Does anyone give a crap about Endangered Species?

[Lorien]

I ask because of this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

DU can get worked up about Cindy Sheehan's arrest,what to call NOLA evacuees, PETA, A.N.S.W.E.R, and all kinds of other diverse issues, but endangered species-once a HUGE democratic issue-are now just additional victims of highly successful GOP memes ("protecting animals hurts families by taking away their jobs" "people come first" "if you care about animals then you don't care about people" etc.)They even fall through the cracks with various animal rights groups; shouldn't protection from extinction be a "right"? Must an animal be caged to receive attention?

Altering the Endangered species act will accelerate the largest mass extinction since the age of dinosaurs. Animals WILL suffer with habitat loss. The planet and every species on it will suffer-and many more will die-with the loss of biodiversity. Please, take action now! This IS a critical issue!

[mike_c]

1. me-- and I vote....

Of course, I'm a biologist who studies biodiversity, and I'm Green, so that's kind of a given....

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Yes and I've already written to both senators & my rep., signed a

dozen petitions and written a LTTE on the subject.

[Benhurst]

5. Same here. NT

[Lorien]

7. Thank you! Here's another site for taking action:

http://ucsaction.org/campaign/9_26_05_Endangered_Species_Act/wd3keuw4v5t6338?

[Kool Kitty]

15. Me, too. n/t

[qnr]

3. Yes n/t

[natureman]

4. Most definitely, I'm Pissed!

I have already sent an email to my U.S. Representative. This kind of bullshit is why the republicans are really in power. They want to get their greedy hands on our public resources. Where are the Teddy Roosevelt republicans ? They are an endangered species.

[roguevalley]

6. yes. this is the one act that will get them all put into hell forever.

[blindpig]

9. hell's not good enough

Unless I'm put in charge.:evilgrin:

[Laelth]

8. I do, certainly.

More importantly, I like for the American people to have the power to protect some of our remaining pristine wilderness, as is often done, by championing one "bell-weather" species that symbolizes the extent of the damage that human action is doing to that environment. This is the great triumph of ESA. It allows citizen-suits to protect the land that we all, collectively, own and love.

ESA is a critical issue, among many. As with most critical issues these days, we feel powerless to affect the path our government is taking. The reason DU gets "worked up" about Cindy Sheehan, imho, is that we see she's actually accomplishing something--getting national attention, in a way that environmental concerns can not at the moment.

Frustrating, I agree.

:shrug:

-Laelth

[ramapo]

10. Not a whole lot, not really

Endangered species get some lip service and serve as convenient targets for certain segments of society to hurtle blame at for various social and economic problems.

A relatively small group really care and have done remarkable work in protecting isolated species. Far too little and far too late.

Unfortunately human population growth, greed, and general laziness will continue to put immense pressure on existing habitats. This, along with the unstoppable spread of invasive species, guarantees that countless species will disappear from our planet.

The other day there was a Discovery Channel special on our local PBS station that documented the emotional bonds that many animals have with others of their species. It was heartbreaking in that the habitat of nearly every animal shown, from elephants and lions to penguins and polar bears, will likely disappear. These species will only exist in zoos.

I don't believe that the human race is capable of being good stewards of what is left on our planet. Some of us surely are but not enough. Someday Mother Nature will make an adjustment.....

[mgr]

11. The fulcrum is the designation of critical habitat

http://www.faultline.org/place/pinolecreek/archives/002614.html

There is some reason to take exception to how critical habitat is characterized (on our side). The issue with the red legged frog critical habitat centered over the fact that Calaveras County, where I live, was not included (Mark Twain's story not considered). After the CR was rescinded, a population was identified within the county.

It is expedited science, apparently driven by legal deadlines, and should be reformed to be even more protective of listed species.

The same concerns relate to the Cal Fed project in San Joaquin/Sacramento Delta.

I see 2006 as the opportunity to vote Pombo out, and will be involved in all on the ground efforts to do so. This is poor solace if the ESA is weakened.

Mike

[gulfcoastliberal]

12. Yes we need tos stop paving every last square inch of the country.

It makes me think of the Matrix, where Agent Smith equates humans with viruses. We suck up all natural resources and reproduce, and then move on once there is nothing left - not contributing to the earth in any constructive way at all. Native Americans had it right - living in equilibrium with nature.

[Dogmudgeon]

13. The people are overwhelmed

We're losing species at an epochal rate, at the same time our own species' problems are increasing in number and lethality. Most people can barely keep up with the news as it is. A lot of them mentally shut down after a time. The sense of helplessness is far too painful for most people.

The GOP finds it easy to use this; they are adept at exploiting people who are abused, and getting them to think that further abuse is their route to power and freedom. The same tactic is being used to further the economic exploitation of dying species and ecologies.

