In:
Science, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Vol. 370, No. 6517 ( 2020-11-06), p. 665-666
Abstract:
Species are disappearing at an alarming rate, with global estimates of about a million species facing extinction ( 1 ). The Endangered Species Act (ESA), the primary—and often only—means in the United States to prevent extinctions, is justly celebrated as perhaps the strongest model for endangered species protection worldwide. Since its adoption, however, the ESA has faced unabated controversy because it can restrict economic activities and because its implementation often appears inconsistent. With the explicit goal of reducing “unnecessary regulatory burdens,” the Trump administration in 2019 finalized the most comprehensive changes in more than two decades to the regulations that implement the ESA ( 2 ). Some of the changes will make it harder to protect species and their habitats; none will directly further the Act's goal of recovering species. For example, the changes limit the government's ability to protect habitat that species need to adapt to climate change ( 3 ) and make it harder for the public to hold the federal government accountable for activities that further imperil species ( 4 ). Opposition to the changes was swift and ardent among many environmentalists, scientists, and the public. Opposition to the administration's changes, however, should not overshadow the need for improvements to how the ESA is administered to make it more effective. Simply revoking recent changes will not solve these underlying problems.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
0036-8075
,
1095-9203
DOI:
10.1126/science.abb3806
Language:
English
Publisher:
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Publication Date:
2020
detail.hit.zdb_id:
128410-1
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2066996-3
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2060783-0
SSG:
11
Permalink