interests are apparently far more interesting than anything else.
...Endangered Species Act, rolling back protections for animals in favor of corporations that want to build luxury condos, mine, drill for oil, harvest timber, or otherwise develop the land that animals live on.
Under the revisions to the act, regulators will now be allowed to weigh “economic factors” when considering whether animals and their habitats deserve protection, the New York Times reports. Such considerations had been prohibited since the law was passed, in 1973; instead, determinations had to be made based solely on science. The changes essentially make it easier for corporations to argue that their economic interests are more important than animal habitats. The bill’s language has also been edited to allow regulators to disregard the impact of climate change.
The move should not come as a surprise, since Interior Secretary David Bernhardt wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that the Endangered Species Act (which is credited with saving bald eagles, grizzly bears, wolves, California condors, and peregrine falcons) is nothing more than an “unnecessary regulatory burden” on companies. The act currently protects more than 1,600 species in the United States and its territories.
Ok.
From the article what is being done is distinguishing between endangered status and threatened status. As it stands non marine species are given blanket protections as if they were threatened species. Sounds reasonable to me, are they threatened or are they endangered? Those are two separate classifications.
The second change is redefining critical habitat from a historical range to present range. Again seems reasonable.
Nothing in there even remotely suggest that the administration plans to kill the endangered species act.
I'm talking about getting the permit to do the environmental impact study.
The thorough and accurate environmental impact study that must be done before any construction begins.
No where did I say the companies should get the go ahead before studies are conducted.
It should not take the environmental firm 2 years to get a permit issued on a submitted application nor should it take two years to get a permit to preform work once all required surveys and reports have been submitted.
China should never be held up as a standard when it comes to the environment, those short review periods come at a cost.
Well if you read the post I was responding to (again) you would see that he was claiming the benefits of the Chinese environmental review process.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