In the long term, the Republican party will be unable to destroy life on the planet, and like all die-offs, this one will have run its course in a few million years. But it's like ice ages: The next one may be inevitable and immanent, but the process of humans accelerating it isn't doing anyone a bit of good. The acceleration of the die-off could easily wipe Humankind out, whether under a mile of ice or from destruction of sustainable large-scale agriculture. And once the last human dies, there is no assurance that evolution will encourage intelligence in any future species.

The environmental movement needs to stronger, more "integrated", interdisciplinary political arm, with as much scientific authority as can be mustered. But that's tough to do on the miniscule budget the environmental groups have to operate with.

Engaging the peoples' interest is going to be the most difficult part of it. The human species may, in fact, be the real key to the problem. The idea of extinction has already been considered and survives as a mere intellectual trope rather than a dangerous possibility. Everybody swears they'll be at Ground Zero when the Big One goes off, but nobody really undertstands that in their last hour of life, they would be more likely to be starving in misery, racked with muscle-tearing pain, and shivering in the cold wreckage of a dead civilization.

--p!

[blindpig]

14. too late

Our agriculture based civilization is founded on the proposition that more is better. "You'll have to pry my{steering wheel/remote/ cell phone}from my cold, dead hands." is the attitude of far too many. Even as we have this conversation the corporations are proselytizing the rest of the world, that they might become customers(pigs) like us.

What with the grotesque overpopulation of our species and the refusal to voluntarily reduce consumption I cannot expect anything but collapse.The way it looks now the chances of us changing our ways sufficiently are slim to none.

It might be better that the collapse come sooner rather than later, so that more might survive and recover.

[dcfirefighter]

16. grotesque overpopulation?

Pretty cynical, and possibly selfish. Overpopulated v current social & economic systems, but not due to any real limiting natural factor. Our existing resources are misused, and our existing populations are in the wrong places.

The world population is around 6.5 billion.
Water: much ground & surface water is polluted, as is rainwater to a degree. However, the rainwater pretty much clears up when we stop burning fossil fuels. Suface (and wastewater) can be remediated with constructed wetlands & algae ponds.
Food: 6.5 Billion people require 300 million ha of land for food production. There are currently 5 billion ha of agricultural lands. 20" of rainfall a year is neccessary, 75% of the 5 billion recieve 10" or more. If we double the 300M ha to 600M rainfall can be gathered on areas adjacent to the growing beds, making 3.75 billion acres available for cropland.
Clothing: cotton, flax, kenaf, hemp, and wool all can be grown for fiber & clothing production. Assuming each person 'consumes' 20 lbs of fiber a year, and hemp produces 10 tons per acre, 2.6 million ha are required for fiber production.
Shelter: Rammed earth construction can generally use the earth from the building site for the wall material. Strawbale construction requires 4-5 ha of straw for a small, well insulated, house. Bamboo & hemp can be used to make pressboard.
Energy: This is the tough one, as currently goods are often shipped thousands of miles between producer and consumer. A loss of cheap energy will change this. However, energy is still needed for heating, cooking, and manufacturing processes. In an agricultural society, nearly all heating and some cooking can be performed by direct sunlight. For burnable fuel, crops such as corn or hemp can be grown - and we still have plenty of agricultural land. Efficient and CLEAN masonry stoves can be built by skilled tradesmen using very low technology.
Labor: Ha! we're talking about overpopulation right?

We're not overpopulated, it's just that our 'free' market is inefficient - it misses externalities, and seems to think that rising land prices produce more land (or that: real estate speculation assures highest and best use) which is, of course, untrue. There are corollaries with each non- manufactured natural resource, water, oil deposits, clean air, etc.

[blindpig]

17. absolutely

Our species evolved as hunter-gathers, with low population densities enabling people to live on the land without overtaxing it. This state of affairs existed for 100's of millenia and people lived pretty well, studies have consistently shown that hunter-gathers were healthier than higher density agriculturist. While there is no going back to this pristine state of affairs we can take many lessons from it. Using these and techniques such as you mention we might make a world that is good for humans and the lifeforms that we share this planet with. For is it not the height of selfishness for us take this whole place for our use, driving our fellow creatures to extinction as collateral damage? Might it not be foolish and dangerous for us to destroy the matrix which gave meaning and structure to humankind for the vast majority of its existence?

We cannot have these kind of numbers and accomplish this. Opinions vary, anywhere from 100 million to 1 billion have been mentioned as levels of sustainability. To reach such goals would require public acceptance of the need for a long term policy of 1 child families. No easy thing and thus my despair.

[dcfirefighter]

18. I maintain that the world

could sustainably support 5-10 times as many people as it does now - leaving 1/3 the land area as 'wilderness'. It's just a matter of assuming a correct social & economic structure.

[blindpig]

19. no way

Just a few points:
The agricultural land use numbers you previously mentioned are based upon Green Revolution technology, petroleum based. I think we can agree that is NOT a long term solution. Then there is irrigation, where does all of this water come from and where does it go(salinization)?

All of this land that you wish to plow under, where is it? Somehow I suspect it won't be mountains and deserts, no, it will be bottom and relatively level lands currently supporting forest and grasslands. Do you not understand that most species do not live in the rocks and ice that make up a good portion of our current park land? Most of the good habitat is already utilized by us, would you take the rest?

Ten times as many people? Do you not think that our current crowding might be a cause of some of our pathologies? You would increase this a magnitude? Glad I won't be around.

It's quibbling but I'd reserve at least 1/2 of land for non humans. Regardless of the percentage the important thing is that all habitats are sufficiently represented and that large species have space enough to maintain populations large enough for long term sustainability.

[dcfirefighter]

20. Way! my numbers are based on organic methods

5B ha of agricultural lands is from the UN
75% of world farmland receives 10" of rain or more, as well as potential crop yields is from Ecology Action: 4000 s.f. growing space pppy for 20" of rain, 8000 s.f. of growing space for 10" of rain.
Using 10,000 s.f. per person, 5 billion hectare would support 54 billion people.

The farming methods they espouse include 'growing' soil through extensive composting and growing crops for compost, as well as dense 2 dimensional planting (vs. 1 dimensional row cropping), and maximising bed use by starting most crops in flats. If I recall correctly, roughly 60% of the area should be used for 'compost' crops that provide a large amount of carbonaceous material, such as corn or wheat; 40% for high calorie per land area crops like root vegetables; and 10% for nutrient-balancing vegetables and income raising cash crops.

High yields per area can also be achieved by forest gardening / agroforestry / permaculture; here land is planted with permanent crops, in forest layers: an overstory of nut trees, a mid story of fruit trees, an understory of berry bushes, ground cover of berry plants, as well as fruiting vines and below ground tubers. Of course this method does not lend itself well to mechanization.

5 billion hectares represents 1/3d of world land area. Urban areas are approximately 3% of world land area. I'll give you that much of the best ecologies are used for agriculture - if we give back 1/3 of it, we could still support 36 billion, more than 5 times the current population.

Take none of this to say that I'd rather live in such a world - personally, if no one had to suffer, I'd rather live in a world with only a billion people. I also support reproductive education, rising world standards of living, and other trends that tend to dampen rising populations. I'm just not a pessimist when it comes to the resources available to us.

[blindpig]

22. I'm all for organic

but I find the scenario that you present to have too many assumptions of maximum utilization to be in the realm of likelihood, given our track record and apparent direction. It's possible, any thing's possible, just not too likely. Same for one child families.

I envy your optimism. I've spent a lifetime watching my haunts being filled in and paved over and hope is a stranger to me. Still I hang on, maybe it's morbid curiosity.

BTW, are you familiar with the Land Institute? Back in the 80's(I think) they were working on the idea of a harvestable, perennial prairie. An idea of great merit, if possible it could return the prairie states to a semblance of their Pre-Columbian biota.

[dcfirefighter]

23. I don't see it happening either

but I maintain that the limits lie in human politics more than earthly abundance (or lack thereof).

I'd love to see real wildnerness in relative proximity to urban areas.

This is my selfish reason for supporting land value taxes - it causes the conservation of land: cities grow up, suburbs contract, and agriculture minimizes land inputs rather than labor inputs.

One of my favorite sites: www.carfree.com advocates carfree urban areas with a density of 50,000 / sq mi (average of 4 storeys, narrow streets, large courtyards). At this density, a population of 350,000,000 could live on less than 0.25% (less than 1/400th) of the land area of the contigous US, in cities and towns with populations ranging from 1200 to 12,000,000. Make it an even 1% and include greenbelt parklands.

Using the methods described earlier, food for these people could be grown on another 63,000 square miles, or 2% of the lower 48. Eat meat, as I do, and we'll make it 10% of the lower 48.

1% urban areas & greenbelts
2% cropland
8% grazing & forage land
89% wilderness, crops for export, whatever.

In theory, at least....

[NVMojo]

21. Here's the implementation plan of the whackjobbers

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/issues/more/esa/implementationreport.htm

[jeffreyi]

24. I called my representative

and left a message. Fat lot of good, rep is Doolittle, a piece of repug &*^% if there ever was one.
God this is evil. Bastards, bastards, bastards. What's up with the demos that voted to pass this crap?